Thursday, October 22, 2015
NY Rifle and Pistol Assoc. Will Appeal 2nd Circuit Ruling
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) wants to appeal a federal court ruling upholding the state's controversial gun law, the SAFE Act. But, there were parts of the law the court found unconstitutional and NYSRPA is claiming it as a small victory.
Back in 2013, state lawmakers signed off on the SAFE Act. The law bars people from having semi-automatic weapons and from putting more than seven bullets in a gun.
More Here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I think & rounds is plenty of ammo IF you don't ever come up against ten people with seven rounds in their ten guns. Is the second amendment for protection against a corrupt government with fully automatic weapons or for rabbit hunting? How can the state guarantee you are not going to need more ammo against a superior force whether it is a group of muggers or combat troops? Now is the state going to pass a law that prevents mugger from being in groups of more than two or even seven? We already know all criminals obey the laws passed by idiots. and that all law abiding citizen hit their target with the first shot so what is the problem? Answer we need to shoot more morons.
I think these different gun rights groups are far of target the way they write their appeals I think to argue the tenth amendment is far more appropriate. Anyone that takes the time to read and study what the tenth amendment says will have a far better understanding of what the second amendment means. The tenth amendment is actually the guarantee for the rest of the bill of rights and the constitutions. It makes clear what is a federal constitution issue and what is a states rights constitution issue and what neither the federal or the state has the delegated authority to do. I think it is well accepted that both types of constitutions are controlled by contract law. If it is not written in the contract it does not exist, if it is written in the contract it can not be changed. The tenth amendment paraphrased says if the issue is in the federal constitution the states have no power to change it. If it is in the state constitution it must comply with the limitations in the federal constitution. If it in the state constitution and not in the federal constitution the federal constitution has no power over the state constitution and if it is not in either constitution neither the state or the federal constitutions have any power to create laws concerning that issue. it becomes a individual issue or an un enumerated right because it is not addressed in either constitution. It is left to the people/ the individual. since the second amendment is in he federal constitution the states have no power to change it. since neither constitution can add words to the constitution words like magazine capacity type of weapon, locked or unlocked, open carry or concealed carry are not in the second amendment not the federal or the state have the power to add those words. You can count the words in the second amendment, you can read the words in the second amendment and you will not come up with any of those extra words the state and federal governments are trying to add that do not exist and have no power to create. the choice is to amendment the second amendment or enforce it as written. Opinions, acts and laws do not change ratified amendments or any part of an article and the supreme court has no authority or power over what is actually written. the courts duty is to enforce what is written without bias or opinion. by the fact that the court is required to enforce what is written. It has no power to change words substitute words, ignore words or interpret words. the meaning of each word at the time it was written down is what must be used. That is our law. It has served us well until the court decided it had the power to interpret the constitution and issue opinions, Its duty is to enforce what is written and only what is written. It is a fact they do not have to like what is written but they do have to enforce it until it is legally changed. The supreme court has no jurisdiction over purely states issues. for instance the word marriage does not appear anywhere in the federal constitution. that can not be changed by an act or a law or a non jurisdictional ruling. Another example, California passed an amendment to the state constitution concerning marriage I think it was prop 8. it was passed and ratified by the people of the state. it became a part of the state constitution. the US supreme court over turned that constitutional amendment. yet the court lacked jurisdiction over the state constitution because the word marriage does not exist in the federal constitution. The court had absolutely no jurisdiction to even hear the case. that amendment was the choice of the people of the state of California over an issue not covered in the federal constitution. the same goes for the Kentucky marriage law, the supreme court had no jurisdiction.
Post a Comment