Posted on 06/06/2004 4:23:18 PM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
Governor Pataki attempted to insert the pistol license proposal from A-9556A/S-6056A into an emergency appropriations bill used to keep the state operating until the budget is passed. Do not stop calling Albany!
Included in Pataki's 2004-2005 budget is a proposal to REVOKE ALL LIFETIME LICENSES, impose 5-year renewable pistol licenses in all counties outside of New York City, Long Island, and Westchester, charge a $100 state fee on all pistol licenses, charge a $25 state fee on all amendments to the license, and allow local jurisdictions to impose addition fees as well. It would also allow licensing agents to review your license and make any changes he sees fit, and requires license holders to list ALL PERSONALLY OWNED FIREARMS.
All gun owners need to contact the Governor and state legislators immediately. Current bill numbers are Assembly bill A-9556A and Senate bill S-6056A.
Send this one to the Bang List!
Good thing New York has a Republican governor who believes in .........
What is the deal with the Bang List? I tried to send this article to the Bang List and it isn't posting there. What gives?
Molon Labe!
No, a CONSERVATIVE, Republican governor, you big ham, you! Of course, in New York State, the alternatives are between a "conservative Republican" who limits and taxes the RKBA, and a socialist like Schumer, who would pass a second unconstitutional Sullivan Act, covering the entire state. Or for that matter, a Republican like Giuliani (derided by New York socialists as variously "a rightwinger" and "a Nazi"), who would do ... exactly the same. (Although Giuliani would carve out exceptions for his cronies, as he did when mayor.)
It's too bad you New Yorkers don't have the benefit of the Bill of Rights. How'd that happen anyway? Must have been some democrat's idea of "freedom"
Translation: If you can't afford a license you're not entitled to live. No money, die in the streets.
How humane and considerate of them. Next thing you know they'll be taxing the shovel they hand you to dig your own grave with.
Peasants don't need guns, their lives are not worth defending. Only the Shoguns and the Samurais need firearms.
Even then the last Samurai handed his sword over to the emporer. Then they went from bad to worse, culminating in the growth of two large mushrooms. There has to be a lesson there somewhere. ;>)
Pataki is trying to do what the Germans did with their 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition--- but unintended consequenses resulted in Hitler and it became a "suicide pact."
I don't see that in our future. Bad outcomes perhaps, but the peasants won't be disarmed without a struggle.
I don't look for the natives to be dis-armed even WITH a struggle.
Good point.
This needs a bump!
OK guys. I agree with you guys on most things politics wise but help me out with this as I've never understood it.
'A well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State,'
That to me implies that those with guns need to be 'well regulated'. Surely, proving you are not a criminal before allowing you firepower is no bad thing?
I ask not to stir up an argument, but to honestly understand. We in the UK have no tradition of the 'right to bear arms', the consequence is that any gun crime at all is the exception and always headline news. Our police are unarmed, and as a consequence so are most of our crimials (knives being the preffered weapon in hold ups). I think this is a culteral gulf that doesn't cross the atlantic. Neither I nor anyone I know own a gun. The only time I have ever had one is while waring uniform. Is it a case that guns are so widespead in the criminal community that you would not feel safe without one yourselves? If so, then out of interest if you were in the UK where it is not the case that guns are widespread - would you advocate we move to wider gun ownership or stay where we are?
In 1780, "well regulated" meant efficient or running as designed. A "well regulated clock" kept good time, for example. A "well regulated militia" was a militia which could turn out quickly with each man well armed etc.
And in any event, the first clause does not altar the meaning of the second. "The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Whether or not the moon is made of green cheese does not change the meaning of the primary clause.
Another example: "A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
The anti-gun argument in this case could be twisted to mean that only well-educated citizens with the right to vote could keep and read books, and that the state could restrict the right to keep and read books by determining what constitutes a "well-educated member of the electorate."
See? This clause does not effect the primary clause: "the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
It's also critical to understand that in all of the other constitutional amendments in our Bill of Rights, "the people" means "the people," not members of some government-approved subset of "the people."
That to me implies that those with guns need to be 'well regulated'.
The phrase 'A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,' is just a statement of the Founders' belief. It does not say to do, or not to do anything.
'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' is the phrase whose meaning should be self evident.
At the very least, the Second Amendment means that every adult American should be allowed to keep firearms in their homes and bear them when they travel in public.
Many States have such laws and their crime and murder rates compare favorably with those States and cities that infringe such activity.
Surely, proving you are not a criminal before allowing you firepower is no bad thing?
I don't have to prove I'm not a criminal before I'm allowed to exercise the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or the right to Fourth Amendment protections.
Why should anyone have to prove they're not a criminal to exercise the right to keep and bear arms?
The reason for this is simple: criminals in the USA freely admit they are much more afraid of armed victims fighting back, than they are of the police.
I think it's vastly more likely that a Brit will have his home invaded, for example. Not only are Brits unarmed by law, but (as in the Tony Martin case) if you fight back too hard and kill a criminal, you will go to jail yourself.
Personally speaking, I would not want to live in a country where the government didn't trust me to be an armed citizen, but only a disarmed "subject." I don't want to live in a country where criminals can beat you with clubs, but if you pull a knife and kill one of they, you are arrested.
But to each his own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.