New York is already a gun grabber’s wet dream of restrictions. What more can they really do?
Lawmakers in Albany consider how to make tight gun laws even tighter.
New York lawmakers are reviewing options to strengthen the state’s already muscular gun laws, with Gov. Kathy Hochul expected to unveil a package as soon as Wednesday aimed at shoring up remaining weaknesses in the aftermath of the Buffalo massacre.
At an appearance with President Biden in Buffalo on Tuesday, Ms. Hochul suggested that leaders should not merely blame “hateful philosophies” that she said had leached from dark corners of the web to mainstream cable news shows.
“You could have that hate in your heart, and you can sit in your house and foment these evil thoughts, but you can’t act on it — unless you have a weapon,” she said, adding: “That’s the intersection of these two crises in our nation right now.”
You can use a car, a bomb, you can get a gun illegally. Criminals do not care. But, the gun grabbers will use any excuse. Interestingly, the same lawmakers, and Gov Hochul, won’t be giving up their own armed security.
New York already has some of America’s strictest gun control laws, including requirements for background checks, restrictions on assault rifles, and red flag laws. New York has one of the lowest rates of gun death and injury in the country, according to the nonprofit New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.
Red flag laws? Background checks? Those failed, despite the loony being investigated for serious threats
“You just want to close every potential loophole,” said Assemblywoman Amy Paulin of Westchester.
Ms. Paulin is the sponsor of a number of bills she believes would help make New York safer. One would require local law enforcement agencies to promptly contribute information on recovered weapons to a federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives database, which would allow better tracing. Another would allow New York to do its own background checks, instead of outsourcing the process to the F.B.I.
What would the first do? The gun is recovered. Doing their own backgrounds requires the information to be reported in the first place, and, you can see lawsuits if NY slow walks the checks.
Other measures would institute new requirements for gun dealers, including better record keeping and increased staff training.
Which would do what? The NY Times doesn’t say because there’s no rational reason.
But advocates have questioned whether New York’s existing laws could be better implemented.
Under New York’s so-called red flag law, for example, relatives, school officials and law enforcement can ask a court to remove guns from the home of a person at high risk of harming themselves or others and prevent them from buying new ones — a prohibition that can last as long as a year. But the law was not invoked against the suspect in the Buffalo attack, even after his threat to murder and commit suicide alarmed a school official enough to alert police.
There are plenty of laws. If you do not implement the laws correctly, more laws won’t help. Really, the idea is not to solve anything, because then they can’t bloviate. Politicians rarely want to fix a problem.
Now, perhaps they can talk about all the people that shoot each other in NYC.
Perhaps a better deterrent would be a swift trial and execution for any convicted murderer.
A thought.
#LGBFJB
Bwaha! Lolgf
New York does not have capital punishment. While the federal government does, and could federalize the case against the Buffalo shooter, Joe Biden is opposed to capital punishment, or at least capital punishment against those already born, so it’s difficult to see how the feds would seek a death sentence.
Our Constitution clearly states, and our Supreme Court confirms, that ANY American resident can keep and bear any Arm they damn well want. It is a right granted by the government to the people!
Second Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This is the sum total of our Constitution’s instruction on arms! Nothing about the state being able to regulate machine guns, assault weapons, grenade launchers… nothing about the age of the bearer, nothing about the mental state of the bearer, nothing about armor piercing rounds, nothing about limiting the number of rounds, nothing about barrel length, nothing about caliber limits, nothing about the type of actions, nothing about guns in schools or airports or airplanes or stores or businesses or churches, nothing about citizenship, nothing about felons… all these restrictions are unConstitutional!
Where does a commie school district get off keeping a 4th grader from carrying his Springfield Armory Hellcat Micro to fend off trans groooomers??
Where does a state get off taking guns away from convicted felons and illegals??
What part of the “shall not be infringed” do the gun-grabbers not understand?
Anyway, it’s the previous liberal, activist Supreme Courts that let these “laws” stand. No more, baby. There are new sheriffs in town and their names are Barrett, Kavanaugh, Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas. And these justices are Strict Friggin’ Constructionists! They don’t read no BS into the words of our Founding Fathers! And five is still greater than four!
More guns, less crime! Do your own research! OPEN YOUR EYES, PEOPLE!
The sarcastic Mr Dowd wrote:
From the Fourteenth Amendment:
Emphasis mine.
It is the Fourteenth Amendment which allows the states to restrict a person’s constitutional rights if that person is convicted of a felony.
The Court has also said that minors are not in full possession of constitutional rights, and we hold minors to not be fully responsible for adult violations as well.
Illegals? If someone is here illegally, he is a criminal! Drag him into court, convict him, and then deport his butt!
As Strict Constructionists we must see Constitutional justification, not just a court decision which can be reversed on by whim. The courts spew many things.
Where does our Constitution grant full personhood by age? Is it at conception, birth, 18, 21, 35? We will abide by the words of our Constitution and as amended.
The 14th Amendment allows the state to take the life of a citizen as long as due process is followed.
A person being in the U.S. without proper documentation is not a crime but IS a civil violation. The person, (if they have full personhood as granted by the Constitution??) can be deported. But there is no criminal penalty involved. The 14th also says all persons (not just citizens) must be granted equal protection of the laws.
So confusing! No wonder we need the Supreme Court to explain it to us!
What if a future Court concludes that the 2nd Amendment does not protect semi-auto actions?
Mr dOwd wrote:
Except, of course, to live in the United States without documentation you must commit all sorts of other crimes.
If you work for cash under the table, you are violating income tax laws.
If you work at a legitimate employer, you will have had to present falsified documents for your ICE Form I-9. This means you have lied for a federal document, and have suborned forgery.
Being in the U.S. without proper documentation is not a crime but IS a civil violation.
Gee Whizz, Elwood found another truffle. Two, actually.
Yes, the 2nd amendment essentially supersedes the states as it directly defines the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people. The devil is in the details and we can discuss minutiae ad nauseam. AND, again Yes, ‘More Guns, Less Crime’. That’s the title of a rather dry book on the subject by John Lott giving actual statistics in detail. He has published since, updating his findings, but the same result.
The issue of the article is around the totalitarians in NY and the suppression of the lawful citizenry, not the control of criminals. The are more than enough laws, simply enforce at least the ones that remove dangerous criminals from the streets and safely secure them. There is no need to encumber the citizens with more oppressive laws.
UnkleC snuffles up some truffles of their own!
Dr Lott’s (aka Mary Rosh) research is sloppy to say the least and seems driven by his right-wing politics. He even worked for DonJon tRump’s DOJ to root out truffles (tRump votes!). Lott’s “survey” on the effectiveness of brandishing a gun fell victim to Dr Lott not being able to find even one bit of the raw data or remembering who conducted the study for him. Ahem. NOTHING that Dr Lott has published proves that More Guns mean Less Crime. Nothing. Look at real data from around all the advanced nations on Earth. Where is the highest crime rate? You know the answer.
Anyway, I was agreeing that ALL state laws against guns are unConstitutional! Justice Scalia was wrong. The 2nd Amendment is perfectly stated and perfectly clear. The gubmint has overstepped their bounds by restricting machine guns, grenade launchers, magazine capacity, background checks etc. None of which are in our Constitution!!
Show the verifiable documentation.
Mr Dowd thought he was being sarcastic, but he really wasn’t:
The Constitution gives to Congress the authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal, which is, essentially, to hire privateers. The Framers clearly anticipated that there would be private owners of ships of war and cannon, and approved.
Yep. You tagged it.
Then follow the law and try them for the crimes they are believed to have committed.
Being in the U.S. without proper documentation is not a crime.
Mr. Dowd: Being in the U.S. without proper documentation is not a crime.
Sure it is. Where do you come up with this shit? Who tells you this nonsense? Entering the US without a visa is illegal. It isn’t a felony but it’s still illegal. That’s why we have visas Mr. Dowd.
But what the illegals have to do to live here are felonies.
Working for cash without paying taxes, is income tax evasion, which is a felony.
Using forged documents to get a legitimate job is a felony.
Using forged documents to open a bank account is a felony.
Using forged documents to get a driver’s license is a felony.