Cuomo on court ruling

5 thoughts on “Cuomo on court ruling

  1. So which of their oponents see the unsafe act as “working”? And are they going to revisit it and try to make it worse yet? What incredible drugs are there that can cause this level of delusion? This guy needs to put down the crack pipe and get into a rehab. You stay that high that long and its got to do stuff to you.

  2. What compromise is Cumhole talking about? We got nothing. What he must mean is the increased penalties for crimes commited with a firearm that was put in by Repubs and opposed by the commies. In short, THEY DID NOT WANT TO PUNISH / PREVENT “GUN VIOLENCE”. They were interested only in destroying their political enemies. “NY SAFE” comes right out of Uncle Joe Stalin’s play book. Their constituents’ problem is that if it weren’t guns slithering into the rooms of their honor student children at night, possesing their soles, and compelling them to kill everybody in drug deals gone bad – they would all be brain surgeons.

  3. How can you “compromise” when it was passed in the dark with NO ONE reading it?

    And he’s right, they struck down 7, which strikes, 10….Heller and Miller…common use and availability….

  4. P.S.
    “Welcome to New York! Where we mock judicial review, because it applies to everyone else, but us!
    You’re Under Arrest!
    Czar Cuomo”

  5. Jon brings up a couple of outstanding points. First, if 7 is arbitrary, what is not arbitrary, and why (common use)? But more interestingly, the reference to Miller. Scalia, in the Heller opinion, summarily dismissed Miller. Briefly, Miller decided that a weapon must have military or militia value, which the sawed off shotgun (they decided) did not. Extrapolating forward, it must also not be dangerous, and unusual. This would cast the core of 2A as a militia of the people to address the emergence of tyranny or foreign invasion – coupling the prefatory and operative clauses, as Scalia deemed necessary in Heller. He then again, considers the outcome of an M16 being protected by 2A as “surprising”. He then goes on to say that in order to link the prefatory and operative clauses, something more than weapons in common use might be necessary. It is my belief that the test would be a weapon that is issued to all military personnel, as such, not unusually dangerous but having militia value. This would be an M16 (DISCALIMER: DO NOT GO OUT AND OBTAIN ONE!!) as opposed to a shoulder fired missle. CERTAINLY, AN AR15 WOULD PASS THIS TEST. GREAT POINT JON!

Comments are closed.