Register … or Rebel: How Many New Yorkers Will Defy The New Gun Law?

Already, there are signs that Governor Cuomo and his allies underestimated the pushback.

As draconian, ill-advised, and possibly unconstitutional as the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (NY SAFE) anti-gun law was when it was hastily signed into law, it might have been far worse — this according to a New York legislator who fought against the bill.

Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin has released documentation showing rejected Democratic proposals for the NY SAFE Act. They included these:

Confiscation of all firearms arbitrarily redefined as “assault weapons”
Labeling semi-automatic shotguns as “assault weapons” if they can hold more than five rounds or have a pistol-grip stock
Confiscation of 10-round magazines
Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine to five; magazines of greater capacity to be confiscated
Limiting number of magazines in possession to two
Mandatory microstamping of all guns in NY state
Statewide database of all guns
Limiting guns purchases to one per month
Allowing a pistol permit database to be released to the public
Relicensing of all pistol permit owners
Renewal of all pistol permits every five years

There were more.

Assemblyman McLaughlin explained the intent of his Democrat colleagues in Albany on his campaign site:

Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin (R, C, I-Melrose) today revealed a 15-point anti-Second Amendment wish list that Democrats lobbied to be included in the final New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (NY SAFE) Act. McLaughlin called the list the “second phase” of a gun-grab agenda targeting responsible firearm owners that downstate politicians have been supporting for years.
“First the new gun-control bill made criminals out of law-abiding New Yorkers. And the radical, anti-Second Amendment proposals outlined in this wish list suggest the second phase of the plan: confiscation,” said McLaughlin. “When downstate politicians criminalize responsible gun ownership, they only empower criminals.”

The rejected proposals seem to mirror — at least in part — the desires of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who had publicly entertained gun confiscation and forced buybacks.

The provisions of the NY SAFE Act that did become law still demand far more of New Yorkers than many gun owners are willing to comply with. For example, one of the requirements of the law is that all newly classified “assault weapons” must be registered with the New York State Police by April 15, 2014. Many New York guns owners are intent on refusing to register their firearms:

Assault-rifle [sic] owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned.
Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history.
“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,” said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.
Officials estimate at least 1 million semiautomatic rifles are owned in the state, sources said.
And come April 15, 2014 — when Cuomo is expected to be running for re-election — they all have to be registered with the State Police.
But because the rifles have been legal but unregistered until now, authorities don’t know who has them or where they are located.
State officials will be nervously watching the registration figures to see how many gun owners comply, sources said.

New York has estimated that there are one million firearms that fit their new definition of an “assault weapon,” and they are concerned that a large number of citizens will rip the teeth out of the law by simply refusing to register their arms. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of New York’s most law-abiding citizens are likely to make the choice to rebel against an unconstitutional law that violates their Second Amendment rights.

Perhaps of even more concern to Governor Cuomo and his anti-gun allies: this high level of resistance arose before Assemblyman McLaughlin released the list of confiscatory amendments Democrats had wanted to include in the NY SAFE Act.

NY Democrats have tipped their hand on their gun-control agenda, revealing to citizens that confiscatory disarmament of the civilian population is their goal, and that the “slippery slope” is no fable. They grossly miscalculated the public’s acceptance of their assault on the Second Amendment. What that means for the future in New York remains to be seen.

Also see: Obama: Yeah, I Go Shooting ‘All The Time’

Romans 13 and 1 Pet. 2 tell the believer to obey government. It's a real dilemma for inerrancy advocates, literalists and Sola Scriptura followers, isn't it.

Just a little food for thought.

The Bible is pretty clear that the believer is not bound to obey the government no matter what. The Bible clearly expects obedience to the government, but also sets due limits upon what a believer can demand from a Christian.,p> Acts 5:29

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

There is also the famous incident of the tribute money from Mark 12:17 which Jesus declared:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Both of these citations expect that we are to obey the government within certain divinely set limitations. However,The primary question is "What are those divinely established limitations?" That's where things start to get a bit sticky.

The circumstances of governmental ideology has changed quite a bit since since Paul's time so its not always clear if the Pauline admonition holds up. Paul was living in a monarchical system in which the will of the Emperor and magistrates was law. The US is living in a system in which the will of the officials are supposed to follow the law, not be the law. When the command of St. Paul to obey the government was given, there was no such thing as a written Constitution establishing limits to governmental power. Our form of government did not exist in Paul's time, and there were no legal limits on the power of magistrates. The will of men was law back then and oaths of loyalty were taken to the emperor, not to the any principle of government.

However, what if the government itself commanded that there be limits to its power, but then tried to violate those limits? Is the government not bound by to obey law? So does Paul's admonition to obey the governmental require us to obey governmental officials acting outside of the law in violation of the law, or does it require us to obey the authority of the government as created by the Constitution? Do you obey illegal orders to violate the constitution established by the government or do obey the command of the government official? if you obey the constitution rather than the official are you obeying Paul's admonition to obey he government or are you violating it?

Moreover, if you have taken an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution are you not violating that oath to God by obeying the magistrate's order?

The government made a promise to the people via the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and that was that the government could not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Many Christians have sworn to uphold that law. If Christians accept the principle that Christians should obey the men in government over the laws, then the Christian is essentially saying that government by Constitution does not exist because the government is allowed by God to do whatever it wants as long as it can get away with it. They would be teaching that Christians believe in the rule of men not in the rule of law.

So what does God want here, does He want us to obey government commands that are obviously illegal to any honest observer? Does He want us to obey the law contrary to the magistrates of the government, does God expect men to keep their oath to uphold the Constitution even if it means disobeying government officials?

These are some complex and tough questions, that all Christians may have to face.

>> It's a real dilemma for inerrancy advocates, literalists and Sola Scriptura followers, isn't it.<<

Not really. Jesus disciples carried swords. And then let’s look at Romans 13.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

Would you say the this administration falls under “For rulers are not a to terror to good works, but to the evil”?

Yeah, I don’t think so either. So the passage cannot possibly be talking about this administration.

Then let’s look at 1 Peter 2.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Once again. Is this administration punishing the evildoers and praising those that do well? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

See, there are criteria by which we know that leaders are sent of God. Either look at the whole passage or none of it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.