jump to navigation

Court decision paves way for Australian style gun ban in US? October 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, manhood, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
trackback

I doubt it, while the decision is wrong and threatening it is also totally opposed to recent US Supreme Court precedent in several substantial rulings of the past few years (most notably, Heller).  But how long will the majority that has generally interpreted the Second Amendment so generously last?  I report, you discuss. Or not:

On Monday, the Court of Appeals for the Second U.S. Circuit issued a long awaited decision on the constitutionality of the most drastic gun control law in U.S. history, the New York SAFE Act of 2013.  The Second Circuit ruled that nearly all of the law does not violate the Second Amendment.

The SAFE (“Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement”) Act was presented to the New York State Senate and passed into law in 15 minutes.  No debate was allowed, and senators did not have time to read the bill before voting it into law. [It is the most disastrously repressive gun legislation passed in this country since 1968, at least.  I firmly believe the USSC wants to hear this case, and wants to rule on this act.  I am quite confident they will find it unconstitutional, but who knows which way Anthony Kennedy’s magic 8 ball will read that day?]

The SAFE Act is a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all military-style semi-automatic rifles manufactured within the past several decades.  It is a total ban on the AR-15, AK-47, M-14/M-1a, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and many other civilian copies of military firearms.  Prior to the passage of the law, Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that he was considering “confiscation” of existing rifles, but the final version of the law allowed existing owners to keep their rifles as long as they registered them with the State.  Upon the death of the owner, the rifle will be confiscated; it cannot be transferred to an heir within New York State.

The SAFE Act also enacted a complete ban on the possession of all firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.  The law contains no “grandfather” provision for previously legal items.

Beyond that, the SAFE Act banned all private transfers of firearms, except among spouses, parents, and children; it created an ammunition purchase background check and ammunition purchase registry; it banned the private sale of ammunition except from a licensed dealer; and it created a secret reporting requirement under which “mental health professionals” must report anyone suspected of being a “danger” to the State Police for mandatory gun confiscation.

Now that the Second Circuit has upheld the law, residents within the court’s jurisdiction have no recourse except to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court – where there will be a guaranteed four votes against the Second Amendment.  As I wrote last year, Gov. Cuomo and former Mayor Bloomberg, the backers of the SAFE Act, were betting that the law will be upheld by the Supreme Court, thus paving the way for a national version of the law (which has already been introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.).  Indeed, Cuomo immediately called for a national SAFE Act as soon as the Second Circuit issued its ruling Monday.

The Second Circuit’s decision comes only one week after both President Obama and Hillary Clinton publicly praised the Australian and British mass gun confiscations of the 1990s.

Which is an interesting corollary. We know Obama used heavy pressure and threats to induce the Supreme Court (re: John Roberts) to find the unconstitutional Obamacare constitutional in 2013. There were threats again this year in a similar case.  And then there was the very heavy pressure applied to the Supremes in the Obergefell decision this year imposing sodomite marriage on the states.  Did the demonrat party apparatus inveigh heavily on the 2nd circuit to support this unconstitutional assault on the rights of Americans?  Will they do so again if it goes to the Supremes?

Well, even if the Supreme Court either dodges or caves, the SAFE act has been largely a dead letter, at least in terms of the mandatory submission to the government of so-called large capacity magazines for their destruction and the registration of “assault weapons” (for later confiscation).  Apparently, virtually no one in the affected states has complied:

Since New York’s SAFE Act gun control law went into effect in January 2013, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their newly defined assault-style weapons with the State Police.

Those individuals have registered a total of 44,485 weapons.

The statistics, hidden from the public for more than a year by state officials, were given to Rochester-area lawyer Paloma Capanna on Monday in response to a lawsuit she filed on behalf of radio host Bill Robinson.

Folks, this is stunning, buy any measure.

As Frank Miniter noted last year just days before the registration deadline, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) conservatively estimated the number of firearms that qualify as “assault weapons” under New York’s law were “at least” one million firearms.

We now know that less than 4.5% of the “assault weapons” in New York were registered with the state as required by the draconian 2013 law, despite threats and warnings from hysterical New York Democrats and their allies in the media.

This is an even greater refusal rate than was experienced in next door Connecticut, where anti-gun laws rammed through a similar law in the wake of Sandy Hook saw at least 85% of the Constitution State’s gun owners defiantly refuse to register their firearms, some going so far as to dare Governor Dannel Malloy and the Connecticut State Police to attempt confiscation. [Which won’t happen, not yet anyway. Not even in our draconian, illiberal day  is there sufficient resolve on the part of our increasingly repressive government to try to lock up hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners.  Perhaps some day, but not yet]

Just don’t comply. No one can force you to do anything. They can drag you to jail. They can ransack your house. They can scream bloody murder and make all kinds of threats, but they can’t make you do anything against your will or conscience.  So if your state is one that declares all manner of firearms illegal, it’s a real shame about that boating accident where they all fell down to the bottom of the lake, idn’t it?

And it’s not just guns. This kind of passive resistance to illegitimately exercised governmental authority may have to become a regular recourse for a lot of us.  It’s a perfectly acceptable means of passive resistance.

Anyone know where the bishops of New York and Connecticut stood on these gun grabs?  Are they lockstep in favor of the USCCB’s very anti-gun ownership outlook?

Comments

1. The Lord's Blog - October 31, 2015

Holly Harrington

To
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Today at 10:50 AM

Hi Im from Jean’sBistro2010’s blog @Wordpress as you know (Holly, hi). Im from New York State and get this I don’t know how Cuomo feels about me now but.

Im a pro-life Catholic and he if Im not mistaken he would have loved it if I left the State of New York. I have no love lost in this regard for our politicians but I respect the law.
This being said—I do not like the underhandedness of the powers that be.
This is about people mostly who are mentally ill Ive heard it said. Well some of your criminals could be just that so its no wonder this went through.
The government is also scared of the people these days because we have these rights and we understand the government could turn into a dictatorship as the founding fathers said it could.
Im not completely up on the facts but I try to read when I can.
I also have the constitution and the bill of rights as do we all here in front of us on this computer.
We have no excuse but to check the law once in awhile.
Ive seen the signs here in NYS opposing the Safe Act to.
Clinton doesn’t care about us and neither do the rest of them but Im advising you to advise your people in Texas not to go along with the Hillary Clinton at all.
Im not saying not to have safe gun laws.
Im aware the founding fathers understood the gun law because King George tried to do the same thing or at least his Parliament did. Someday this country will regret its international laws on super control and less on true liberty.
Its: “Not the right to do what you want but what one aught to do.”
This I believe is how the Christian martyrs would have had it and respected it.
Civil disobedience in the form of peaceful protest and getting a lot of people on your side with sound knowledge handed to the politicians is the way to go and keep reminding them of it.
They think when they become elitist they forget their humble beginnings from childhood to adulthood.

God Bless thanks

Holly

2. The Lord's Blog - October 31, 2015

Reblogged this on Jean'sBistro2010's Blog.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: