Posted on 01/29/2013 9:06:51 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
CLARENCE, N.Y. (WIVB) - In Clarence, tempers flared as gun-owners met with state officials to talk about the New York SAFE Act.
The Clarence library was packed with around 200 people in an area meant to hold 90. Many acknowledged they only turned up to protest. But some, while opposed to the law, just wanted questions answered.
The point of the meeting was to answer questions about New York State's new restrictions to gun ownership. And that's why Vincent Dewind was there.
"Some came to protest. I came to learn about the law," he said.
He by no means supports the law.
"The state passed an ill-conceived law that they haven't fully thought through. And there will have to be some serious changes to it," Dewind says.
But he found the often-raucous two-and-a-half-hour meeting helpful. Many people had specific questions about weapons they own - whether New York would classify them as assault-style.
If their weapon is classified as assault-style, they must register it with the state by April 15, 2014, or permanently modify it so it once again is deemed legal. Some at the meeting indicated they have no intention of complying.
"What is the penalty if you do not register? Because I guarantee there is a lot of people who aren't going to," one man said.
And some questions had complicated answers.
"You're next question is, are you going to be arrested? I can't answer that. It would be up to the officer you encounter. They would have to decide," said Mike Green of the Division of Criminal Justice Services.
Some people got very heated with their questions, complaining that law-abiding people are getting punished.
"Now you're turning them into criminals. You're making them angry. And when angry people get together they form militias, folks," one man said.
But Dewind says he plans to follow the law he disagrees with.
"You have to stay level-headed. I want to stay within the law. I'll have to register my guns if it's necessary, and we'll go from there," Dewind said.
On Tuesday, a western New York lawyer filed a lawsuit claiming the SAFE Act to be unconstitutional, saying it takes away rights of those who have done nothing wrong.
There's not much that's really permanent.
Oh, what could possibly go wrong there?
"You have to stay level-headed. I want to stay within the law. I'll have to register my guns if it's necessary, and we'll go from there," Dewind said.
What an idiot! The next trip for Dewind is to hand in his guns when ordered, in order to "just stay within the law". What an idiot.
The Nazi criminals at Nurembourg trials claimed they were only following orders. The conclusion coming out of that logic is that you cannot hide behind following illegal orders or laws. NY State & Cuomo passed an illegal law against our 2nd Amendment, which automatically means the "SAFE" Act is an illegal set of laws and should not be obeyed under any circumstances.
it seems to me any restrictions on guns runs right into the supreme court ruling....
As a brilliant FreePer posted earlier, “There’s no way to rule innocent men.”
(from Atlas Shrugged).
Don't think so.........
The match is lit, and the fuse is but inches away...
For example one can litigate, one can offer peaceful civil disobedience, one can move to a location where the laws are not unjust, one can organize politically to change the laws, etc. Forceful disobedience is not the only option. Actually, some things are historically more effective.
"If you don't get on this train car now you will be in violation of the law. Schnell!"
So what government official registers the rifle?
If it is a county sheriff he could refuse to staff the position that accepts the registrations.
“Sorry I just don’t have the money in my budget to staff an extra position to implement your extra constitutional law.”
“What an idiot! The next trip for Dewind is to hand in his guns when ordered, in order to “just stay within the law”. What an idiot. “
It is possible he is an idiot. It is also possible he is not telling the truth so as to prevent his ass from being targeted.
I’d say odds are 50/50.
There is nothing like selective enforcement of an unconstitutional and immoral law to ensure it leads to the obvious end result.
< it seems to me any restrictions on guns runs right into the supreme court ruling....
To be heard by John Roberts who will have O’s henchmen hanging around in the background waving pics of Robert’s gay past to “remind” him what his decision should be...
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.