My position is the People, the Citizens, the Constituents of a State should have a greater say in what is allowed across their State line (or coastline). Through their Representatives, their voices and demands are carried. If a State carries out actions that run contrary to the will of its residents, the residents are poorly represented *(or flat out improperly represented) and should be able to correct that.

Exactly.

The state and its constituents should not be able to run contrary to the BoR.

Attached File

Wow

I’m going to show ignorance here,  but can the NY AG do anything to a company in another state.  Is this a state by state agreement type thing?

Ask Rainier arms. They are one of the dozen or so that were sued

More importantly, the Fed should not run contrary to the BoR with the postposition of “If they are in agreement, we cannot impede”. States should maintain the greater say based on the will of its residents (of the State).

What could NY really do to a company in another state seeking ammo to residents?
Would they raid the business in another state?

Could they make a lawsuit stick?

Isn't this what the interstate commerce laws are all about?

‘Majority rules’ is a dangerous proposition, especially when it comes to freedoms. The BoR was suppose to protect against that.

Those 10-12 companies bent the knee, so I’d say NY had ‘legal’ standing.

Maybe it does have something to do with it.  SD v Wayfair slippery slope?

It’s not a Majority rule concerning RKBA. It’s contention over interstate commerce.

You are saying interstate commerce and the states ability to regulate such is over and above the 2A?

I could see tying up the NY AG for a long time seeing up companies to sell for six months, shut down, then reopen under another name and do the same thing over and over. Like a shell game.

No. I am saying a State’s Rights should allow it greater say in what commerce they will or will not allow across its borders, that being based on the will of its Citizens. The RKBA is based on the Individual (to include EVERYONE, each person an Individual) so within the State, the RKBA allows for the possession of what might be regulated across State lines (the very thing).

ETA: Or, the State could be protecting its manufacturing base, based on the will of its Constituents.

That means the state can say no guns shipped to our state, while also having no gun manufacturers inside its border. And the people are just SoL, RKBA or not.

This train of thought is what gave us the many Import bans we have seen over the last 4 decades.


I’m of the belief that the state can restrict commerce on items that aren’t covered under the BoR.

How would law enforcement stop elected officials from passing laws?

Honestly, that is a possibility. In New York’s case, as with all the other States, the population decided it’s ok with it. Now, that also means the Citizenry can vote to change the local landscape or relegate themselves to living by decree. As far as SoL, if all else fails they are free to relocate, finding a location more in-line with their ideologies, that recognize Individual freedoms and run (more) congruent with those ideals as laid out by the BoR.

Eventually you will run out of places to run and hide

We choose to fight…..which we are…..and that benefits everyone

That’s reinforcing your position. What you’re suggesting is being divided and conquered.

Actually, no, the commerce clause exists to prevent protectionist practices by one state that can harm another and the people it represents. Why don't we have tariffs between the states? Tariffs are designed to protect a domestic manufacturing base. New York is not allowed to impose tariffs on Washington State apples to protect New York's orchards. so your argument that New York, or any state, should be allowed to regulate what products enter the state to protect domestic production is unconstitutional on its face. That is the history and tradition on trade and it goes back to ratification of the constitution. So what hat will New York hang its hat on? And according to Bruen, simply saying public safety does not cut it.

If they are taxing then I can see your argument *(that is to say - placing a customs tax upon targeted imported goods). If they’re not taxing but instead just “refusing to allow shipment of” then there isn’t an argument.

Fuck that. Seriously.

The BoR either means what it means anywhere, or it means nothing everywhere.  

What you are espousing is profoundly short sighted.  That is how you get picked off bit by bit.

Majority rule needed boundaries, that's why there is a constitution.   Why render it meaningless by having everyone move to the place where it's not needed?

Well for one they could say we won't enforce laws that are unconstitutional. Every cop I know, and I know hundreds, says CCIA is unconstitutional. We have sheriffs on record saying it is unconstitutional. If you enforce unconstitutional laws what does that say?

Police unions can also deny endorsements to politicians who pass gun control, and believe me they want those endorsements - especially the liberals. I know because I deal with them.

At some point police need to start standing up for the people they serve, not just their pay and pension. When they do, they'll find they have even more support from the public and when the public is behind you the politicians will follow. I'm not saying it will be easy, but more need to do it.

They can also stop with this "civilian" BS. It is that line of thinking that fosters a two caste system. The police ARE civilians. If you can walk away from a job at any time without fear of incarceration, you have your freedom and you remain by choice. If you can't, your ass belongs to the government until your commitment ends. You'd be surprised what BS gun laws wouldn't exist if the exemptions weren't written in, and that is why they write them in.

I see this with respect and without any intention to offend... you have to decide which you serve, the government or the constitution because they are not one in the same.

Short-sighted is not seeing that it’s happening whether you like it or not.

ETA: Simply put - Consider the discussion at hand.

ETAx2: We are beyond the discussion many are trying to have.

You lost me, what's happening?

Infringement

There is less infringement in this nation today than in the 70s or 80s or 90s.  Big picture, long term we're winning, and the success is accelerating.    I say this from one of the reddest counties in one of the bluest states.  They aren't all wins, and it certainly isn't fast but no objective person can say that things aren't getting better.

Bruen is a dagger to the heart of 20th century gun control.    Contrast the US to our neighbors, or allies around the world, we are the only ones moving in this direction.  

Do you also believe that the state has the ability to dismiss free speech as well? How about the right to privacy? Slavery?

No.  We most certainly didn't.

Bullshit, you clearly don't understand the constitution and what the commerce clause addressed. A tariff is meant to discourage and make the playing field uneven to benefit one side over the other. Both sides can compete, but not on equal footing. A ban prevents one party from participating, and takes the prohibit action (tariff) to a further extreme.

What you are arguing is akin to assault under the law is prohibited because it causes injury, but murder is OK because the victim is dead and doesn't suffer from the attack... even though the assault victim can recover and live on whereas the murder victim is forever out of the game of life.

Did you know the commerce clause was used to end discrimination against blacks who attempted to travel but were denied the ability to stay in lodging establishments, eat in restaurants, and take public transportation? So yes, if you ban an activity that has economic consequences that are multi-state there is decades of precedent that it is unconstitutional to do so. Now you might disagree with the expansiveness of the commerce clause and how it has been applied (and I might even agree with you to an extent), but there is no argument that NY's ban has an impact on interstate commerce and causes harm to businesses outside the state seeking to do business within the state.

First - mail order of ammunition is provided for under federal law.

Second - NY decides which businesses can serve as agents of the state and imposes regulations on them whose purpose is to deter ordering ammunition on-line as the records on what is purchased can be used to harass gun owners. To avoid shipping charges you often have to buy in quantity, and ammo dealers will likely require a fee for their time (as they should), what will this do to the price of ammo ordered on-line and will you get a visit because you bought 1,000 rounds of 9mm and the state thinks anything over 50 rounds is a red flag?

Third - companies like Target Sports are financially harmed by being deprived access to markets on a competitive playing field. Ammo dealers in NY can impose fees that make on-line sales prohibitively expensive and thus deter NYers from doing business with them and instead purchasing at a local B&M.

Fourth - lost revenue by companies such as Target Sports reduces tax revenue to the state. As NY can mandate that Target Sports collect and remit state sales tax, only the state where these businesses are domiciled suffers financially.

Here in IL I buy ammo all the time from places like Rogers, SOS, and True Shot.....go figure.

That’s why the BoR is over and above the mob rule of the states.

Go to NYC and prove it.

Attached File

So based on this and on your ‘role’ with the the Police in NY, how many police unions, police agencies, sheriffs associations and etc came out against  any of the SAFE acts in NY? How many refuse to enforce it?

There is an estimated 4% compliance rate with unSAFE out of a million guns. You have no idea how many times unSAFE IS NOT enforced. No record of that is made. No one goes and posts about the cool cop who didn't lock him up for his illegal magazine. No news stories about the out of stater who wasnt arrested for bringing his pistol into NY. NYS Sheriff's Assc. has been extremely vocal about not enforcing the unSAFE act. Most gun arrests are prior felons. I freely admit I have no idea what goes on downstate.  


Hocul received support from only 1 police union and it was in exchange for an upgrade to their retirement system. Every single other one that made an endorsement endorsed Zeldin.  

I agree with you on the civilian thing, but I also thinks its a silly thing to hang your hat on as being the thing that will restore our fundamental rights.

First - Can you get New York to agree (whether wholeheartedly or under duress) or maybe acquiesce to it?

Second - Will you as a private buyer take the necessary steps to counter such actions? More to the point, can you afford the action to?

Third and Fourth - Can Target Sports prove a substantial negative impact to the State or is the State willing to take up the fight on its Target Sports’ behalf to prove such? Is the amount actually substantive enough to prove a meaningful impact on the State’s economy?

NYC removed the right of pistol permit holders to bear their arms completely due to range restrictions and there being no ranges in the city limits.    They got taken to SCOTUS and were forced to change their laws.   That happened only a few years ago. That's a win.  That's an improvement and an expansion of freedom.  It's small, it's not a stopping point, but it's a win.  

There is no question that the deck is stacked, and the state will use our own tax dollars against us, that's the battlefield. I didn't chose it, but that's the fight.   So be it.

Rather than run away, and wait for demographics or a mass shooting to change the political reality in my next state, why not fight for what's right?  No state is immune from political change.  This is much bigger than where I can carry my gun.  A win in NY or CA is a win for everyone. Every major win has come out of "shithole" places with bad laws.  Heller from DC, McDonald from Chicago, Bruen from NY.    

The people you are telling to move are the reason you'll never have to.  

In another thread Hiram asked for people to join or support GOA, so I did.  I couldn't be more grateful that people like Hiram and Nolo are in the trenches with us.

who said anything about leo stopping officials from passing laws?

politicians can sign their name on any piece of paper they like. its no more useful than toilet paper without an armed force that can impose violence on those that don't agree to submit. this is where the cops come into play, if that wasn't already clear. i'm sure many of them know that what they are enforcing is wrong both from the standpoint of the constitution and out of simple respect for their fellow countrymen........but they do it anyway. and despite the claims made by the poster i was quoting, we have seen zero evidence of the good cops doing anything about it. which then raises the questions......where are the good cops? how many of them exist? and why are they not doing something about those they share a profession with potentially harming the rest of us merely for exercising our God given rights? maybe we'll get an honest answer about this here from the police officer that i was quoting

I'm sure the residents of OR, WA and CO said the same thing a few years ago.

Or RI and DE.

Next up? VA and MN?

You better start caring.

I can appreciate that but my challenge stands - Go to NYC and prove it.

The union you are speaking of has not received an upgrade to their retirement system. The downstate papers made it sound like the endorsement was in exchange for the legislation. If I had to make a prediction I'd say that the pension will will likely be vetoed as it was the past two sessions because it is a fiscal bill handled outside the budget.

There are more elected officials seeking endorsements than the governor - like every state legislator, and many of them were democrats who received endorsements from multiple police unions. But way to make one outlier your argument rather than the reality that withholding endorsements would certainly motivate legislators. How many dems who signed onto the CCIA received PCNY endorsements?

Prove that they are less infringed? I just did.

Keep up here. If you're just gonna say words this is going to get tedious.

I’m not going to argue over who’s dick is bigger. Simple fact - No one is going to NYC to prove it.

until NY fixes its own house, who really cares

A few negroes wanting to take a Greyhound bus through a state where they were unwelcome and stay in a flophouse - but were prohibited, probably didn't impact the economy of their homestate much.

When civil liberties, you know like the second amendment, are infringed upon and there is a commerce impact, the federal courts have shown a willingness to take up the issue. It need not be significant if the civil rights of the individual are denied.

Interstate ordering of ammunition is legal under federal law.

The Supreme Court has said the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and individual.

Arms include ammunition.

There is nothing that legally prevents me from driving across the border to PA to purchase ammo, and as far as I'm aware I can bring it back. How does preventing mail order ammo advance the state's interest if I can physically take delivery out of state and bring it home? Even if the state could define and articulate an interest, can they do so in a way that shows it outweighs my civil rights?

Respectfully, take some more time and reread (assuming you have read) Bruen, Suddaby 1 and 2, and Sinatra, as well as some of the many rulings around the nation post Bruen.

Some law enforcement entities/individuals are going to not enforce NY gun laws.

Some (more) are.

It’s an anti gun state.

I try not to treat any profession as if they are in lock step, because they rarely are. There are pro gun attorneys. There are probably more who are not. Most doctors are pro-covid vax. Some aren’t.

So give up?  

I'd really like to be able to carry in NYC....if I was ever unfortunate enough to need to go there.  We should make that happen, and along the way we will make the 2A more meaningful across this nation.   How is that not a worthy cause?

How is resistance to bad laws, governance and cynical political moves not always a worthy cause?    We have been blessed with an opportunity, and you're too beat already to take it?

I think the people that live in "free" states have forgotten how precious and temporary freedom can be.