Both feet are on that slippery slope

5
460
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

There is an aspect of New Yorks’s draconian new gun legislation that is actually more concerning than the violation of the Second Amendment, and I have not seen it mentioned anywhere yet. One of the provisions outlaws magazines with a capacity of over 7 rounds, and gives owners of “high capacity” magazines until next April to sell them out of state or turn them over to the state. In the world of law, precedent is everything. If the state can ex-post facto outlaw and force us to sell an item that was once legal, then by establishing the precedent, they can force us to sell anything they don’t want us to own. What happens when Il Duce, Adolph Cuomo decides that New York should lead the nation in saving gasoline, and outlaws 8 cylinder engines? Using the precedent set in the gun laws, he can force us to sell off any vehicle with an 8 cylinder engine. Cuomo mentioned mandatory “buybacks” or outright confiscation as an option. If the legislation is allowed to stand, then the state can order a mandatory “buyback” or confiscation of ANY piece of personal property. We need to take immediate action to overturn this legislation before it takes hold.

Share Button

5 COMMENTS

  1. I went and here’s how those proceedings went:

    Magistrate: “how do you plead”

    Don: “not responsible”

    Magistrate: “officer Dickhead, present your evidence”

    Officer Dickhead: “this, that, the other, blah, blah”

    Magistrate: “Mr. Cooper present your evidence”

    Don: “I’m not from Detroit, I’ve only been here for a couple months and from where I entered the highway to where officer Dickhead pulled me over there are no speed limit signs so I exercised the “Basic Speed Law” (which is the foundation of all speed limits in Michigan and other states) and drove at what I considered was a reasonable and prudent speed given the conditions.”

    (Here’s where we went down the rabbit hole)

    Magistrate: “not in Michigan”

    Don: “Not what in Michigan?”

    Magistrate: “that highway was built in 1940 and for years it was the model for a national … ” (I actually stopped listening)

    Don: “how was I expected to know the speed limit when there are no signs? It would be impossible. How would you do it?”

    Magistrate: “I find you responsible”

    Don: “can I appeal?”

    Magistrate: “Yes, you have to post a $120 bond to appeal.”

    And then I went to drink,and play kissy face with a married lady I’m seeing.

    How do you argue against IMPOSSIBLE? Are we expected to be able to do the impossible now as well because the safety of others depends on it?

    I’ll pay the $120 for the privilege (not a right) of a formal hearing so that what I say will be recorded and on record unlike the informal hearing last night. Then I’ll say everything I want to say and tell the old fart in the dress behind the bench what I really think.

    Even if I win the case, I still have to $100 to get my license back ( which I won’t. I can order a new one on the GA. DDS website for $5 ) AND I have to pay court costs.

    Court costs for something I didn’t initiate. Something I was forced to do. That’s like being forced to pay for your neighbor’s party because you’ve been accused of living next to him: it makes no fucking sense.

    The best part about dating a married women? You’re not expected to do anything special for Valentines Day!

  2. In Common Law, as is with any precedent, a single entry cannot create legislation. It’s up to the courts to deliberate on the merits of its standing. I’m aware that many ridiculous laws have been passed, primarily due to “safety”. But severe legislation to affect everything one can own, or even confiscation, will have the public jamming the courts in uproar. Such a thing will never come to pass, unless the gubberment ignores the courts and the people entirely – which is unconstitutional.

  3. That precedent was already set 80 years ago with the Gold Reserve Act (and probably other examples that didn’t pop into my head immediately). And many people ignored it just as I suspect many will ignore this law.
    Nothing new, sociopaths with guns dictating what others can and can’t do/own. This is what every govt evolves into, assuming it doesn’t start there to begin with.
    “Die the hero, otherwise live long enough to become the villian.”

LEAVE A REPLY