[[Stop saying the NRA won! We lost.]]
Precisely- millions of Americans send the NRA perhaps billions of dollars, and what dfo they get when their second amendment rights are taken away? A Freaking Ad? An ad that WILL and IS backfirign on them big time?
For crying out loud- the NRA shoudl be calling ALL it’s NY members together as we speak, rallyign htem to stand up for their rights and encouragign them to refuse to pay their NY state taxes until either cuomo resigns in disgrace or he recinds his ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill- But instead, all we get are timid little do nothign ads that won’t amount to a pisshole i nthe snow?
HEY NRA- NY’ers Just Lost their second amendment rights- take your ads and stuff them!!!
New York just made challenging magazine limits very much easier.
It was already going to be a job to convince a federal court that somehow New Jersey found a compelling reason to limit magazines to 15 rounds while Kalifornia found a compelling reason to limit magazines to 10 rounds.
Now New York is in the position of having to claim that they have a compelling reason to limit magazines to seven rounds. Not only that, but, if I understand the new law, New York will have to explain how they have a compelling reason to limit magazine capacity on the honor system; that is, New Yorkers will be allowed to keep 10 round magazines but they must only load 7 rounds.
Just like the cartoons that show a bad guy retreating because he sees a "gun free zone" sign, we will now have cartoons showing a bad guy faced with the moral and legal dilemma of whether to load 10 rounds or only 7 into his illegal gun.
I would not be surprised to see the Second Amendment Foundation filing a case soon challenging this ridiculous law.
This would only be a problem if one can imagine ANY Supreme Court Justice being able to justify a particular limit on magazine capacity.
The anti-gunners are here faced with a problem which is similar to those for which a mathematical proof by induction is used.
The first step is to recognize that our Founders most certainly were protecting firearms capable of firing ONE round and that they could certainly foresee that additional capability would be added in the future.
The second step is to recognize that the difference between a gun which can fire ONE round before reloading and a gun which can fire TWO rounds before reloading is only a SINGLE round.
Step three is recognizing that adding just a single round to the capacity of a gun can't possibly represent an increase in public danger sufficient to infringe the right to keep and bear such an arm.
In other words, if the Second Amendment protects having a gun which can fire TWO rounds before reloading, then no sensible argument can be made that the Second Amendment does NOT protect a firearm capable of firing THREE rounds.
The only counter-argument that I can think of would have to involve simply choosing an arbitrary number, much like New Jersey, Kalifornia, and now New York have done.
One might just as well ask how many words may be printed in a newspaper before the First Amendment no longer applies.