They won’t be happy until they take all of our guns. DC a blanket ban and they have the highest crime rate and murder rate in the country. I wonder why California isn’t in there with the rest of these liberal blue states? How does it feel to be so lonely at the top Mr Cuomo?
Cuomo Stands Alone on 2nd Amendment
In arguing that the Second Amendment case now before the Supreme Court shouldn’t have any bearing on state gun control laws, Attorney General Cuomo is finding himself largely alone among state attorneys general.
Mr. Cuomo filed a brief, signed onto by only four other states and Puerto Rico, to the federal high court last week in District of Columbia v. Heller, which will be heard in March. In the case, the Supreme Court will review whether Washington, D.C., residents have a right under the Second Amendment to keep handguns at home for self-protection. The District of Columbia has what amounts to a blanket ban on handguns.
The question of whether states can regulate gun ownership is not at the forefront of the D.C. case. But gun rights proponents say a decision endorsing a reading of the Second Amendment that favors private gun ownership will lead to challenges of state gun control laws.
Mr. Cuomo’s brief is, in effect, an effort to limit any damage to the relatively strict handgun regulations in New York and some other states that might result from a Supreme Court decision favoring private gun ownership. The brief argues that the Second Amendment does not limit the power of state governments to regulate gun ownership.
The brief argues that the Second Amendment protects the rights of states to keep militias without interference from the federal government, and is therefore primarily about state sovereignty. In that sense, the brief suggests, a reading of the Second Amendment that put restrictions on what states can or can’t do “would dramatically alter the Amendment’s meaning and turn its federalism-grounded purpose on its head.”
That argument is a position frequently argued by supporters…
–snip–
The brief, prepared by Mr. Cuomo’s office, is joined by Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico…
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com …
var sc_project=1609654; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_partition=15; var sc_security=”26e26d49″;
13 users commented in " Cuomo Stands Alone on 2nd Amendment "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback“DC a blanket ban and they have the highest crime rate and murder rate in the country”
Sorry, but no.
Detroit, MI has the highest crime rate and murder rate in the country and Michigan has the least strict gun laws in the country. Baltimore is #2, followed by New Orleans, Newark, St. Louis…..
AND if you actually read the constitution, there is no personal right to possess firearms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is qualified by the preceeding phrases, mainly “a well REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
This amendment was never meant to give wacko’s the right to amass personal arsenals. It authorized organizations like the New York State Troopers, and the National Guard. It was meant to keep a balance between the Federal Government and State Governments, not give individuals the right to possess a firearm.
The Bill of Rights, according to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, applies only to the Federal Government. The first ten amendments, according to those who subscribe to the original intent theory of constitutional interpertation, acts as a limit on the power of the Federal Goverment only. They were not meant to restrict the powers of the States.
You want my gun? Come and get it.
And I’m the wacko…….
Veiled threats? you ARE a wacko.
And I never said I wanted your gun, I stated the constitutional philosophy of “judges who interpet the law instead of creating it.” That is one of the major planks of the Republican party, of which you are a member. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. Original intent philospohy is the philosophy that will reverse Roe V. Wade, but it also carries unintended consequenses, like the view that the second amdendment restricts actions of the federal government, not the States.
The 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.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a “collective right.” The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
The 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.
com·ma (k?m’?)
[Latin, from Greek komma, piece cut off, short clause, from koptein, to cut.]
noun
1. Grammar A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a SEPARATION OF IDEAS or of ELEMENTS within the structure of a sentence.
2. A pause or separation; a caesura.
3. Any of several butterflies of the genus Polygonia, having wings with brownish coloring and irregularly notched edges.
United States
Main article: Militia (United States)
The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there were usually few British regulars garrisoned in North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations.[27] Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but because of manpower shortages the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.
With the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, control of the army and the power to direct the militia of the states was concurrently delegated to the federal Congress.[28] The Militia Clauses gave Congress authority for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” the militia, and “governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”, with the States retaining authority to appoint officers and to impose the training specified by Congress.
Proponents describe a key element in the concept of “militia” was that to be “genuine” it not be a “select militia”, composed of an unrepresentative subset of the population. This was an argument presented in the ratification debates.[29]
To ENSURE THAT THE MILITIA COULD NOT BE DISARMED, a right of the people to keep and bear arms was recognized in the Second Amendment.[30]
The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, … every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock….
NYS Militia:
I have 14 years to embark on this journey. If called upon; I will be there to defend my family, help my friends, and uphold the Constitution!
“If called upon; I will be there to defend my family, help my friends, and uphold the Constitution!”
How? Defend against who? And what will you do with your gun?
I think what you are talking about is citizens being able to defend themselves against government tyranny. Considering our government has the most sophisticated armed forces in the world, with its stealth aircraft, nuclear submarines and predator drone aircraft with stinger missles on it, I highly doubt you will be able to defend anything with your shotgun and pistols… It is an illusion.
The fact of the matter is that most gun deaths are related to domestic violence. Somebody comes home drunk or pissed off, has access to a firearm, next thing you know, someone gets shot.
That and illegal guns on the street are what gun regulators are trying to protect the public from. This myth of an armed public defending freedom and upholding the constitution is nothing but NRA propaganda that people seem all to willing to accept. Wrap it in a flag and people will buy almost anything!
What part of ’shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?
Vermont, by the way, has NO state gun laws. Anyone who’s legal under federal gun laws can carry fully loaded and concealed anywhere in the state, courthouses, schools, etc. No permit or registration is required. In fact, state law prevents municipalities from implementing any gun laws.
As such, gun crime is almost non existant in VT.
Roger Thornhill
Editor
The Catskill Commentator
www.commentator.vze.com
First, define illegal guns? Even Mayors Against Illegal Guns web site does not state the make or models of these so called illegal guns…
Next, this country will fall someday just like the Greeks, the Romans, the Soviet Union did…The government is powerful and limited, but can be defeated in an infinite number of ways. Their is more to a nation than just its muscles. Tell the families that lost someone in the 911 attacks it was an illusion.
Your opinion and facts are crossing paths about homicides. Contrary to myth and misrepresentation, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly “blow-away” their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.
Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.
Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The “crime of passion” homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule.
Murder victimization is not egalitarian.
Selected U.S. Homicide Rates by Race for 2000 (per 100,000)
Race Total Non-gun
White-Non-Hispanic 2.76 1.31
Black 22.28 6.14
White-Hispanic 9.59 3.14
All U.S. 6.09 2.17
Homicide rates were obtained by using this page from the CDC: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html.
(It is hoped the reader of the above table realizes that race/ethnicity serves as a proxy for socio-economic factors.)
In 2001, firearms were used in 63% of homicides, and 49% of homicides were committed with a handgun (78% of firearm homicides were committed with a handgun). (For a breakdown of weapon types used, see page 23 of the 2001 FBI Uniform Crime Report [1995-2001 FBI UCR’s]). Although still unacceptably high, the U.S. homicide rate reached a 30 year low of 5.6 per 100,000 in 2001.
I define illegal guns as those guns who are in possession of someone who does not have a license for them. So perhaps it should be illegally possessed guns, rather than illegal guns.
License means to give permission. In the great USA, that permission is the 2nd amendment.
Leave A Reply