Man arrested for having '2 extra bullets' in his sidearm's magazine.

[CharlesMorrison]

Desert took the words right out of my mouth. Unless you're going to organize and follow through with a full scale revolution, laws must followed until thrown out.

Not if it goes against a Constitutional Amendment.
The bill of rights is an outline from "We, the people" to those who we GIVE power to. They are sovereign and are beyond the reach or legality of any government intrusion.
The US Government has no authority to over reach and arbitrarily alter an amendment with its restrictions.
If you can't understand the simple fact that the government has ZERO authority to impose limitations on our god given freedoms then I can't help you.
Link Removed


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[jcreek]

Desert took the words right out of my mouth. Unless you're going to organize and follow through with a full scale revolution, laws must followed until thrown out.

Not if it goes against a Constitutional Amendment.
The bill of rights is an outline from "We, the people" to those who we GIVE power to. They are sovereign and are beyond the reach or legality of any government intrusion.
The US Government has no authority to over reach and arbitrarily alter an amendment with its restrictions.
If you can't understand the simple fact that the government has ZERO authority to impose limitations on our god given freedoms then I can't help you.
Link Removed


Sent from behind enemy lines.

Tell that to the officer arresting you. I'm sure he'll let you go right away because you in your infinite wisdom declare a law unconstitutional

On a philosophical level, I don't disagree with you at all. But that's not how it works in the real world. You can't declare a law unconstitutional and the officer arresting you can't just let you go because he agrees with your assessment.

 

[jg1967]

All I can say is FACEPALM!

 

[Bigcarlover]

Unconstitutional? Where in the constitution does it protect a given number of round a gun can hold? Most NY attorneys agree that the seven-round rule isn't getting overturned on constitutionality.

So in your opinion, at what point does round count become unconstitutional? One round? No wait, that's still a round, so must be ok. Zero? You still have a firearm.

 

[jrs]

From BC1: "This law was enacted January 15, 2013 and took affect April 15, 2013. He should have known. Ignorance of the law is not a defense."

THIS P.O.S. LAW WAS PASSED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, WITHOUT MEETING NY'S "CONSTITUTIONAL" REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT WAS AN "EMERGENCY!!!!
Yes, passage of this "law" (I use that term lightly) took place without time for exposure to the public, time for our elected 'representatives' (I also use that term lightly) to actually read the legislation, digest it, and make a reasoned (not emotional) decision on how to vote.

First.... lets look at the "emergency"... this was passed without Constitutional requirements because it was an emergency....SO WHY DID IT BECOME EFFECTIVE 90 DAYS LATER??? If it was an emergency, why was it not effective immediately???

Next... if our legislators actually looked at the "law" and thought reasonably about its place and where it stands in the 'grand scheme', they would have realized how ridiculous their reasoning really is... in New York State, having that 8th round in the magazine is now a MORE SERIOUS offense than CHILD MOLESTATION!!!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Any and all of the legislators, if asked during the 3 day Constitutional review period, would have at least had to answer that question.... is an 8th round actually worse than Child Molestation?


While I believe that this "law" is a horrible attempt to limit our Constitutional Rights, I also agree with BC1...it's the current law...and a fact of life for those of us in NY.
As a result, we have to follow that law until it's overturned or amended. So, the man who was pulled over for the light bulb should have been bright enough (pun intended) to know that he was in violation of the "concealed" part of NY law... In violation of the limits on number of rounds... In violation of vehicle and traffic law(driving with a suspended license... and finally, he should have been "bright enough" to know that just because he doesn't like the law, he still has to follow it until it's revoked or amended.

In a state (and county) where they are LOOKING FOR ANY REASON to revoke your permit, why give them "just another reason", even in protest, to take it!

For me, I am following the law, keeping 7 in the mag although it holds more, but now carry multiple 7 round mags.

Finally, every law has unintended consequences which the lawmakers never consider. So, I am also considering purchase of and have been researching larger caliber pistols with 7+1 capacity....
The "unintended consequences" of this legislation will be that while they may have succeeded in limiting my capacity per mag, they will actually have caused me to become more lethal if the need ever arises.

 

[bswartz15]

While we may not agree on how to handle unconstitutional laws, I am glad we are having the discussion. I just wish there wasn't any need for it.

 

[tricolordad]

Now, what is it that people were saying about cops not enforcing the magazine limit?

 

[JimTh]

I know...I know...ya can't just pick up and move. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You pro 2nd folks that continue to stay in New York and continue to pay those outrageous taxes and continue to be contributing members of the society up there are in for a big surprise...it is only going to get worse...that will be your different result. This is true for all you new englanders and everyone north of Mason Dixon. You will stay in place and continue to feed those on the government dole. You will continue to pay for your sanctuary cities. You will continue to pay to protect the blue chip society folks. This will be your future and your children's legacy. Your children's inheritance will be the oppressive governments you will support unil they are grown up...then they will follow your lead. Of course you can always get the hell out of those rat holes and allow the blue chip to fuel the sanctuary city until they go broke or until thy become the victims of their own ignorance. But hey, as long as they got you to do it they got nothing to worry about. HOw long will cuomo or bloomingfart last if you pull your money out of that rat hole. You ain't gunna do it at the ballot box. The numbers at the government trough are far greater than those shoveling the slop into the trough...aren't you getting tired of the shoveling. Hey why not just become mother pig at the trough. If all of you guys do that it will have the same effect as if you simply move away.

 

[tricolordad]

Just trying to remind you that the cops are definitely not your friends. They, like you, will choose self preservation over standing up for their rights.

Like at a zoo, admire them, but just do so from a safe distance.

 

[BC1]

The part that says... "Shall not be infringed". That part.


Sent from behind enemy lines.

The bearing of arms is not infringed. Carry another mag, that's all.
.
Every right enumerated in the constitution is infringed regularly. You especially have no first amendment rights to free speech. Our fourth amendment rights are violated regularly. And in some states a convicted felon has lost the right to vote. In fact the original constitution, in it's strict construction form, was written by white males to benefit white males. Women couldn't vote. People could be enslaved.

 

[BC1]

So in your opinion, at what point does round count become unconstitutional? One round? No wait, that's still a round, so must be ok. Zero? You still have a firearm.

Well. You tell me. How many rounds do you think the constitution says you can have? What arms can you bear? Should all Americans be free to walk the streets slinging an AR and OC handgun and 100 rounds? Missile launcher? RPG's? Is that OK for the ghetto rats too?

 

[BC1]

From BC1: "This law was enacted January 15, 2013 and took affect April 15, 2013. He should have known. Ignorance of the law is not a defense."
.
THIS P.O.S. LAW WAS PASSED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, WITHOUT MEETING NY'S "CONSTITUTIONAL" REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT WAS AN "EMERGENCY!!!!
Yes, passage of this "law" (I use that term lightly) took place without time for exposure to the public, time for our elected 'representatives' (I also use that term lightly) to actually read the legislation, digest it, and make a reasoned (not emotional) decision on how to vote..
.
First.... lets look at the "emergency"... this was passed without Constitutional requirements because it was an emergency....SO WHY DID IT BECOME EFFECTIVE 90 DAYS LATER??? If it was an emergency, why was it not effective immediately???

Next... if our legislators actually looked at the "law" and thought reasonably about its place and where it stands in the 'grand scheme', they would have realized how ridiculous their reasoning really is... in New York State, having that 8th round in the magazine is now a MORE SERIOUS offense than CHILD MOLESTATION!!!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Any and all of the legislators, if asked during the 3 day Constitutional review period, would have at least had to answer that question.... is an 8th round actually worse than Child Molestation?

The point you make is exactly the issue here. Why did our legislators vote to approve a law they had no time to review. They are the ones who should be held responsible. They're acting like Pelosi did with Obamacare.
.
Regarding the offense being worse than child molestation, that's completely incorrect. Child molestation is a felony at any level. See NYS Penal Law Article 130 and Article 260.

 

[The_Outlaw]

The bearing of arms is not infringed. Carry another mag, that's all.
.
Every right enumerated in the constitution is infringed regularly. You especially have no first amendment rights to free speech. Our fourth amendment rights are violated regularly. And in some states a convicted felon has lost the right to vote. In fact the original constitution, in it's strict construction form, was written by white males to benefit white males. Women couldn't vote. People could be enslaved.

BZZZZZZZZ Wrong!

The bearing of arms has most definately been infringed.....if you don't see that, then you are either blind, biased or punch drunk. (or all of the above)

You are starting to sound more and more like a Socialist from your posts imvho.

 

[BC1]

BZZZZZZZZ Wrong!

The bearing of arms has most definately been infringed.....if you don't see that, then you are blind or punch drunk.

You are starting to sound more and more like a Socialist from your posts imvho.

You mean I'm sounding like a liberal. Socialism is something completely different. I'm not condoning the action. I'm just making a point of argument. The police aren't targeting people. The guy was a dope. I believe the law may get overturned but my attorney friends all agree that it isn't a constitutional violation. Supreme court would not entertain this case as the Heller decision settled the matter citing that certain restrictions can be placed on the possession of guns provided it doesn't render the gun unusable or result in a complete ban. We may, in lay terms, have an opinion of what each amendment means but the actual meaning is what the Supreme Court decides. All law is subject to interpretation. In case you haven't noticed, you've lost a number of constitutional rights. I believe that one day, perhaps not in our lifetime, gun rights will be gone forever.

 

[Deserteagle]

Now, what is it that people were saying about cops not enforcing the magazine limit?

Many of them will not enforce it. Many of them will.

Many of them actually support your right to bear arms just as much as you do, even as you continually disrespect them.

 

[The_Outlaw]

Many of them will not enforce it. Many of them will.

Many of them actually support your right to bear arms just as much as you do, even as you continually disrespect them.

Yes, but many of them do not support our right to bear arms....and a good percentage of them continually disrespect us citizen taxpayers also. Respect is a two way street.

We have far too many of these 'hot dog's with badges' running around out there.
The law enforcement community needs to do a better job of weeding the bad apples out of these powerful positions imvho.
And no, a 5 day suspension is not good enough....some of these punks -w- badges need to be fired or even locked up in some cases.

Case in point....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Gzl5NW6is

 

[apvbguy]

many of you need to look at the heller decision, in short it say reasonable restrictions can be imposed on gun ownership. one big gaping issue that was not addressed is just what is a reasonable restriction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

here is an important excerpt
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

The bearing of arms is not infringed. Carry another mag, that's all.
.
Every right enumerated in the constitution is infringed regularly. You especially have no first amendment rights to free speech. Our fourth amendment rights are violated regularly. And in some states a convicted felon has lost the right to vote. In fact the original constitution, in it's strict construction form, was written by white males to benefit white males. Women couldn't vote. People could be enslaved.

You are correct that our rights are infringed daily.
Until people wake up and put a stop to it, it will continue.
That does not make it legal though.

Link Removed

Well. You tell me. How many rounds do you think the constitution says you can have? What arms can you bear? Should all Americans be free to walk the streets slinging an AR and OC handgun and 100 rounds? Missile launcher? RPG's? Is that OK for the ghetto rats too?

I believe that you should be allowed to own any weapon you can afford, uninfringed or burdened by government over sight.
Link Removed


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

You mean I'm sounding like a liberal. Socialism is something completely different. I'm not condoning the action. I'm just making a point of argument. The police aren't targeting people. The guy was a dope. I believe the law may get overturned but my attorney friends all agree that it isn't a constitutional violation. Supreme court would not entertain this case as the Heller decision settled the matter citing that certain restrictions can be placed on the possession of guns provided it doesn't render the gun unusable or result in a complete ban. We may, in lay terms, have an opinion of what each amendment means but the actual meaning is what the Supreme Court decides. All law is subject to interpretation. In case you haven't noticed, you've lost a number of constitutional rights. I believe that one day, perhaps not in our lifetime, gun rights will be gone forever.

Maybe it's time we went after SCOTUS for allowing an infringement on a god given right.
Link Removed


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

many of you need to look at the heller decision, in short it say reasonable restrictions can be imposed on gun ownership. one big gaping issue that was not addressed is just what is a reasonable restriction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

here is an important excerpt
2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Seems to me that "Shall not be infringed" doesn't place limitations on that right.
When it was written, men owned cannons, ships with cannons on them. You would think they would want to "limit" that ability for some "wacko" to sail up the coast and blow **** up, no?


Sent from behind enemy lines.