New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 194 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
908 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
Two things: 1) I still don't see any challenges to the ammunition ban/registry. Are they not challenging it?
2) Starting page 23, the state is making the case that "aw" are not protected under Heller because the court ruled that this doesn't give us the right to own "any weapon of any type" and we are precluded from owning "dangerous and unusual and military weapons" and the state somehow tries to argue that an AR15 can be "easily" converted into a select fire weapon... does this hold any ****ing water??? They even said that semi auto is "virtually" a machine gun and can fire almost as fast and that an "M16 can be more dangerous in semi-auto." WTF?!!!!! Millions of AR15, etc rifles are in the hands of law abiding citizens to be used for lawful purposes. How is a ****ing rifle NOT protected under the 2A when the purpose of the 2A is to FIGHT TYRANNY?!

Honestly I can't read this anymore, it is making me ****ing sick to my stomach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
Page 30: Common use is invalidated because the rifle can be dangerous. WTF WTF WTF?!??! Arghhh!

And the keep arguing that a rifle isn't "small arms." Mother of God...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,522 Posts
It means these ****ing scumbags dont give 2 ****s about the Constitution, they have no interest in making people safer, and want to set a precedent to ban all semi autos next. I hope they all rot in hell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
There is no doubt in my mind the 2C will uphold unsafe finding this perversion of Heller decision acceptable. Ugh, how they can even make these assumptions... ****ing disgusting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
It means these ****ing scumbags dont give 2 ****s about the Constitution, they have no interest in making people safer, and want to set a precedent to ban all semi autos next. I hope they all rot in hell.
Read page 23 and on, brother. Lunacy...

And still, can anybody answer, has NYSRPA given up on mail order ammo?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Theres nothing one can do but give NY the finger on the way across the border .Its time to move and let these scumbag ****s have this lost state.FUAC i hope u rot a miserable death from the worst cancer known to man.Better yet,i hope u get Ebola and bleed from every pore on your disgusting body.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,291 Posts
If they win this case it just opens the door for the federal government to ban "aws" next. BTW, when the 2C decides to rule in favor of the state why then would the SCOTUS agree to this case since there would be no split. We would just be getting smacked down left and right.

I really need a lawyer on here to tell my why the state's brief is bull**** in legalese because reading that made my blood boil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
1. If it is a military weapon, why do civ police have them. Why does Natl Weather Service have them.
2. AWs are hardly unusual. Entire premise of the ban is that AWs are like Pez.
3. Anything can easily be converted into anything. I can make a 36" long gun into a pistol with just a hack saw.
4. 3D Printing just called, and wanted to know how a supply-side ban will work in an era of "basement" production.

When will these morons figure out that if they make you a criminal, you've no reason to abide them anymore.
 

·
Uberbi.. nah, I can't do it.
Joined
·
3,501 Posts
Just reading the Table of Contents made me ill. Such ass-backward logic - if you can even call it logic in any form.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,944 Posts
It means these ****ing scumbags dont give 2 ****s about the Constitution, they have no interest in making people safer, and want to set a precedent to ban all semi autos next. I hope they all rot in hell.
That's exactly what's going on in NY and the goal of other progressive areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,835 Posts
New York's SAFE Act builds on laws that federal, state, and local governments have used,
for two decades, to limit the public safety risks posed by assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The Act
restricts assault weapons and large capacity magazines, which are not within the core protections of the
Second Amendment right, and plaintiffs also have not shown that those restrictions substantially
burden a person's ability to use a handgun for self
defense in the home. Thus, on both grounds, heightened
scrutiny is not warranted as a
matter of law or fact
They're right on this point, the Sullivan Act does that all by itself with very little help from SAFE.

They mention spray firing an awful lot. It would be a shame if they knew how truly ineffective it really is to "spray from the hip".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
I understand everyone's disgust with this piece of garbage but remember this is the states lawyers trying to justify their jobs . The first thing you missed was they lied because in Skretny,s piece he said that the safe act imposed a burden on the citizens trying to enjoy their 2 A. This piece says the complete oppisite . These lawyers are still quoting ( none other than mother jones here ) these parts will be picked apart by Halbrook as he is a pretty good lawyer. The ammo ban is in there it's a one line arguement . The NYSPRA paper is a better read as it really breaks down the complaint but this piece isn't too good as all it brings to the surface is the state sees it's power diminishing and doesn't like it . If you read this , the state continually referees to the interest bearing clause that SCOTUS rejected . Therefore it's going to be a " slugfest " on the state to justify any of these burdensome regulations that it has imposed ! This is the big leagues now !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
Well that certainly surprised me, considering what the NRA stands for! Bottom of page 31 " The record evidence shows that of approximately 310 million firearms in the United States, only about
seven million (two percent) are assault weapons. (A.1091 (using the
National Rifle Association's (NRA) estimates of assault weapons owned
in the United States, and the Congressional Research Service's estimate
of all firearms owned in the United States).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,509 Posts
Well that certainly surprised me, considering what the NRA stands for! Bottom of page 31 " The record evidence shows that of approximately 310 million firearms in the United States, only about
seven million (two percent) are assault weapons. (A.1091 (using the
National Rifle Association's (NRA) estimates of assault weapons owned
in the United States, and the Congressional Research Service's estimate
of all firearms owned in the United States).
So that means that Seven million weapons are owned by the military as they are the only ones that really own true assault weapons.
And even then they define them as personal defense weapons.
 
1 - 20 of 194 Posts
Top