NY veteran facing 21 years for having standard Glock magazines

[SteyrAug]

Chuck, BRAVO ! Hot air never won any fight !

 

[@thewheels]

This is beyond funny. Endless posts trying to find some justification to break settled law. Entertaining to talk about but nothing will come of it.

It's like a bunch of old women talking about whose late husband was a better lay. Entertaining but going nowhere.

View attachment 14826

Are you drunk when you post? Are you high? Both?

More than half your pics and memes have nothing to do with what you've written ANYWHERE.

 

[SteyrAug]

I heard steyraug or whatever she calls herself is doing all this posting from under FUAC's desk. Sure does seem like a fan .
Might be rumor or innuendo, who knows though.

Oh boy, can't win the argument so I'm gay or a woman. What a sorry sack of shit you are as well as being terrified of gays. Probably as a result of some repressed desires.

Next winter come down to Key West and I'll introduce you to some the lesbians on our pistol team ...... who could kick your sorry ass on or off the range !

 

[dubleuhb]

I'm not in the habit of sticking my neck out for strangers but I've re-read every thread in this post and one thing comes to light immediately.

SteyrAug is speaking what clear minded people are thinking. The ratio of people who say they'll openly and transparently violate Unsafe are so miniscule that they don't bear consideration.

If you're HONESTLY telling me you're willing to get arrested, liquidate the majority of your personal assets to pay legal fees, allow your good name to be run thru the muck in the media, potentially lose your job, see your kids during visiting hours, and abandon your family because of a 17 round Glock magazine my hats off to you.

I look forward to reading about you in the papers, seeing you on the evening news, and pontificating about you on this forum. Only a fool would martyr themselves in such a fashion and honestly believe they've blazed a trail for fellow patriot gun owners.

I've placed bracelets on enough people in my day to know the vast majority of those who lose their freedom deeply second guess their decisions and cry like babies while in the holding cell, getting processed, standing in front of the Judge, or on sentencing day. While I can't say for certain, I suspect the majority of constitutional quoting persons on the forum when faced with the moment of truth would back down. Only YOU know what YOU'D do and if your honest with yourself, you wouldn't think twice about obeying even an unconstitutional law for no other reason than self preservation.

The majority of you aren't going to do jack but comply. Like it or not that's exactly what you'll do. Those of you who claim they won't, lead by example and march into your local Troopers barracks with your non-compliant AR sporting a 30 round magazine and a copy of the U.S. Constitution. When and if you get out on bail....have the balls to stop by here and let us know how you made out. I for one would be interested in knowing.

There are smart ways to fight Unsafe. Find one and move forward.

Whatever you want to believe have at it.
This guy has come here and insulted everyone he disagrees with, you seem OK with it good for you.
We all know what we are dealing with in this state, we don't need some guy carpetbagging from somewhere else telling us how to deal with it.
Twice he has told us he is done here but the troll in him can't help itself.

He gave his opinion, anything after that has been insults and an I'm better than you attitude, so fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Oh, that truck is not his, there are hundreds of pics of it floating the internet, so he's a bit of a story teller to boot so who knows what's true or not !

 

[Marine Cpl]

No, because there is already case law to protect that from occurring.

I want to play the other side for a second....

What exactly, what law has been passed in the past 10 years, in NY State, that has violated the 2A? Kind of a trick question, careful how you answer.

So what if there wasn't case law? I only used it as an example.

I'm not going to even indulge that question. Sorry. Pick any of them.

 

[dubleuhb]

Oh boy, can't win the argument so I'm gay or a woman. What a sorry sack of shit you are as well as being terrified of gays. Probably as a result of some repressed desires.

Next winter come down to Key West and I'll introduce you to some the lesbians on our pistol team ...... who could kick your sorry ass on or off the range !

So you were given permission to come up for air and respond, good for you, he treats you so well, now just go away like you said you would, be a "man" of your word.

 

[@thewheels]

The stretch of logic that's required for some of the conclusions that have been reached in this thread are beyond epic in the derp department.

It's safe to assume that everyone wants a decision from SCOTUS that will knock safe off the books and relegate it to recent history.
BUT... until that happens if it ever happens, jury nullification CAN keep people from getting convicted under the safe act. It is the ultimate power of the people to resist tyranny under unconstitutional laws.

 

[Chuck D]

Whatever you want to believe have at it.
This guy has come here and insulted everyone he disagrees with, you seem OK with it good for you.
We all know what we are dealing with in this state, we don't need some guy carpetbagging from somewhere else telling us how to deal with it.
Twice he has told us he is done here but the troll in him can't help itself.

He gave his opinion, anything after that has been insults and an I'm better than you attitude, so fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Oh, that truck is not his, there are hundreds of pics of it floating the internet, so he's a bit of a story teller to boot so who knows what's true or not !

You need to take a course on reading comprehension.

At no point did I state his insulting others, posting photos that make no sense, or trolling efforts were supported by me. Neither are the efforts of others to "square the account" with insults of their own. In the end run, you're all adults, do whatever turns your crank but don't expect your arguments chock full of sarcasm to play either.

What I DID say is that he, when he types a coherent and on point message, is saying what smart minded people are thinking and at that point in my post I expanded on my opinions.

I don't care about photos of a truck, an outhouse or whatever else he colorfully added to his posts. His belief that the majority of people who say they'll openly resist will have second thoughts when they seriously consider the outcomes of their actions. When he says this....he's right.

Kind of like having a conversation with your crazy uncle that every now and then offers up an tidbit that gives you pause to think or verifies what deep down the majority of people already know and know is true.

Ideas come from every corner of the globe. Don't discount them because they're not emanating from behind enemy lines.

 

[nortatoga]

No, because there is already case law to protect that from occurring.

I want to play the other side for a second....

What exactly, what law has been passed in the past 10 years, in NY State, that has violated the 2A? Kind of a trick question, careful how you answer.

Not really a trick question at all!! But a good one!!

 

[SteyrAug]

Don't hold your breath for either. It's just not on anyone's radar beyond this site.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Not really a trick question at all!! But a good one!!

Nope. The Constitution doesn't say that the right to keep and bear SOME arms or MOST arms cannot be enfringed.

 

[GOPerfect]

So what if there wasn't case law? I only used it as an example.

I'm not going to even indulge that question. Sorry. Pick any of them.

The way that our Court system works is actually kind of simple, complex, but simple.

Take Trumps executive order banning people from certain places. It is written in the law that what he put forth was legal. A Federal Court said, Nope. That court decision holds until the higher court changes the rule.

As for my question about what law(s) in NY in the past 10 years does everyone feel are not Constitutional, it was a serious question.

Is it that certain guns had to be registered? Altered? Magazine limitations? What laws?

 

[GOPerfect]

Nope. The Constitution doesn't say that the right to keep and bear SOME arms or MOST arms cannot be enfringed.

What arms are not being allowed?

 

[Marine Cpl]

His belief that the majority of people who say they'll openly resist will have second thoughts when they seriously consider the outcomes of their actions. When he says this....he's right.

Incorrect. Isn't voting, "Not Guilty" openly resisting? Or should we just comply and vote, "Guilty" because we are told to?

 

[@thewheels]

What arms are not being allowed?

Are you asking for a list that we can no longer own under safe act?

 

[Marine Cpl]

What arms are not being allowed?

If I want to outfit my family with an M4 select fire SBR due to the lightness of the platform with 30 round magazines along with silenced pistols, I cannot. My right to own those weapons have been enfringed upon by the state.

 

[Day444]

You have no right to free speech on a private forum. I thought you would Know that? Anyone of us can be censored or kicked off. Just the way it should be.

Yes, buy until that happens, my "right" as I see it has not been taken away. Yes, there are rules. One that prohibits or limits cursing but that doesn't seem to effect some who can't write a sentence with out it. One that even says play nice, but that is largely ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GOPerfect]

If I want to outfit my family with an M4 select fire SBR due to the lightness of the platform with 30 round magazines along with silenced pistols, I cannot. My right to own those weapons have been enfringed upon by the state.

I said in the Past 10 years. Select fire laws are based on Federal guidelines.

The Magazine restriction is not necessarily in violation of the 2A, neither id the Silenced part of your statement.

I bring this up because this is not always as Black and White as we want it too be.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The way that our Court system works is actually kind of simple, complex, but simple.

Take Trumps executive order banning people from certain places. It is written in the law that what he put forth was legal. A Federal Court said, Nope. That court decision holds until the higher court changes the rule.

As for my question about what law(s) in NY in the past 10 years does everyone feel are not Constitutional, it was a serious question.

Is it that certain guns had to be registered? Altered? Magazine limitations? What laws?

You have to understand something. The court can rule that speaking unless spoken to isn't a violation of the Constitution. It's still unconstitutional no matter what a corrupt clown court rules based on political ideology.

 

[GOPerfect]

Are you asking for a list that we can no longer own under safe act?

No, looking for what exact violations of the Constitution (2A) has Cumhole passed.

I had a really, really good conversation with a friend of mine who is a Constitutional Lawyer, we got on the SAFE Act and he was putting almost I said down due to the lack of specific arguments.

He was showing me and telling me how difficult it is to prove one has been violated by a law.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I said in the Past 10 years. Select fire laws are based on Federal guidelines.

The Magazine restriction is not necessarily in violation of the 2A, neither id the Silenced part of your statement.

I bring this up because this is not always as Black and White as we want it too be.

What the hell are you talking about? In the past 10 years? Is there a time limit? Aren't magazines or silencers considered weapons under Penal Law 265?

Are you arguing the point because you believe it or are you just trying to be a "Dick" as you've said before on other threads?

 

[@thewheels]

No, looking for what exact violations of the Constitution (2A) has Cumhole passed.

I had a really, really good conversation with a friend of mine who is a Constitutional Lawyer, we got on the SAFE Act and he was putting almost I said down due to the lack of specific arguments.

He was showing me and telling me how difficult it is to prove one has been violated by a law.

Your property can't be passed on to your heir? How is that constitutional?

 

[Day444]

""AGAIN nobody on this site is going to break any laws to become a poster boy for gun rights. It's BULLSHIT."" I think a lot of people on this forum have already broke the law. they just don't brag about. That would be a little stupid even for you

Depends on what laws you pick and choose.
Rode my bicycle in Rockland County with out a helmet, broke the law.
Ridden motorcycles up and down the street with out a helmet, broke the law.
Ridden motorcycles with no insurance or registration, breaking a few laws.
No muffler or baffles on a couple of bikes I've ridden, breaking the law.
Speeding down the Thurway, over the limit by at least 15 MPH, broke the law.
Fly my flag at night with out a light on it, breaking the code.
Dark tinted windows on my old car, breaking the law.
Carried a pocket knife into a VA hospital, broke the law.
Turned around in a school parking lot with a weapon on me, broke the law.
Sure I could add more, even us smart guys get stupid at times...

 

[Marine Cpl]

No, looking for what exact violations of the Constitution (2A) has Cumhole passed.

I had a really, really good conversation with a friend of mine who is a Constitutional Lawyer, we got on the SAFE Act and he was putting almost I said down due to the lack of specific arguments.

He was showing me and telling me how difficult it is to prove one has been violated by a law.

Looks like you need a new lawyer friend.

 

[GOPerfect]

Your property can't be passed on to your heir? How is that constitutional?

Where in the Constitution is it allowed? If not in the Constitution, it falls back to the State.

I brought that up as well. This is not as easy as some think.

If you tried to use that statement as an argument, you have to has a passage that backs it up (when fighting it in the SOCTUS).

 

[Chuck D]

Incorrect. Isn't voting, "Not Guilty" openly resisting? Or should we just comply and vote, "Guilty" because we are told to?

No we shouldn't but how often will we get the opportunity and remember, it takes more than one not guilty vote coming from a brainwashed populace.

Unfortunately this is our only option at this point.

Odds I wouldn't want to take.

 

[Marine Cpl]

And if magazines aren't arms like you say, can I have a Mossberg semi auto with an internal 12 round magazine?

 

[GOPerfect]

Looks like you need a new lawyer friend.

Why, he is more Pro gun and more Pro-Constitution than most on this forum. He was showing me the error of how most Americans think the Courts work. Just saying and thinking something is wrong does not make it so.

Sorry, I thought we could turn this stupid thread around and try to have a real conversation.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Where in the Constitution is it allowed? If not in the Constitution, it falls back to the State.

I brought that up as well. This is not as easy as some think.

If you tried to use that statement as an argument, you have to has a passage that backs it up (when fighting it in the SOCTUS).

It's infringing upon your son from not being able to legally get the arm he wants that's yours.

It isn't rocket science. He cannot get your Scar with 3 round burst.

 

[@thewheels]

Where in the Constitution is it allowed? If not in the Constitution, it falls back to the State.

I brought that up as well. This is not as easy as some think.

If you tried to use that statement as an argument, you have to has a passage that backs it up (when fighting it in the SOCTUS).

It's not an unreasonable seizure?