I've Challenged The People Of New York

[Tucker's Mom]

Although you got a valid argument there, take it from one who did not have a gun and thought will never have a gun and then suddenly I got a gun. It was fun, I didn't think of it as something that I will use one day to kill a perp, but there was/is that possibility.

Growing up, although guns were allowed our elders (ones whom we lived with, original family) because they were "sort of rich and belongs to the highest echelons of government" (they thought...), our adults and kids were never really allowed to have guns : we have bodyguards. It's a way of life for our family. We were used to it. Then Australia removed our gun ownership from us. It did not bother us as much even though we kids had already grown up and have lives of our own. Then American husband came into the picture. He grew up shooting and hunting and all those usual things many young Americans learned to do since they came out of diapers.

I am just trying to point out that all of us were once sheeps, some got out of it being one (moi!!) some doesn't and wouldn't. It is the same as the government and states and laws. Think of them as "family caretakers" (or elders). They are the ones with "power". They teach subseviency to their peers, to the young ones. As long as there are people who are taught how to be "scared of guns" they will take advantage of that and herd them to their sides, just like I was once...

It will take "an outsider" to change things around. These are the real teachers. They don't stop teaching freedom and rights and all the things that comes with it, like equality for both men and women, how to take care of your own independence instead of being the subservient, scared to even go out alone, etc. And believe me freedom is earned as well as given and taken. So don't stop teaching...even in the face of adversity.

 

[nogods]

It appears that the main question is of jursidiction. Having just returned from a trip down south, it was certainly an inconvenience trying to comply with all of the varied regulations. HR822 would have certainly helped in reducing the research time(and lingering questions that remained) to "try" to be in compliance with the laws of each state.

I am a realist and don't think HR822 will solve all of the problems of interstate travel, but I believe it is a step in the right direction for those of us who want to be law abiding citizens and carry at the same time while traveling.

Yes, but we would still have to know the nuances of each state.

Right now Texas has its own version of HR822. I can carry there because I have permits from New York and PA. But I can't carry in a Texas bar, church, medical facility, or stadium. I can do that in New York. Unless I educate myself as to those nuances I would have no reason to believe such carry would be prohibited in Texas.

Thus HR822 doesn't eliminate the need to know each state's laws. It just makes it possible for one to carry in another state that they might not otherwise be allowed to.

 

[tovisitor98]

well,we have freedom of speech,but we can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater,incite a riot or violate some noise ordinances.
We have freedom of the press but are subject to legal/civil penalties for kiddie porn,libel and false advertising.
We have freedom of religion but not polygamy or human sacrifice and parents can be forced to provide life saving medical care (i.e.blood transfusions) to a child even if their religion prohibits it.
We have freedom of assembly,but also trespassing laws.
Would you say that the Constitution once gave us the right to do these things that are now prohibited and that NY took away our rights?Or is it more reasonable to say that none of the rights enumerated were absolute with no restrictions of any kind? After all, the "no law abridging" language is at least as strong as " no law infringing" and it isn't modified by that pesky militia clause.

 

[BluesStringer]

Hey! You woke up! Well....kinda....

well,we have freedom of speech,but we can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater...

Sure we can....if there's a fire in the crowded theater.

incite a riot

Rioting, generally speaking, is illegal. Speech that seeks to entice others to join in illegal activity is not thought of in the eyes of the law as "speech" per se, it's viewed as conspiracy.

or violate some noise ordinances.

Boy, you coulda fooled me with all the Occupy protests cackling on for weeks on end last Summer and Fall using noise, physical blockading, whatever, to try to prevent the conducting of normal business.

We have freedom of the press but are subject to legal/civil penalties for kiddie porn...

Umm.....Duh?

....libel and false advertising.

I wonder if you're even aware of the pattern you're developing here....

We have freedom of religion but not polygamy

I'll give ya that one. No government interest in such things. Should be off-limits to government control and/or regulation.

....or human sacrifice

Umm...Duh?

and parents can be forced to provide life saving medical care (i.e.blood transfusions) to a child even if their religion prohibits it.

Kids have rights too.

We have freedom of assembly,but also trespassing laws.

And so do property owners.

Would you say that the Constitution once gave us the right to do these things that are now prohibited and that NY took away our rights? Or is it more reasonable to say that none of the rights enumerated were absolute with no restrictions of any kind?

Neither. The pattern I alluded to was only deviated from by one issue - polygamy - and every other "right" you referred to has a victim (or victims) as part of the consequence for exercising said "rights." Your rights stop where mine start, so if you want to assemble, do it on public property or private property where the owner has invited you. Don't deny my property rights by waving the Constitution in my face and saying (erroneously) that you have a "right" to assemble on my land. As a parent, you are entitled to your religious beliefs, even if they include religiously believing that kids should be denied medical treatment. But the kid(s) have inherent rights to life, liberty etc. too, and the state has the authority to weigh their right to live against their parents' right to practice their religion. When it comes to life, the parents' rights end where the kids' begin. It's not that hard to figure out. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find words that imply that you have the right to victimize anyone else.

The simple act of owning or carrying a firearm, sans any brandishing or discharge, in no way violates anyone else's rights. As far as case law and precedent goes, there is no definitive ruling on when and where or by whom citizens can be prevented by law from carrying, but those of us who believe we have a fair understanding of what the Constitution in general, and the 2nd Amendment specifically, were intended to mean, believe further that the 14th Amendment's Privileges & Immunities Clause should protect our rights everywhere in this country. In any case, a victimless crime such as carrying without brandishing or recklessly discharging should not be a felony punishable by 5 years in prison, and should have no bearing whatsoever on how well or poorly someone sleeps at night. But...

Kiddie porn and human sacrifice? Really? Noddin' off there for a sec again? Pfft.

After all, the "no law abridging" language is at least as strong as " no law infringing" and it isn't modified by that pesky militia clause.

What makes the militia clause "pesky?" If you're implying that the 2nd Amendment was intended only as an authorization for states to organize militias, you might want to refer to the Heller and McDonald cases, decided in 2008 and 2010 respectively. It is now unequivocal and unambiguous; the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

Sleep tight.

Blues

 

[tovisitor98]

Well that was a lot of verbiage on your part but I think you missed my point.
The First and Second Amendment have similar language prohibiting infringement on the enumerated rights yet nearly everyone accepts some restrictions on those rights as necessary.You want complete freedom for everyone to carry a concealed everywhere, any time.According to that logic everyone should be able to say, print and assemble anything, anywhere anytime.If that is true, congratulations, you are an anarchist.
As for the militia clause, if it weren't pesky, why did it take more than two hundred years for Heller?
Maybe you you couldn't look up the meaning of the word what with Wikipedia being down for a couple days.

 

[6shootercarry]

So you are a big government anti-10th amendment person, in favor of the federal government regulating our lives with regard to everything from where and what weapons we can carry to health care. Hillary would be proud of you.

So you are a ignore ALL of the provisions and tenants of the Constitution and implement only the ones you choose type? How do you get government regulation from "Shall Not Be Infringed"? I don't see the connection, but apparently you do...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

So if the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution (still is at this time) and it states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would be an instruction to the United States as a whole via the Constitution's power, to NOT Infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. It does not empower the states to do the exact opposite... At some point in time as the number of gun owners increases, more and more will begin to read it as it was written and demand that the instructions are no longer ignored...

If you want the freedom to carry in bars, hospitals, churches, and stadiums, then move to NY. If you want the state to tell you can't carry in bars, hospitals, churches, and stadiums then move to Texas.

Again, "Shall Not Be Infringed" has been ignored & misinterpreted.. The legislators in Texas have the same misunderstanding.. I have the freedom to carry in all of those places. Having a law does not restrict freedom, it simply establishes a rule and the penalty for breaking it. Freedom and liberty have never been restricted because of law.. Only fear...

There are 1.2 million cc's in NY and only 460,000 in Texas, so if you move to Texas you'll be amongst a lot fewer cc's when you are shopping for those "I love Hillary" shirts at the mall

That is simply a result of environmental conditions which affect population density..

So the tee shirt idea is a good one.. While carrying concealed at the mall I saw some that had a picture of Hillary holding a sign reading "Nogods, 2012"... There were a few other designs I liked more... The one that looked like a bumper sticker reading
"Female Democrats for Weiner/Holder 2012"... Way better...

 

[nogods]

So you are a ignore ALL of the provisions and tenants of the Constitution and implement only the ones you choose type? How do you get government regulation from "Shall Not Be Infringed"? I don't see the connection, but apparently you do...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

So if the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution (still is at this time) and it states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would be an instruction to the United States as a whole via the Constitution's power, to NOT Infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. It does not empower the states to do the exact opposite... At some point in time as the number of gun owners increases, more and more will begin to read it as it was written and demand that the instructions are no longer ignored...



Again, "Shall Not Be Infringed" has been ignored & misinterpreted.. The legislators in Texas have the same misunderstanding.. I have the freedom to carry in all of those places. Having a law does not restrict freedom, it simply establishes a rule and the penalty for breaking it. Freedom and liberty have never been restricted because of law.. Only fear...



That is simply a result of environmental conditions which affect population density..

So the tee shirt idea is a good one.. While carrying concealed at the mall I saw some that had a picture of Hillary holding a sign reading "Nogods, 2012"... There were a few other designs I liked more... The one that looked like a bumper sticker reading
"Female Democrats for Weiner/Holder 2012"... Way better...

You have two major defects in your reasoning.

First, there is no universal-one-interpretation-only of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It must be interpreted as the words themselves are empty of meaning.

So sure, if that phrase was interpreted as you see it - any weapon, by anyone, in anyplace, at any time, then "shall not be infringed" would have the results you assert.

However, that phrase has not been so interpreted. In other words, your interpretation of that phrase is not the interpretation of the phrase under our rule of law. Thus, "shall not be infringed" applies to the actual interpretation rather than your interpretation. Thus, anything not included in the interpretation of that phrase is not being infringed by laws that prohibit.

Your attempt to claim the high ground with empty emotional slogans doesn't change reality. We the People have adopted a system for both determining, interpreting, and enforcing the rule of law whether you like it or not.

Your second disaster is not understanding the population dynamics of Texas and New York. The population of Texas is 25,145,561. The population of New York state is only 19,378,102 - 8 million of which live in NYC .

Taking the states as a whole, NY has nearly 3 times the rate of CC licenses as Texas does. Take out the NYC factor, and the numbers get closer to 5 to 1 when comparing rate per population. So not only does NYS have a higher nimber of CC licenses, NYS has a higher rate of CC licenses per population.

 

[BluesStringer]

Well that was a lot of verbiage on your part but I think you missed my point.

Actually, I think you failed to make a valid one.

You want complete freedom for everyone to carry a concealed [weapon?] everywhere, any time.According to that logic everyone should be able to say, print and assemble anything, anywhere anytime.

Which, with very few exceptions, they can, as long as the act of exercising their rights doesn't infringe directly on someone else's rights. You're kind of new at this "unalienable rights" stuff, aren't you?

If that is true, congratulations, you are an anarchist.

No, I am a Constitutional Patriot.

As for the militia clause, if it weren't pesky, why did it take more than two hundred years for Heller?

My opinion, and I believe it to be the opinion of many, but I think it has a lot to do with SCOTUS being traditionally comprised of cowards when it comes to supporting the constitutional axiom that the common man is legally authorized, under the most extreme circumstances of course, to deprive them and the rest of an usurping government of their power by force if/when the case against them is compelling and irreversible by any other legal means. If you don't believe that that's what the 2nd Amendment was intended to provide for, you really need to do some more homework before replying again. A good place to start would be the Declaration of Independence, and from there, The Federalist Papers, and if you get that far, there are thousands of available quotes from literally every Founding Father to back up my contention in that regard.

Maybe you you couldn't look up the meaning of the word what with Wikipedia being down for a couple days.

HA! What, is that supposed to be some kind of burn? LOL Man, if I had to rely on Wikipedia for my information, I would probably be as ignorant as someone who claims that making human sacrifice and kiddie porn illegal is analogous to stifling real, honest-to-goodness constitutional rights of free speech and religion. Man, that was weak!

Blues

 

[BIGJOHN621]

The Constitution doesn't apply or matter in NY. We here are self aware and have been enlightened past some old document that doesn't matter anymore. We know how to live and will tell those that don't through our laws. When will the rest of the world wake up and realize we know best here and should be followed. I you don't, you're just a dolt an the reason we need laws to tell you.

Don't believe that people in NYC think this way? Come visit or a while. You'll be happy you're not here.

 

[6shootercarry]

You have two major defects in your reasoning.

First, there is no universal-one-interpretation-only of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It must be interpreted as the words themselves are empty of meaning.

So sure, if that phrase was interpreted as you see it - any weapon, by anyone, in anyplace, at any time, then "shall not be infringed" would have the results you assert.

However, that phrase has not been so interpreted. In other words, your interpretation of that phrase is not the interpretation of the phrase under our rule of law. Thus, "shall not be infringed" applies to the actual interpretation rather than your interpretation. Thus, anything not included in the interpretation of that phrase is not being infringed by laws that prohibit.

Your attempt to claim the high ground with empty emotional slogans doesn't change reality. We the People have adopted a system for both determining, interpreting, and enforcing the rule of law whether you like it or not.

Your second disaster is not understanding the population dynamics of Texas and New York. The population of Texas is 25,145,561. The population of New York state is only 19,378,102 - 8 million of which live in NYC .

Taking the states as a whole, NY has nearly 3 times the rate of CC licenses as Texas does. Take out the NYC factor, and the numbers get closer to 5 to 1 when comparing rate per population. So not only does NYS have a higher nimber of CC licenses, NYS has a higher rate of CC licenses per population.

So It's OK to ignore the protection of a right as was intended by the 2nd Amendment along with all the others? Selectively? So a basic right is less than safe and can be erased by interpretation? We just need to change one more judge... What if the 10th Amendment comes under scrutiny next? The supreme court decides that the states no longer have the ability to ignore or circumvent the federal laws or create laws that challenge them? So they are worthless... Just writing on paper to be discarded when the mood changes.. The effect of progress...

The example of this is the 18th... And then the 21st... So I guess wait around long enough until the mood changes...

Back to my oldest question of you; If the 2nd Amendment comes under fire and it's existence is threatened. Not in a bar, not in a car, not at the house, not with the spouse... Not at all... They take away your ability to choose via a law... What do you do? Go along as instructed and become the subject?

The rights were written down, debated, and ratifed by the framers because they felt an "emotional and rational" connection to the them. If they felt that they were not at all important, why would they have documented them, discussed them at such length and then made them law? Why use wording like Shall NOT Be Infringed or Shall Not Be Violated" Who says the courts have the correct interpretation? The courts are made up of people same as I and are influenced and biased... Yes the system is in place currently. Can it be abused? Yes... And we are witness to that today..

As the number of gun owners increases the likelihood that the interpretation will remain the same is small. As I wrote above it's just a waiting thing...

As to my statement regarding population density; It was a hasty statement, but in the context it was written; is it incorrect? vague? Or more or less a general statement? Did I refute your assertion or challenge it? Offer incorrect information as fact? No...
"That is simply a result of environmental conditions which affect population density"..
It seems benign not really a disaster.. What is it that you do for a living? Details.. Assumptions...

 

[jg1967]

Seems like a lot of New Yorkers are so saturated with their mayors constant anti gun press they actually believe it.

 

[BC1]

Seems like a lot of New Yorkers are so saturated with their mayors constant anti gun press they actually believe it.

I keep telling posters that the residents of NYC want it that way. They equate guns to crime. They have an entirely different view of the world in large metro cities.