holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Don't ruin it
NY veteran facing 21 years for having standard Glock magazines
- Thread starter Dr. Evil
- Start date
- Status
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Don't mess with me,
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I'm still waiting tough guy. Let's meet up. You pick the place somewhere in the woods. PM me with a location on a Saturday.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Probably busy helping Hillery with her campaign
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Substantive Due Process
The substantive limitations placed on the content or subject matter of state and federal laws by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In general, substantive due process prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties. By contrast, procedural due process refers to the procedural limitations placed on the manner in which a law is administered, applied, or enforced. Thus, procedural due process prohibits the government from arbitrarily depriving individuals of legally protected interests without first giving them notice and the opportunity to be heard.
Since 1937 the Court has employed a two-tiered analysis of substantive due process claims. Under the first tier, legislation concerning economic affairs, employment relations, and other business matters is subject to minimal judicial scrutiny, meaning that a particular law will be overturned only if it serves no rational government purpose. Under the second tier, legislation concerning fundamental liberties is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, meaning that a law will be invalidated unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government purpose.
The Supreme Court has identified two distinct categories of fundamental liberties. The first category includes most of the liberties expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Through a process known as "selective incorporation," the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar states from denying their residents the most important freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution. Only the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment right against involuntary quartering of soldiers, and the Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury have not been made applicable to the states. Because these rights remain inapplicable to state governments, the Supreme Court is said to have "selectively incorporated" the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The second category of fundamental liberties includes those liberties that are not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights but which are nonetheless deemed essential to the concepts of freedom and equality in a democratic society. These unenumerated liberties are derived from Supreme Court precedents, common law, moral philosophy, and deeply rooted traditions of U.S. Legal History. The word liberty cannot be defined by a definitive list of rights, the Supreme Court has stressed. Instead, it must be viewed as a rational continuum of freedom through which every facet of human behavior is safeguarded from Arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints. In this light, the Supreme Court has observed, the Due Process Clause protects abstract liberty interests, including the right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-dignity, and self-determination.
Substantive Due Process
The substantive limitations placed on the content or subject matter of state and federal laws by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In general, substantive due process prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties. By contrast, procedural due process refers to the procedural limitations placed on the manner in which a law is administered, applied, or enforced. Thus, procedural due process prohibits the government from arbitrarily depriving individuals of legally protected interests without first giving them notice and the opportunity to be heard.
Since 1937 the Court has employed a two-tiered analysis of substantive due process claims. Under the first tier, legislation concerning economic affairs, employment relations, and other business matters is subject to minimal judicial scrutiny, meaning that a particular law will be overturned only if it serves no rational government purpose. Under the second tier, legislation concerning fundamental liberties is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, meaning that a law will be invalidated unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government purpose.
The Supreme Court has identified two distinct categories of fundamental liberties. The first category includes most of the liberties expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Through a process known as "selective incorporation," the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar states from denying their residents the most important freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution. Only the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment right against involuntary quartering of soldiers, and the Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury have not been made applicable to the states. Because these rights remain inapplicable to state governments, the Supreme Court is said to have "selectively incorporated" the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The second category of fundamental liberties includes those liberties that are not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights but which are nonetheless deemed essential to the concepts of freedom and equality in a democratic society. These unenumerated liberties are derived from Supreme Court precedents, common law, moral philosophy, and deeply rooted traditions of U.S. Legal History. The word liberty cannot be defined by a definitive list of rights, the Supreme Court has stressed. Instead, it must be viewed as a rational continuum of freedom through which every facet of human behavior is safeguarded from Arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints. In this light, the Supreme Court has observed, the Due Process Clause protects abstract liberty interests, including the right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-dignity, and self-determination.
Substantive Due Process
I do see it...clear as day. Where you and I differ is you have faith that eventually good will win out wherein I have 30 plus years of experience that tells me at no point in this States history, regardless of party in power or who controls the Courts we've NEVER reversed a gun control law...never.
Tough to argue with history.
No kidding....
...and have since day one.
Now that we've agreed on that, give me an example where the Constitution was successfully applied In NYS to render a gun control law null and void.
Go ahead....I'll wait.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
It seems some people cannot grasp that. No kidding
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I can think of several times there were a bunch of states that resisted protecting their citizens civil rights. I do believe they eventually lost.
I'm not saying it has a chance of happening here, but I would love to see Trump send in the national Guard to protect an open carry protest in front of 1PP in NYC. They did it for a little black girl to attend school...
It will take some people like our much disparaged security guard from the OP to get there though.
I find it ironic that the same people who call him an idiot for resisting the law also call everyone else a "chest beater" for not doing so. So, which is it, should people resist, or not resist ?
I'm talking about NYS...not "some other States."
With regards to resisting, that's a personal decision. Me...prison isn't somewhere I'm itching to go over a standard capacity magazine. Unless and until we have actual armed resistance, we'll never know if chest thumpers will walk the walk. Until then, and if voting effort is any indication , I'd bet it's all Internet bluster.
With regards to resisting, that's a personal decision. Me...prison isn't somewhere I'm itching to go over a standard capacity magazine. Unless and until we have actual armed resistance, we'll never know if chest thumpers will walk the walk. Until then, and if voting effort is any indication , I'd bet it's all Internet bluster.
Chuck, suggest you save your breath. This is not an intelligent debate between rational people. It is a bunch of fanatics on a rant about what they view as an infringement on their rights. All they want to do is whine. None of them will actually put anything on the line other than hot air. NY has never and will never reverse any law that benefits the entrenched Democrap machine. The only hope is that an outside group that actually understands legal process to mount a challenge (as in Heller). Contrary to what they say, they will obey the law while attempting to make a criminal a poster child for gun rights. These children have been called out and challenged to do what they say is legal. They keep dodging and weaving trying to avoid the hard truth that they are keyboard warriors who can only call names and try and get anyone who calls them out and/or tell the truth banned. Glad they were not around in 1776, the Union Jack would be flying over the Whitehouse. They are what Washington called "summer soldiers". You would never have seen them at Valley Forge !
Hell they even hate the NRA, without whom we'd be in the same unarmed boat as the rest of the first world (excluding Switzerland)
Hell they even hate the NRA, without whom we'd be in the same unarmed boat as the rest of the first world (excluding Switzerland)
Day444
.223 Rem
Easy there big guy. There is no such thing as "hand out" help at the VA. Health care came with the oath, Veterans are entitled to it because they earned it! And most of us Vets will work hard to keep it! Granted at times it is not always the best care, and most of us Vets will work hard to change that.
If you want to insult someone, I ask you, please don't insinuate that they are a VETERAN.
If I mis-read or mis-interpreted what you posted, I apologize in advance.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Did I ever mention NYS? Its almost as if your answering a post from different forum . The US supreme court Has ruled in support of gun ownership before (Heller)and with new judges there's a possibility that it may be heard and overturned. Im not saying its going to happen for sure but sooner or later another state may try something like the safe act and force a decision on it .
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Nobody is argueing that fact. I haven't read one post where anybody ever said anything of the kind . I think we are all pretty much in agreement on that .
Day444
.223 Rem
Pretty much the same reason this post was started. It's a constitutional thing called the right to free speech.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
"Chuck I'm talking about NYS...not "some other States."
Get on the same page, nobody is saying any such thing , its a moot point , we all agree with it.
With regards to resisting, that's a personal decision.
No shit.?
Me...prison isn't somewhere I'm itching to go over a standard capacity magazine.
Well for most of here its a lot more than a magazine, Its a breach of law. Its a principle that many of us swore an oath to defend it with our lives if needed. We have put our lives on the line to up hold it like millions before us. Its called civil rights and millions of people have went to jail protecting them , this isn't any different.
Unless and until we have actual armed resistance, we'll never know if chest thumpers will walk the walk.
Nobody is chest thumping, and if the time ever came to resist using force , There would undoubtedly be plenty of people ready and willing to do what they had to do. Honestly its pretty fucking stupid to even suggest it at this point when we are only a few states willing to fight, pretty obvious it would be crushed with little trouble from the federal government. please stop assumeing we are fucking morons with a rifle looking for a fight. We re not. It has been a peacefull resistance so far , and it be nice to keep it that way . Armed resistance would be foolish at this point and most people here understand that . We are not at that point yet .Use of Arms would be the absolutely last possible choice .
Until then, and if voting effort is any indication , I'd bet it's all Internet bluster.
Get on the same page, nobody is saying any such thing , its a moot point , we all agree with it.
With regards to resisting, that's a personal decision.
No shit.?
Me...prison isn't somewhere I'm itching to go over a standard capacity magazine.
Well for most of here its a lot more than a magazine, Its a breach of law. Its a principle that many of us swore an oath to defend it with our lives if needed. We have put our lives on the line to up hold it like millions before us. Its called civil rights and millions of people have went to jail protecting them , this isn't any different.
Unless and until we have actual armed resistance, we'll never know if chest thumpers will walk the walk.
Nobody is chest thumping, and if the time ever came to resist using force , There would undoubtedly be plenty of people ready and willing to do what they had to do. Honestly its pretty fucking stupid to even suggest it at this point when we are only a few states willing to fight, pretty obvious it would be crushed with little trouble from the federal government. please stop assumeing we are fucking morons with a rifle looking for a fight. We re not. It has been a peacefull resistance so far , and it be nice to keep it that way . Armed resistance would be foolish at this point and most people here understand that . We are not at that point yet .Use of Arms would be the absolutely last possible choice .
Until then, and if voting effort is any indication , I'd bet it's all Internet bluster.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
No shit. But why is he on here insulting people who understand that nothin will change our laws short of SCOTUS but in the meantime will vote, "Not Guilty" if ever on a jury to create a mistrial?
4excal
.338 Win Mag
Of the 536 posts..about 30 are on subject
Day444
.223 Rem
I wouldn't shit you, you're one of my favorite turds.
As for your question, that is something only "he" can answer. I too feel this case will have to go to SCOTUS in order to make any difference. As I've posted before a mistrial will only lead to another trial, and that outcome is anyone's guess. If en paneled on a Jury in a case such as this, I'd reply with an undecided vote. Right or wrong he did break the law as it is written. But I don't agree with this law and feel it does infringe on my Second Amendment right(s).
I have not personally changed from someone who once could carry (openly) with three fully charged 17 round magazines. To someone who is now unfairly limited to 10 round magazines. Only my job title changed. Guess I am no longer trusted with the privilege.
Day444
.223 Rem
539, yup!
Holdover....it's tough, really tough to ignore your approach.
I put the challenge out there for ANYONE to provide me with ONE example of a Court in NYS or on the Federal level striking down a single enacted anti-gun law based on constitutional grounds that was enacted in NYS. If anyone can, please share with the class. If anyone, especially YOU can't, what are we talking about.
Anyone can post ad-nauseum quotations from the U.S. Constitution. It's all useless if you can't show how it's applied in our favor in NYS.
As far as resistance is concerned, you and I BOTH know what the "behind the scenes" meaning is. For those who don't get it, when the ballot box fails, and the jury box fails, all you have left is non-compliance and/or civil disturbance. Non-compliance = increased risk of being incarcerated. Civil disturbance = committing acts of violence in defiance. As we are all aware...protests are about as useless as they come. How people resist is simply up to them. No amount of constitutional quotes or "firing up the base" posts and speeches changes that factor. I'm good with whatever people decide but prison isn't a choice I'm willing to make. Smart people understand that in NYS the game is rigged and all you're accomplishing is your playing into the hands of the enemy.
33 years since I bought my 1st firearm and were still losing rights. Never mind we have "truth and the law" on our side. We've been decimated. No approach has provided relief let alone the benefits of constitutional protections. Doesn't that tell you something ?
I'd wager just about anything that if it ever went from bang to bullets, the fighting crowd would be rather small and uncommitted. NYS isn't the heartland of America in case you haven't noticed.
Good luck and having seen that you've mentioned at least a half-dozen times how you've taken "the oath" I'd like to thank you for your service to a mostly grateful nation. I've had the honor of being sworn in and taking the oath as well, I just don't use the experience to make political points.
I put the challenge out there for ANYONE to provide me with ONE example of a Court in NYS or on the Federal level striking down a single enacted anti-gun law based on constitutional grounds that was enacted in NYS. If anyone can, please share with the class. If anyone, especially YOU can't, what are we talking about.
Anyone can post ad-nauseum quotations from the U.S. Constitution. It's all useless if you can't show how it's applied in our favor in NYS.
As far as resistance is concerned, you and I BOTH know what the "behind the scenes" meaning is. For those who don't get it, when the ballot box fails, and the jury box fails, all you have left is non-compliance and/or civil disturbance. Non-compliance = increased risk of being incarcerated. Civil disturbance = committing acts of violence in defiance. As we are all aware...protests are about as useless as they come. How people resist is simply up to them. No amount of constitutional quotes or "firing up the base" posts and speeches changes that factor. I'm good with whatever people decide but prison isn't a choice I'm willing to make. Smart people understand that in NYS the game is rigged and all you're accomplishing is your playing into the hands of the enemy.
33 years since I bought my 1st firearm and were still losing rights. Never mind we have "truth and the law" on our side. We've been decimated. No approach has provided relief let alone the benefits of constitutional protections. Doesn't that tell you something ?
I'd wager just about anything that if it ever went from bang to bullets, the fighting crowd would be rather small and uncommitted. NYS isn't the heartland of America in case you haven't noticed.
Good luck and having seen that you've mentioned at least a half-dozen times how you've taken "the oath" I'd like to thank you for your service to a mostly grateful nation. I've had the honor of being sworn in and taking the oath as well, I just don't use the experience to make political points.
Last edited:
Stop "schooling" people here on what is being said, it's intended meaning, and to whom it was addressed to. We're having a conversation remember....
No one made you the Chairman of the Oversight committee.
Last edited:
Day444
.223 Rem
About this "Oath" that's been mentioned. Hate to tell anyone this but it ended with ones discharge.
The ideal may hold true, but the obligation has ended.
The ideal may hold true, but the obligation has ended.
eagleridge357
.223 Rem
?????????WHAT??????????????????????????
Day444
.223 Rem
My dad is well over 70, not much he hasn't driven. He'd leave you in the dust, unless it was night time.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. The mistrial will lead to another one. But what happens if that one is a mistrial as well. Look at the Cosby trial. They are considering not pursuing it any longer. We have that power but people are stupid and will vote guilty like the beaten dogs that they are.
@Willjr75 do you really think Andy will let this go? Not a chance!
This guys only hope is if and when the Un-Safe goes to the SCOTUS!
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
I aint schooling anybody but you. Your talking out of your fucking ass
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
That's a nice opinion but there is no expiration date on it and some of the people here still serve.
...and with one single post I've now confirmed my belief all along that in this conversation, you're out of your league.
- Status