Of course it did. It’ll pass the full House as well. The only question is if the Senate will vote on it or not.
Standard capacity
The author of the bill must be high.
As per standard.The author of the bill must be high.
If it gets to the senate, and it comes up for a vote, it will have poison pills attached to it where even the democrats will vote it down
I think as a practical matter courts don't really like--and may be literally unable to as part of procedure--give an opinion on whether something is or isn't going to be legal until it's gone through a court case. Kind of like how a person may not be able to pick a law and force it through the courts until they are actually a defendant against it; until it has done them some harm.Heres something I dont understand.
Would it not save millions of dollars, hundreds of hours of time and just be a better process for proposed laws to pass legal muster BEFORE they are signed into law?
For everything we citizens do we must first find out if said thing is legal....put an addition on your home, build a pistol, own a pet, methods of hunting, building an airplane......
Why dont politicians have to make sure their proposed laws are legal?
Passing a law....THEN running it through the court system just to either be refused by SCOTUS or sit in limbo for years seems like a huge waste and nonsensical.
It would seem to me that such a state of affairs is indicative of having too many laws on the books in the first place.I think as a practical matter courts don't really like--and may be literally unable to as part of procedure--give an opinion on whether something is or isn't going to be legal until it's gone through a court case. Kind of like how a person may not be able to pick a law and force it through the courts until they are actually a defendant against it; until it has done them some harm.
Furthermore considering how many bills are never passed if they had to pre-vet them and get some sort of an opinion, it would likely require even more in the legal system, since they'd be vetting a lot of bills that don't have enough votes to pass anyway.
Im saying put them through a court case.I think as a practical matter courts don't really like--and may be literally unable to as part of procedure--give an opinion on whether something is or isn't going to be legal until it's gone through a court case. Kind of like how a person may not be able to pick a law and force it through the courts until they are actually a defendant against it; until it has done them some harm.
Furthermore considering how many bills are never passed if they had to pre-vet them and get some sort of an opinion, it would likely require even more in the legal system, since they'd be vetting a lot of bills that don't have enough votes to pass anyway.
Wide scale lack of compliance. It killed prohibition.Im saying put them through a court case.
Most bills would not need a court case because MOST are clearly legal, even if unpopular.
This would also force politicians to understand what is in a bill.
Remember Pelosi saying, "sometimes you need to pass a bill to see whats in it."?
Many bills that are passed are clearly unconstitutional and could be struck down or rewritten prior to becoming law.
Right now liberal crook judges and prosecutors will lower criminal charges just to keep the law out of the courts.
Thats about as corrupt as you can get.
Cuommo knows the SafeAct is unconstitutional and his biggest fear is that it gets to SCOTUS.
An illegal law can spend years in court and cost millions of taxpayer dollars.
Im just throwing things out.
Maybe just have a fast track way to bring questionable laws to court sooner and give SCOTUS less power over what they accept.
If you are arrested for a constitutionally questionable crime, expect to pay 10s of thousands of dollars in smaller courts to bring it to SCOTUS.
So, if any of us here are arrested for a SafeAct violation, we have to just take the punishment, including loss of 2A rights for life.
There has to be a better way.
Its not enough to just not comply.Wide scale lack of compliance. It killed prohibition.
I'm not an NYer anymore but get that many involved I'll come along.Its not enough to just not comply.
You need to flaunt it.
Get 10,000 NYers to carry their non-compliant MSRs in the open.
Does PSA still have PMAgs for $7.99 with free shipping if you buy 10?
Also, they are delusional if they think 100 million mags is the true count.
This statement is what is wrong with conservatives and some Republicans, just because you use common sense doesn't mean liberal Democrat's and Rinos have any let alone use it!Heres something I dont understand.
Would it not save millions of dollars, hundreds of hours of time and just be a better process for proposed laws to pass legal muster BEFORE they are signed into law?
For everything we citizens do we must first find out if said thing is legal....put an addition on your home, build a pistol, own a pet, methods of hunting, building an airplane......
Why dont politicians have to make sure their proposed laws are legal?
Passing a law....THEN running it through the court system just to either be refused by SCOTUS or sit in limbo for years seems like a huge waste and nonsensical.
Does PSA still have PMAgs for $7.99 with free shipping if you buy 10?
Also, they are delusional if they think 100 million mags is the true count.
Still people who think they can run away to a “free state”. No matter, federal democrats are right behind them with national legislation.I say good. Let it pass. I've said it before. More good deals on guns, and let the other states feel our pain and see how apathetic they are compared to the Northeast. Maybe they can get something done.