Posted on 02/01/2013 4:06:29 PM PST by neverdem
Governor Andrew Cuomo Seizes Your Gun Rights Overnight with Secret Deals, Procedural Shortcuts and Midnight Votes in Albany
Public Input Prevented on Gun Control Debate to Advance Agenda and Political Career
Governor Andrew Cuomo, in stunningly brazen fashion, took a hatchet to gun rights in New York with lightning speed. By cutting secret deals behind closed doors, eliminating public input and circumventing normal legislative processes, the Governor and state Senate passed sweeping anti-gun measures just before the stroke of midnight yesterday. Within 24 hours, Cuomo had his new gun control laws. Cuomo utilized a rarely-used executive trick, a "message of necessity" to bypass normal legislative procedures that are strictly followed on hundreds of bills each legislative session. Late last night as the clock approached midnight, the public was introduced to S. 2230,a hastily drafted bill that includes bans on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines, registration, and restrictions on ammunition purchases. This bill was released to legislators a scant twenty minutes prior to the Senate vote and quickly passed without proper vetting, committee consideration and debate, as previously reported on here.
Today, S. 2230 faced the state Assembly where it passed by a 104 to 43 vote and was signed into law by the Governor within an hour of its passage, taking immediate effect. During Assembly debate, it became obvious that the haste with which the bill was drafted and passed resulted in innumerable errors and flaws, damaging gun owners even worse than bill authors probably intended. The NRA-ILA lobbyist spent several days in Albany meeting with lawmakers, but this deal was quickly and quietly being forged behind closed doors. Lawmakers from both political parties were even critical of the process in which Cuomo guaranteed only one outcome would prevail.
Prior to this outrageous and undemocratic action, New York already had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and they have proven to be failures. When each of New York’s gun laws was enacted, politicians promised it would fix the crime problem. Years later, it is clear that they did not, yet anti-gun lawmakers want more of the same laws. Gun control has not worked because criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Like previous gun control attempts, S.2230 focuses only on law-abiding gun owners and will do nothing to address public safety or crime.
S.2230 expands the state's existing pseudo (semi-auto) "assault weapons" ban by outlawing pre-ban firearms, unless they are registered. This new state law also expands what is now considered an “assault weapon” and goes beyond the expired federal law. This statute also lowers New York's magazine capacity limit from ten rounds to seven. You can possess magazines capable of holding more than ten for one year, but you cannot sell or transfer them to anyone living in New York. State residents have one year from enactment to transfer or surrender them. Incredibly, S.2230 will also require background checks on ammunition purchases and prohibit online sales of both firearms and ammunition. It also includes universal background checks on all firearms transfers with certain exemptions for immediate family. S.2230 also requires mental health practitioners to report if someone is a threat to himself or others (without requiring an adjudication) and such person must surrender their gun. These failed gun control ideas will not address crime, but today Cuomo and his accomplices did irreparable damage to the constitutional rights of New Yorkers.
In his recent state of the state address, Cuomo made it clear that passing gun control would be the first major issue of the 2013 legislative session. He seized the opportunity to exploit tragedy and put his own personal politics ahead of sound public policy. Your governing officials resorted to deception, secrecy and procedural gamesmanship because they were too afraid to let gun owners make their voices heard. In the short time this issue was before the state Legislature, hundreds of phone calls and e-mails flooded the Capitol. The politicians might be able to sidestep gun owners now, but the next election will be a different story.
This legislation is still less than 24 hours old, and it contains many complex details and nuances that were secretly withheld from public view. NRA-ILA’s legal staff will continue to examine this new law and determine if future litigation may be appropriate. As we challenge these new laws, we will continue to report to our members, so please stay tuned.
Thanks for the link!
So it starts.
It’s funny that the Bil is number 223. Reminds me of something else... hmmm.
You should consider the very real possibility that by the time this gets to the SC, assuming it does, and assuming the court deigns to hear it, it is likely that the make up of the court will be such that public floggings of gun owners will be ruled "Constitutional".
Do you wonder why you can’t buy ammo or guns?
We don’t have any ammo or firearms on the market because the same thieving scared NYC Wall St billionaire SOBs we bailed out (that should have been bankrupt because of their corruption and incompetence) are using our bailout money and the Fed Reserve as their funding source to take over manufacturers and to buy ammunition.
They look as it as either an investment (like they did in oil and food) but even more importantly to keep common folk from being armed. They know they can’t pass laws.
You think not, think again. Americans are clueless. They can’t see beyond what they are told by pundits and pols. These greedy xxxxxrs want us disarmed and they are using our bailout and 0% Federal Reserve cash to buy out firearms and ammo before they come for our pensions.
“I intend to move to a solidly red state in the near future as a tactical retreat…”
That’s a great concept, I’ve not heard it expressed that way yet, but as I consider it, that is exactly what “the course ahead” must be for conservatism in North America.
Conservatives — particularly those who choose to remain in the “blue states” — must know and accept that they are living “in enemy territory” that, short of a complete collapse (of the economy and of the federal government), will not change “rightward” on its own.
Indeed, the blue states are going to march “forward” towards the totalitarian state at increasing speed.
There will be no “conservative revival” in the United States, at least not in the entirety of the country. Perhaps, for the near-term future, there can be a “preservation and conservation” (for lack of better terms) of conservative and “traditional” American/Western core values and principles in the remaining red states.
There are reasons why conservatives choose to live in the blue states — career, family ties, personal history, etc. I live in such a place myself (for now). But I fully realize that to remain here is to submit to the governance of the left. And I understand that if I want to be free of such bonds, my only realistic choice is to emigrate to somewhere where the attitudes are congruent to mine.
The only choice — as you have said so well — is to make “a tactical retreat”….
How are they going to know what? After one year the possession of the magazines will be illegal. Prior to then, purchase/sale will be illegal to NY residents. So even if they did sell them to a NY resident, or a NY resident bought some from out of state, possession would still be illegal in a year.
Nonetheless, I imagine lots of New Yorkers will buy them, if they can find them, from out of state sources.
The section of Texas Law providing for businesses to post their property against concealed carry licensees is section 30.06. The required sign is .. um... rather large.
The letters must be at least 1 inch high in block letters in contrasting color. It's an ugly thing. Some cheat and put it in white/translucent letters on clear glass.
But most of the signs that went up initially, both legal and non complying signs, have come down over time. It's pretty easy to avoid those businesses that don't want your business, because there is a competitor who does.
The biggest factor in that was not the business loss, but increase in potential liability. The businesses have been informed, often by their own lawyers, that if a CHL holder is harmed in their business because they were required to be disarmed, the business will be liable for damages, and they won't be able to get anything from the criminal to offset those. That also goes for anyone else who would have been protected by the CHL holder.
*
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.