As if you didn't have enough reason to leave NY

[JC5123]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/23/nyc-proposal-renders-bad-drivers-debtors-unfit-guns/


OK this is just pathetic. They are just getting desperate and stupid now.

[r_w]

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so confusing?

[Majer]

As my Grand Pa used to say..." They're just a bunch of booger eatin MORONS down there"

[fightingquaker13]

This seems deliberate on Bloomberg's part. Its like all the states that tried to tighten abortion restrictions after the SC got a conservative majority in the '80s. They wanted to see which ones would stand. This was the game until Casey spelled it out in '92. Some states are still trying, with things like requirig an ultrasound.
 Bloomberg hates guns and has plenty of money. He wants to see wht the Court will uphold as a "reasonble restriction". The laundry list reported to Fox is a great example. Most will probably get knocked down, but some might stick. Being in default of child support for instance, or in default of student lones. Even in Tx. these could stop you from getting a CCW, at least if I remember correctly. Its trickier here, as its about owning, not carrying a gun. Still Bloomberg is happy to see this go to court.
What needs to happen is for the NY legislature to impose a uniform standard and end local preemption. That would end this.
FQ13

[McGyver]

Just put a bullet in Bloomerbutt's head, that'll end his reign!    

[Sponsor]

[Majer]

Just put a bullet in Bloomerbutt's head, that'll end his reign!    

 It would more than likely bounce off or miss his little pea brain, either way it would just be used as a reason for more restrictions in ny

[JC5123]

This seems deliberate on Bloomberg's part. Its like all the states that tried to tighten abortion restrictions after the SC got a conservative majority in the '80s. They wanted to see which ones would stand. This was the game until Casey spelled it out in '92. Some states are still trying, with things like requirig an ultrasound.
 Bloomberg hates guns and has plenty of money. He wants to see wht the Court will uphold as a "reasonble restriction". The laundry list reported to Fox is a great example. Most will probably get knocked down, but some might stick. Being in default of child support for instance, or in default of student lones. Even in Tx. these could stop you from getting a CCW, at least if I remember correctly. Its trickier here, as its about owning, not carrying a gun. Still Bloomberg is happy to see this go to court.
What needs to happen is for the NY legislature to impose a uniform standard and end local preemption. That would end this.
FQ13

I don't agree with your argument. Here's why: The only "reasonable" restriction on owning a firearm is being a convicted felon. I agree with this. Beyond that, there is nothing that gives government the authority to infringe on my RIGHT to own a firearm. Period!

[fightingquaker13]

I don't agree with your argument. Here's why: The only "reasonable" restriction on owning a firearm is being a convicted felon. I agree with this. Beyond that, there is nothing that gives government the authority to infringe on my RIGHT to own a firearm. Period!

I'm not making an argument. The Court in Heller and McDonald allowed for "reasonable restrictions". They just overturned out right bans and said SD was an adequate reason to own a gun. The question of the hour is "what sorts of restrictions are reasonable"? This is where the battle will be fought.
FQ13

[JC5123]

I'm no makig an argument. The Court in Heller and McDonald allowed for "reasonable restrictions". They just overturned out right bans and said SD was an adequate reason to own a gun. The question of the hour is "what sorts of restrictions are reasonable"? This is where the battle will be fought.
FQ13

I just told you. Being a convicted felon is the ONLY reasonable reason to be restricted.

[fightingquaker13]

I just told you. Being a convicted felon is the ONLY reasonable reason to be restricted.

You and I agree. Sadly, we are not federal judges. Trust me, a lot of anti-states and localities are going to offer all sorts of things. NY style DQs, licensing, residency requirements, tests, a limit on the number of guns owned, bans on semis, restrictions on storage, inspections etc. Brady types will argue that the crap phil lives with is "reasonable", with the only exception being the right to own a gun for SD. Beyond that, they will try to limit the right to as close to nothing as they can. Just like pro-lifers didn't go away after Casey, neither will the antis. They will legislate and litigate until the Court lays out a minimum standard of what it considers to be "unreasonable" restrictions.
FQ13