http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york...z2pm3mtwSc

There’s just one huge problem it is happening now in New York State!
It seems those that tried desperately to warn of such an insidious plot had hit the bullseye with their warnings after all. News came from multiple NY State based firearms enthusiast websites late Friday that confiscations of Pistol Owner ID Cards, as well as firearms and accessories has commenced in NY under the provisions of the horribly flawed, draconian and blatantly unconstitutional NY SAFE Act.
Those folks having their weapons and FID cards confiscated have been discovered to have been prescribed multiple different types of psychotropic drugs, such as those for Depression or Anxiety. These are known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) class drugs and have the potential to cause serious and adverse side effects, something I wrote about extensively last week in an article that went viral in days and caused multiple Anti Gun and Progressive News Groups to initiate a concentrated denial of service hacker attack against Ammoland Shooting Sports News (see Daily KOS ” Keeping Track Of The RKBA Crowd” http://tiny.cc/ug67uw), in an effort to keep the information from the public.


Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york...z2pmAZ85Go
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Why a law-abiding gun-owner would've stayed in New York State all these years is a mystery.

(01-08-2014 02:15 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Why a law-abiding gun-owner would've stayed in New York State all these years is a mystery.

F doing it legally then..I guess.

I fully expect the revolution to begin in upstate NY.

(01-08-2014 08:18 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  I fully expect the revolution to begin in upstate NY.

There was an episode of Law & Order -- this was back in the mid-'90s -- based on that exact idea. The actor Dennie O'Hare had the lead role as a militia-leader.

(01-08-2014 06:39 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 02:15 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Why a law-abiding gun-owner would've stayed in New York State all these years is a mystery.

F doing it legally then..I guess.

Some people probably will come to that conclusion.

But many more will simply leave NY for good.

I posted this in another thread, but IMO it's worth repeating:



Is it Constitutional for NJ/NY/MD to prohibit my VA CCW?

The 2nd amendment is National. If the Federal Courts force gay marriage, they must also force the other states to accept each other's gun permits. It's an equal argument.

Maybe that's why Sotomayor issued a stay? LOL. Consequences...

(01-08-2014 08:59 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Is it Constitutional for NJ/NY/MD to prohibit my VA CCW?

By "prohibit", I assume you mean whether those States are free to decide for themselves whether they want to allow you to have CCW privileges within their own boundaries. I think they should have that authority, as a matter of right, but who knows how the courts will rule on that.

Quote:The 2nd amendment is National.

The Bill of Rights was meant to protect States against federal authority -- judicial, executive or legislative. Now, it's been turned around to force the States into further submission. It is a shame that so many Americans are willing to go along with that.

Quote:If the Federal Courts force gay marriage, they must also force the other states to accept each other's gun permits. It's an equal argument.

True.

But you are assuming that the federal Courts will rule consistently or fairly. You forget the alternative: the federal Courts may simply announce one day that "gay marriage" is more important than other things, and decree that States must recognize "gay marriage" from other States, but do not have to recognize certain other legal actions from other States. The federal Courts have been pulling decisions like that out of their @sses for a long, long time, and don't be too sure they won't keep doing it. One of the consequences of having courts with (essentially) plenary law-making powers.

(01-08-2014 09:14 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:59 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Is it Constitutional for NJ/NY/MD to prohibit my VA CCW?

By "prohibit", I assume you mean whether those States are free to decide for themselves whether they want to allow you to have CCW privileges within their own boundaries. I think they should have that authority, as a matter of right, but who knows how the courts will rule on that.

Quote:The 2nd amendment is National.

The Bill of Rights was meant to protect States against federal authority -- judicial, executive or legislative. Now, it's been turned around to force the States into further submission. It is a shame that so many Americans are willing to go along with that.

Quote:If the Federal Courts force gay marriage, they must also force the other states to accept each other's gun permits. It's an equal argument.

True.

But you are assuming that the federal Courts will rule consistently or fairly. You forget the alternative: the federal Courts may simply announce one day that "gay marriage" is more important than other things, and decree that States must recognize "gay marriage" from other States, but do not have to recognize certain other legal actions from other States. The federal Courts have been pulling decisions like that out of their @sses for a long, long time, and don't be too sure they won't keep doing it. One of the consequences of having courts with (essentially) plenary law-making powers.

By "Permit", I mean that the laws are so restrictive that I can't protect myself or family from a road rage incident that happen daily in NY/NJ. The laws are SO restrictive, that the 2nd amendment essentially has zero meaning for anyone out of state. My niece got time after travelling thru Jersey for a pocket knife. That's insane.

The word "precedent" still has meaning, whether John Roberts knows it or not.


BTW - You sometimes have to fight fire with fire. The Liberals have to be taught why the Bill of Rights exist or they'll keep crapping on them. We can do it like gentlemen now, or like barbarians later.

We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. BUT on the other hand...We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics. How is that supposed to work.....??????

(01-08-2014 05:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. BUT on the other hand...We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics. How is that supposed to work.....??????

Do 2 wrongs make a right?

Do you always answer a Q. with a Q.?

(01-08-2014 05:30 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Do you always answer a Q. with a Q.?

Was that supposed to be a joke?

(01-08-2014 05:29 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. BUT on the other hand...We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics. How is that supposed to work.....??????

Do 2 wrongs make a right?

Nice try....

(01-08-2014 05:35 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:29 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. BUT on the other hand...We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics. How is that supposed to work.....??????

Do 2 wrongs make a right?

Nice try....

Are you saying it is ok to judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a few in certain circumstances, but not in others? Not sure what it is you think I was trying.

Is it the English language you struggle with?

(01-08-2014 08:14 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Is it the English language you struggle with?

I don't think so. Why do you ask?

(01-08-2014 06:28 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:35 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:29 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. BUT on the other hand...We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics. How is that supposed to work.....??????

Do 2 wrongs make a right?

Nice try....

Are you saying it is ok to judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a few in certain circumstances, but not in others? Not sure what it is you think I was trying.

Because that doesn't come close what he said.

(01-08-2014 09:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 06:28 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:35 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:29 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 05:23 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. BUT on the other hand...We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics. How is that supposed to work.....??????

Do 2 wrongs make a right?

Nice try....

Are you saying it is ok to judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a few in certain circumstances, but not in others? Not sure what it is you think I was trying.

Because that doesn't come close what he said.

So it was just whining about a perceived double standard? My bad.

So you do struggle with English. A simple yes would have cleared this up quickly.