Yep.Originally Posted by Dan Roman
In NYS you can lose your PPH for farting too loud.
Should we test it out and send Judge Boller a link to this thread?
Well the short answer is because the law does not go into effect until March I believe. Long before then I expect that Section 265.36 and 265.37, the magazine sections, will be added to Section 265.20. Section 265.20 NYPL exempts police, military and the Federal law enforcement from all of section 265, criminal possession of a weapon.
b.b.
Regardless of how they got into office, or how many people elected them - The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have not been legally amended. These two politician turds have violated their oaths of office by passing Unconstitutional , and therefore, illegal laws. They have also committed felonies under the Title 18 US Codes, Section 242 in the process of doing so. They - and any other public official who went along with this - needs to be arrested and tried for their crimes.
Try answering the questions or responding in like kind !
nogads states: "There is a big difference between publicly proclaiming "all drugs should be legal" and "my friends and I are going over to the park to smoke some crack"
In response to my post, "nogods has a point: How dare you speak your mind in public! Yes, a legit business owner/operater probably wouldn't want you blabbing about him in public either!
In todays society your rights are shrinking everyday - more and more people are remaining silent - they actually fear what could happen if they speak out" (excerpt)
nogods is a lawyer - this to me is another prime example of a person who uses laws. He doesn't defend people based on their rights - he employs the law as an excuse for his own agenda.
Crack and using drugs are illegal - we know that - he knows that. Yet instead of answering my statement with a factual retort - he eludes to a nonsensical response. No one advocated such things -
He then tries to intimidate the other poster by suggesting he "Inform Judge Boller" - thats what I mean by "He employs the law for his own agenda"
I would hazard a guess and say the majority of you clients are defendants. Or maybe your real good at freeing DWI offenders.
People like you scare me - your probably a vary popular "Party Boy" - if the cash is correct - you'll make it right. Now I could be wrong - I don't think I know you - but from everything you post - I don't think I would like to know you.
We already have many people like you inhabiting elected and appointed positions and I hope that changes.
Just my opinion - could be wrong !
#Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !
You a lawyer now? Passing laws is not a violation of 18 USC 242. As noted above, the courts decide what laws are unconstitutional. That is the manner in which the Constitution was written, checks and balances, that whole thing. In addition, no rights have been deprived since the law is not yet in effect.
Best guess, the "ex post facto" element to the law may be unconstitutional. You cannot deprive people of legally obtained property after the fact, in this case, high capacity magazines. The 2nd Amendment is at best an argument, since the Heller decision clearly states that regulation is not in itself, unconstitutional. Registration of firearms is not unconstitutional, it merely feeds into individual paranoia.
b.b.
Another question is - you stated/quoted , "regulation is not in itself, unconstitutional" - but when regulation leads to taxation or confiscation is that unconstitutional?
Or once they get registration and they then imposed a "fee" or "tax" on the preowned items - is that unconstitutional?
#Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !
And in that last statement is the problem. We continue to let one branch or another of the government tell us what the 2nd Amendment "actually" means and to whom it applies to. Of course they are going to skew it to mean that individual people don't have the right, because it removes some of their own power and its a danger to their position. You mention check and balances... well the 2nd Amendment is the final check and balance, and its suppose to be in the hands of the common people... not the government.You a lawyer now?
Nope, but I can read.
Passing laws is not a violation of 18 USC 242.
So... they just passed laws they have no intension of enforcing? Yeah... makes total sense to me.
As noted above, the courts decide what laws are unconstitutional. That is the manner in which the Constitution was written, checks and balances, that whole thing. In addition, no rights have been deprived since the law is not yet in effect.
So we have these laws that hit the books, that are unconstitutional, passed behind closed doors and without due process, but... we have to wait until they actually decide to enforce them before we can actually do anything about them. Even though they shouldn't have been passed that way to begin with, and the people who passed them broke their oaths to uphold the Constitution by doing what they did?
Naw! I still say arrest them now and throw them in jail before they can do anymore damage. Let the courts do their job then.
Best guess, the "ex post facto" element to the law may be unconstitutional. You cannot deprive people of legally obtained property after the fact, in this case, high capacity magazines. The 2nd Amendment is at best an argument, since the Heller decision clearly states that regulation is not in itself, unconstitutional. Registration of firearms is not unconstitutional, it merely feeds into individual paranoia.
b.b.
I do not need a judge, politician, cop, lawyer, or Constitutional scholar trying to tell me what the 2nd Amendment is "really" about. I can go directly to what the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have individually said about the Amendment, why its needed, and to whom it applies... and its all perfectly clear.
The precisely defined phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed," appears nowhere else in the Bill of Rights but the 2nd Amendment, and there is a reason for that.
Oh yes.... and once you get their required license, and registor all your firearms... in 5 years when you go to renew it (probably with a hefty fee on each gun you own), what's to stop them from just declining to renew the license for whatever reason they wish. After which they will instruct you to turn in all the firearms on your now revolked license.
No thanks.... think I'll pass on that bit of fun.
right on C!!! went to the rally with pack friends did not see that lib kennndy or the other idiot their.... telling why they voted for this..
God must love stupid people; He made so many
NG cut the crap with the threats to this site...go on face book and read all the stuff.. then send the judge to that site... went to the rally and seen no cops checking loads on PPH.
God must love stupid people; He made so many
OK drama queen, you don't have to throw around judges names to impress us with your chatboard lawyers knowledge of the legal system. I think it would be interesting to see though how many people have had their pp revoked over the last several years. I just converted over to the new id card that they issue, I had the yellow piece of faded paper for 20 some years, I thought it was amazing when I called in an address change that the pp bureau would say" just yellow out the line and type in the new info", thing was barely readable when I turned it in.
My picture fell off mine years ago. I have to get it fixed soon since I will lose the badge to retirement though there are still options in retirement.
b.b.
People took guns to the rally?
b.b.
Getting the new one was easy, like dmv office, they take your photo, check your info and a new id card is issued, the plastic credit card type, took about 10 minutes, this was pre new gun law though. Easier to carry, the yellow paper was ready to crumble apart.
He's still on Pistol Permits???
That numbnuts gave a carry permit to the scumbag scam artist I'm looking into... when he already had a domestic abuse case on him, and was caught impersonating a PO (but he's moved up to impersonating a Fed now), and he's claiming to be a wounded war vet. That's not counting all the scam complaints on his home improvement businesses (where he mostly targets the elderly) and what past employers have had to do with him stealing. Either the background check process is a joke, or Boller is brain dead.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
