Is the real purpose of NY's New Gun Laws to Infringe?

[golocx4]

If the real intent of Andrew Cuomo's Gun Registration Law is to provide an avenue to confiscate, is that enough to prove infringement?
And if Infringement is the hidden outcome of the law, is not the law then unconstitutional? I mean when something says the Right shall not be infringed: comply or get confiscated sounds like infringement to me. Where is the due process? Where is the "reasonable man" test. I mean anyone that is not a flaming liberal can see that the intent of the law is to confiscate in the end.


I got this from SCOPE's Website.

The County Clerks met in Albany to discuss the Cuomo gun law among other issues. During the meeting the State Police made a presentation to the clerks and dropped the three following bomb shells:

Beyond mailing out the initial notice letter the Counties are going to be responsible for the rectification process. Their intention was to push this to the Counties as an unfunded mandate. (This is of course in direct contradiction to the law that was passed)
The Freedom of information law opt out will have to renewed every five years. (There is nothing in the law requiring renewal of the opt out once granted.)
The State police also said that gun confiscation will be carried out as an end result of non compliance with the permit renewal process or gun registery.

The County Clerk's oppose the actions of the State police and the Governor's office and are seeking further clarification on these issues.
New York State Association of County Clerks


Link Removed

btw: The FIOL thing is only for LE and Govt Officials or if you have cause because you are a victim. You can't opt out just because you value your privacy.
Don't be fooled.

 

[golocx4]

In New York, the State Constitution make no mention of the right to bear arms.
Instead, New York Civil Rights Law art. II, Section 4 provides that “ a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”

According to New York courts, the right conferred by the Second Amendment – and, by extension, section four– “is not absolute and may be limited by reasonable governmental restrictions.

They reasoned that the state law “does not effect a complete ban on handguns and is, therefore, not a ‘severe restriction’ improperly infringing upon Second Amendment rights. Moreover, New York’s licensing requirement remains an acceptable means of regulating the possession of firearms and will not contravene Heller so long as it is not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner. (Arbitrary and Capricious means doing something according to one’s will or caprice and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of power.)

Was the NYSAFE Act passed in an arbitrary and capricious manner?
Can any of the provisions of the NY SAFE act be considered arbitrary and capricious? ( How about the definition of "Assault Weapons for one or mandating the use of a Seven Round Magazine which does not exist for another)

Can any of the provisions of the NY SAFE ACT be considered a severe restriction?
Does the new law effect a complete ban on certain rifles?

If the State is violating our Civil Rights what is the penalty?

 

[nogods]

I think the 7-round limitation will fall to the Heller rule of commonly used weapon. The 5-year renewal is used by lots of states, like Texas and others, so it probably survives. the assault weapons provision are debatable

 

[apvbguy]

commie cuomo learned his lessons well, never let a good crisis go to waste was one of the leftist lessons he learned well and the leftist dream of disarming the public is well on it's way to happening in NY

 

[rahlquist]

If the real intent of Andrew Cuomo's Gun Registration Law is to provide an avenue to confiscate, is that enough to prove infringement?
And if Infringement is the hidden outcome of the law, is not the law then unconstitutional?

Thats where the problem lies. Interpretation of intent vs interpretation of enforceable text. This is why so many legal documents are so heinously verbose. They try to cover every piece of ground. Assume for a second that the authors of the 2nd amendment meant that the people/citizenry should always be able to have the firepower needed to stand up to outside forces as well as its own government. That means that even now there are many laws on the books that violate the 2nd amendment. Most of them passed since the 1930's. Lets face it machine guns have been around a long long time. Gatling guns have been around since the mid 1800's but we didn't see any real legislative attempts to curtail guns with these abilities until a hundred years later.

So here is the real rub. Our founding fathers obviously wanted us to be able to stand up to our government, that is very clear, but to what extent? If a civil uprising brought 90% of the populace of a major metro area against the government then it would be mechanically possible (all legal and moral implications aside) for our own government to deploy a lethal nuclear strike against that city. Would our founding fathers have wanted the citizens to have an equivalent amount of firepower to create a standoff? We will never know, but can only speculate.

It is my opinion that if a handheld firearm device is available for use by the government then that same device should be available to the people. By firearm device I mean any device whose primary propellant is available loose (as black powder is used in a musket) or in a pre-purchased shell. Period. Thats my belief. This include things such as machine guns, 40mm grenades, even RPG. Others may agree or disagree but that's the feeling that I have that our founding fathers would have used as a reasonable limit. Lets face it, say a president went all wacko and decided to use our military forces to disarm the people, even with 70% of the armed citizens fighting back, its doubtful we would be able to withstand our own military. The only way we could as a country withstand such a dictatorial takeover would be if our military held true to their oaths (which I believe many would) and refused to take such an order. It would take the combined efforts of our military and "we the people" to stamp out such a tyrannical move.

With all of that said, any law restricting capacity, quantity, caliber, or lethality are in direct conflict with the 2nd amendment IMHO.

 

[wizrd]

This is my defense and I'm sticking to it!

U. S. Code - Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedures
Part 1 - Crimes, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights - Section 241. Conspiracy Against Rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitants of any State, Territory, or District in the free excercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so excercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free excercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and if death results, thye shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

 

[golocx4]

This is my defense and I'm sticking to it!

U. S. Code - Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedures
Part 1 - Crimes, Chapter 13 - Civil Rights - Section 241. Conspiracy Against Rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any inhabitants of any State, Territory, or District in the free excercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so excercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free excercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and if death results, thye shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

So if we got 50,000 people in a Class Action that would be $10,000 times 50,000 which would equal $500,000,000.00 dollar judgement against the state and prison for Cuomo and every Richard cerenia that voted yes.
I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on the internet, but as a reasonable man, you have to agree that they certainly did conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate law abiding gun owners of NY State, by restricting free exercise or enjoyment of our Second Amendment right secured by the Constitution.

Hell the two or more persons could include the Anti's and the lame stream media who ginned up all this hysteria in the first place.
And......what if we found out that Bloomberg promised money to certain Senators Campaigns for their vote. Sounds like conspiracy to me....
\

 

[UncleWilley]

I certainly hope that we prevail on constitutional grounds. Especially considering the very convoluted and contradictory nature of the Safe Act, there is hope of an injunction and possibly some of all aspects of the law will be overturned. Unfortunately there is no question that with the Bloomberg's of the world throwing their significant fortunes behind gun control, we need to develop a strong and constantly vigilant effort to oppose unconstitutional gun control!!! Elections are critical!! As I have suggested in other posts, I still believe that pro-2A groups need to pursue coordinated economic "sanctions" that will really get the attention of politicians. We can not rely on courts to defend our 2A rights in the long term considering the number of liberal judges willing to interpret the constitution based on their personal biases.

Much better education of the public is desperately needed. Non-gun owners are extremely ignorant regarding different firearms used for sport and self-defense. They have no clue how many people defend themselves using firearms, FAR more than killed/murdered by firearms. On a larger scale, to help reduce the liberal influence, there is a desperate need for conservatives to gain control of the mainstream public media (TV, newspapers etc.). For many years liberals have been taking control of the public media and we see the results! Also, look at the harm being done to our children by the liberal infested school systems. What I am try to say is that although we hope for the courts to overturn the unconstitutional laws, without turning the country away from liberalism, the constitution will be at grave risk from many directions.

 

[UncleWilley]

In New York, the State Constitution make no mention of the right to bear arms.
Instead, New York Civil Rights Law art. II, Section 4 provides that “ a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.”

According to New York courts, the right conferred by the Second Amendment – and, by extension, section four– “is not absolute and may be limited by reasonable governmental restrictions.

They reasoned that the state law “does not effect a complete ban on handguns and is, therefore, not a ‘severe restriction’ improperly infringing upon Second Amendment rights. Moreover, New York’s licensing requirement remains an acceptable means of regulating the possession of firearms and will not contravene Heller so long as it is not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner. (Arbitrary and Capricious means doing something according to one’s will or caprice and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of power.)

Was the NYSAFE Act passed in an arbitrary and capricious manner?
Can any of the provisions of the NY SAFE act be considered arbitrary and capricious? ( How about the definition of "Assault Weapons for one or mandating the use of a Seven Round Magazine which does not exist for another)

Can any of the provisions of the NY SAFE ACT be considered a severe restriction?
Does the new law effect a complete ban on certain rifles?

If the State is violating our Civil Rights what is the penalty?

OK attorneys out there, PLEASE tell me why the way the handling of permit applications by the various jurisdictions in NY is not arbitrary and capricious!!!

First the amount of time that it takes to get a permit varies dramatically among the counties. People in Niagara & Chautauqua counties claim to receive permits in 4 months or less while in Erie county it is now common to take 12++ months. If you read the posts in the NY/Erie County section it is clear that the processing has NO concept of a "process". It's more like when they feel like it. Of course the excuse is that they are busy!! In two recent cases, one applicant did not receive his permit for 2 months AFTER the judge approved it, sat in somebodies office. In another case, the applicant was told that applications had not be sent to the judge for at least two months, he's busy!

Second, the completely arbitrary process by which judges decide who, when and what type of permit you get. It is fully up to the discretion of a judge whether to approve a concealed carry with or with out restrictions. Absolutely NO guidelines, each judge makes up their own rules.

 

[apvbguy]

OK attorneys out there, PLEASE tell me why the way the handling of permit applications by the various jurisdictions in NY is not arbitrary and capricious!!!

First the amount of time that it takes to get a permit varies dramatically among the counties. People in Niagara & Chautauqua counties claim to receive permits in 4 months or less while in Erie county it is now common to take 12++ months. If you read the posts in the NY/Erie County section it is clear that the processing has NO concept of a "process". It's more like when they feel like it. Of course the excuse is that they are busy!! In two recent cases, one applicant did not receive his permit for 2 months AFTER the judge approved it, sat in somebodies office. In another case, the applicant was told that applications had not be sent to the judge for at least two months, he's busy!

Second, the completely arbitrary process by which judges decide who, when and what type of permit you get. It is fully up to the discretion of a judge whether to approve a concealed carry with or with out restrictions. Absolutely NO guidelines, each judge makes up their own rules.

you make an excellent point, many jurisdictions/county in NY impose their own, sometimes inane, restrictions to the permitting process. for example nassau county stamps a NY State issue permit target only, by what legal statute do they do this?? and NYC is just way off the charts with their regs? most states have state preemption that limits the insane hodge podge of laws you find in NY

 

[jrs]

If they haven't infringed enough! NOW I hear on the morning news that the state is floating the idea of a requirement for all firearm owners to have "Firearm Insurance". Just another way to harass gun owners and make it "inconvenient" and more expensive... if not outright illegal to own a gun.

Have been considering a move out of NY state....they are helping me make that decision. I may just take my guns (which will make them happy) and my income tax dollars (which will make them really UNHAPPY) and get the heck out of the Socialist Republic of New York.

 

[golocx4]

This guy is spot on! I highlighted my previous points.

Retired Capt. Robert Jones
Readers note: This article was written by Robert A. Jones of Troy, NY. He is a retired New York State Police Captain, and an attorney. It was published in the Troy Record newspaper.


Kudos to the Rensselaer County Legislature for its Resolution condemning Gov. Andrews Cuomos irrational gun and magazine ban. Now, as a former police legal advisor and alumnus of the FBI National Law Institute for police legal advisors, I propose the real dangers to law enforcement be considered. First, it is plain that the new law fails to exempt police from being felons if they carry firearms onto school property. Indeed, it technically makes it a crime for anyone including police to possess any firearm. There are many other mistakes too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that this law was drafted and passed by a bunch of incompetent ideological zealots who rushed it through in the middle of the night to escape rational review.

But police must also consider civil rights liability if they choose to enforce an unconstitutional law. Those of us who are or have been in law enforcement know we can be sued in federal court under 42 USC 1983 if we violate a citizens Constitutional rights. These lawsuits are filed regularly. The Second Amendment is prominent on the list of rights, as is the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which makes vague laws unenforceable and unconstitutional. Ex post facto laws are also a violation of the Constitution, Article I, Sections 9 and 10. A police officer can be held personally liable for damages as well as punitive damages if he violates ones Constitutional rights. Thus, besides making felons of our police, Cuomos law creates a real dilemma for law enforcement. Police have an independent obligation to not violate a persons Constitutional rights. It is not enough that a politician assures us that our actions are Constitutional. The politician will not be held liable, will not lose his bank account, or house, or other assets. But the police officer who violates Constitutional rights will. Thus, a police officers informed use of discretion regarding whether to enforce some of the new laws provisions may, on the one hand, anger political zealots who want every word enforced regardless of the laws probable Constitutional infirmity or, on the other, subject the officer to financial ruin from civil liability for violating ones Constitutional rights. The officer will be well advised to exercise his discretion in his own self interest the politicians will surely throw him under the bus when the going gets tough.

I previously used the phrase Ex-Post Facto law. Basically, an ex post facto law is one that punishes previous conduct undertaken when such conduct was not a crime. For example, it can be credibly argued that a person who had lawfully acquired and owned a 17 round magazine on Jan. 14 had committed no crime perhaps he had owned the magazine for decades. Yet Cuomos best law in the nation suddenly made owning this previously lawful magazine a crime. The owner did nothing between the time he lawfully owned the magazine and the time his ownership was made a crime. Rather than grandfather this magazine in his new law so that its continued ownership would remain lawful, Cuomo made the previous lawful conduct of owning it a crime. But, you may argue, it is not the previous conduct that is now criminal, but the ownership after the effective date of the new law that is made criminal. Nice try but the government may not force a forfeiture of private property to avoid criminal liability. This argument is only credible if the effect of the new law was to not effectively force the previously lawfully owned magazine to be forfeited. Yet this is what Cuomos law does. It also forces the forfeiture of previously lawful weapons that now fall within the more restrictive so-called assault weapon definition. The current owner can register them but cannot pass them on to his children or anyone else. They are, essentially, forfeited by the arbitrary and uninformed action of the government.

With such an argument that this law is an unconstitutional Ex Post Facto law, I fear that some good intentioned law enforcement officers will step into the trap laid by the governor and have his or her life ruined by the lawsuits sure to follow.
Nice job by the gaggle of incompetent ideological zealots in Albany. This law must be repealed.

 

[apvbguy]

good stuff, I posted it to my FB friends in NY

 

[SCfromNY]

The restrictions, such as "target only" have no legal stand. They are only administrative. That said, if carrying with a "target" stamp you will most likely lose your permit. However your butt, in many interpertations will be safe from jail or legal matters.