2nd Amendment takes a hit...

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by The Other David, May 13, 2005.

  1. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,556
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    But not a fatal one. This opinion may change.

    Court Upholds New York Gun-Licensing Law
    5/13/2005

    The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a Virginia man who said that New York state's gun-licensing laws violate the Second Amendment, the New York Law Journal reported May 10.

    The plaintiff, David D. Bach, who is licensed to carry a handgun in Virginia, filed suit because he wanted to carry the weapon while visiting his parents in upstate New York. After being told by New York State Police that he could not receive an exemption from state law prohibiting out-of-state residents from obtaining permits, he filed suit in the Northern District of New York.

    Northern District Judge Norman A. Mordue dismissed the suit, ruling that the Second Amendment "is not a source of individual rights."

    The three-judge appeals court unanimously upheld Mordue's ruling. "Although the sweep of the Second Amendment has become the focus of a national legal dialogue, we see no need to enter that debate," Judge Richard Wesley wrote in the opinion. "Instead, we hold that the Second Amendment's `right to keep and bear arms' imposes on only federal, not state, legislative efforts."

    Wesley wrote that the Second Circuit was thus joining five other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to states.
     
  2. Skip OK

    Skip OK Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Location:
    Oklahoma, USA
    Of course I have heard the "not an individual right" argument before, but here's a twist to it I'd like to see litigated.

    The tenth amendment to the Constitution says that powers not directly given to the federal government, nor directly denied the states under the Constitution are to be powers of the state or the people.

    The 2nd amendment CLEARY gives the power to keep and bear arms to SOMEONE; maybe the States and maybe the people, but clearly NOT the federal government.

    OK, if that is so, then each and every Federal law controlly the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. Either the States or the people have the right, and any power not denied to the State or directly granted to the Federals is a States right; therefore.....

    Feds are out of the Gun Control business!
     
  3. wigeonmeister

    wigeonmeister Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,732
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Arkansas
    If you truly believe in the individual state's right to self-govern, as so many Republicans argue for every time an election year rolls around, then you must recognize that it is the State of New York's right to reject this man's request to carry a handgun into NY, whether or not he's licensed outside the state.

    This law is really nothing new for New York. I was stationed at Plattsburgh AFB for 5 years beginning in late-1986, and they were strict about gun ownership then, particularly concerning handgun ownership.

    I don't like gun control laws any more than the rest of you, but you cannot expect the Feds to step in or step out depending solely upon how you feel about an issue.
     
  4. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    You mean that your personal interpretation of the Second Amendment has taken a hit, don't you David?
     
  5. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,556
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    DGH,

    Not as big a hit as my empty beer cellar! You owe me a case of beer, counselor!

    How are the babies doing?

    It's good to see you back!

    David
     
  6. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    Heh, that case of beer I owe you is the least of my troubles. I'll get it to you one of these days.

    The babies are good. Both are in good health. The boy still gives us trouble with his eating, as in he doesn't like to do it. Probably not a big deal for some babies, but when you start out as small as he did, every last calorie counts. That's been a continuing battle. But other than that, can't complain. Just bought a house at the coast in Rockport so I can get closer to the trout. Between the kids, the new house and workin' to pay for it all, not much time for anything else.

    You doin' alright? I thought you were moving or something to retire.

    What do you think about the .50 caliber bans? Certainly you aren't going to argue you have a consitutional right to own such a weapon, are you? Not even you.
     
  7. lwingwatcher

    lwingwatcher Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    25,164
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Location:
    Alma (central) MI
    Wait....lets see, first we ban the biggest caliber that we can think of with the most gory pictures of the damage that it can do....cuz we figure that there won't be much objection.

    We lay the groundwork and then we start down........40,30, 20.......
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    I suspect that he has enough sense to see the writing on the wall and is not foolish enough to have the desire to relinquish any of his rights....but, I don't know for sure...
     
  8. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    Oh, well then by that logic, we have a constitutional right to bear an M1A1 Abrams tank. What's the size of the gun on that thing, anyway?
     
  9. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,556
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    DGH,

    I keep talking about retiring, but I don't. Go figure. Still need to do some things, I guess.

    Took a bad spill in the boat about 2 weeks ago. Riding in the bow at 30 mph, hit a wake, etc, etc. You understand the physics. It is said stupid should hurt. Well, it did. And still does. Possible compression fracture right elbow, cracked rib, badly bruised tailbone, all still hurt badly. The other places are healed now.

    The case of beer may be the least of YOUR worries, but it is pretty high on my list! :l Don't send Shiner. I bought some on your recommendation and it is great beer. :yes But I can buy it here plenty easy. Think of something else.

    I don't have the energy for too much debate, but, here goes. Why should we ban ownership of .50 caliber rifles?

    Are they frequent tools in crime or terrorism? No. I don't know of any situations where they were actually used, although there may be one out there somewhere.

    Will they penetrate light armor? Yes, but so what? A 30-06 round will also penetrate the side of an M-113.

    Will they "shoot down" an airplane (at least the banners now qualify that as "while taking off or landing")? Yes, if the round hits a vital component, such as the pilot. However, a 30-06 round (and just about any centerfire rifle round) will also penetrate the thing aluminum skin of an airplane, as well as the thin skin of a pilot. The hitting of a moving airplane with a single round is a canard (why do they call a misleading statement a 'duck'?), anyway. The likelihood of hitting an airplane moving at 150 mph approaches zero, particularly from a mile away ("these rifles are accurate at distances up to a mile"). Up close I would use some that could pump out a lot of projectiles, like a shotgun loaded with buckshot.

    Do they have a valid recreational use? As valid as any other firearm, if not as widespread or popular.

    At least the Bradys are not calling them "Saturday night assault sniper rifles"!

    Is this the opening skirmish of another assault by the Bradys and their waterbearers to go after a broad class of firearms? Hmmmm. Largely unnoticed by the press and the shooting community were comments by some Brady personnel that banning pump action shotguns was "reasonable", and that model anti-assault weapon language proposed by a anti-gun legal organization included pump action rifles along with semi-autos.

    Ted (the Toad) Kennedy has already railed in the Senate about .308 caliber bullets being able to penetrate police body armor. The current legislative efforts largely reflect the arguments put forth by the Violence Polocy Center in their several reports. The VPC, in their report "Voting from the Rooftops" has already identified "intermediate sniper rifles" (I may have gotten the quote wrong, but its close) that come in calibers less than .50, specifically mentioning .308 and .30-06. The Remington 700 makes that list.

    VPC has also commented on the threat posed by selling of these tactical rifles to civilians, and noted that the distinguishing hallmark of sniper rifles is their "consistent accuracy, exceeding that needed by hunters". VPC also specifically noted that varmint rifles are "sniper rifles in civilian clothes". That should be a red flag for all rifle hunters.

    What would banning these rifles accomplish? It's not at all clear to me. You explain.

    In my opinion, such legislation does nothing to reduce the threat of anything, will require a lot of hoop-jumping by current owners, and lay the foundation for attempts to ban broad classes of accurate center-rfire rifles.

    We have yet to discuss the fact that rifled barrels on shotguns technically makes them rifles, shooting a projectile larger than .50 caliber.

    Are the babies gaining weight and in general good health? A very good friend of mine had a 2 pound baby back in February and they are all still struggling a lot. The little guy still has lots of problems.

    David
     
  10. deadgreenhead

    deadgreenhead Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    698
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Location:
    Texas, the greatest state in the nation before all
    David. You didn't answer my question.
     

Share This Page