As one of the plaintiffs of this suit, we were told this will end up going to the highest court in NY. Meanwhile, my banned style firearms have left the State in case they come after plaintiffs.
Here is a link to the decision for those who care to read the legalese: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5-YT6kzAzdkcFphRUF0Nk5lclI4cllidmZOZVBiaDRwc0Fz/edit?pli=1
Anyone who wishes to read about, donate to, or join Bob Schulz's organization, please go to his site: http://wethepeopleofny.org
It's always nice to see a man who knows where his paycheck comes from and acts accordingly. No letting what is right stick its nose under the tent for this guy. We MUST stop letting lawyers write the rules. New Yorkers need to add this guy to their list.
Anybody who finds this outcome in any way surprising lacks the sense to pour piss out of a boot after being told that the instructions are printed on the sole. I understand that the folks in NY (why anyone would live in any of those statist-dominated yankee east coast hellholes is beyond me.) have to follow the forms - up to and including appealing to SCOTUS (which will probably weasel out and refuse to grant cert) - but trying to reverse gun grabbing laws in this day and time is surely the very definition of a sisyphean task. I do not trust ANY court since all courts are GOVERNMENT courts and I do not trust the government as far as I can shot put a nuclear aircraft carrier fully stocked, manned and armed.
Is anyone really surprised? I'm sure all these judges were taken care of prior to the Safe act. They didn't have a snowballs chance in hell in repealing it. The legal system has been set up to protect them NOT US. I'm afraid legal options are waste of time at this stage of the game.
The judge was right in ruling that the speed was OK. In NY, its just the way it is. NY is kinda unique in how it can e-certify something ~ all it needs is the Gov's OK for any reason; if if it makes no sense. Recommend a change to the constitution there.
Eh, it probably was not a waste of time, even if the outcome was predictable. Why? For the PR benefit. For a Revolution to come to a proper boil, all the less radical remedies must be exhausted first. This is just one more necessary step to the final phase.
Much as I would have loved to seen this ACT overturned (people need to stop calling these things "law", otherwise don't be surprised when it gets used as law against you), Bob Schulz is controlled opposition.
The decision cites his original claim where he said the SAFE Act infringes on rights GRANTED by the Second Amendment while citing Heler and McDonald. The judge knows damn well the 2A is not "granted" to the people, and if one carefully reads the wording, says so.
The SAFE Act only applies to those subject to admiralty jurisdiction (subjects), not Constitutional jurisdiction (of which there is none).
The people are ABOVE the government, and are not its subjects outside of the areas consented to in the Constitution, unless they agree to be general "subjects". That's why the Bill of Rights requires a grand jury of the PEOPLE to indict other people for crimes, or issue presentments against government officials for malfeasance.
As threepers, every single one of us should pay close attention to what Michael Badnarik says and doesn't say in his constitution class (free on YouTube).
No amendment in the Bill of Rights grants any right. The rights mentioned are stated to have been granted by our maker. The government is supposed to protect those rights and/or at the very least, not infringe on our rights. Any judge should know that. Of course, some might have been "educated" in schools such as Harvard whose professors are completely ignorant of such matters. - Old Greybeard
9 comments:
As one of the plaintiffs of this suit, we were told this will end up going to the highest court in NY. Meanwhile, my banned style firearms have left the State in case they come after plaintiffs.
Here is a link to the decision for those who care to read the legalese: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5-YT6kzAzdkcFphRUF0Nk5lclI4cllidmZOZVBiaDRwc0Fz/edit?pli=1
Anyone who wishes to read about, donate to, or join Bob Schulz's organization, please go to his site: http://wethepeopleofny.org
It's always nice to see a man who knows where his paycheck comes from and acts accordingly. No letting what is right stick its nose under the tent for this guy. We MUST stop letting lawyers write the rules. New Yorkers need to add this guy to their list.
Anybody who finds this outcome in any way surprising lacks the sense to pour piss out of a boot after being told that the instructions are printed on the sole. I understand that the folks in NY (why anyone would live in any of those statist-dominated yankee east coast hellholes is beyond me.) have to follow the forms - up to and including appealing to SCOTUS (which will probably weasel out and refuse to grant cert) - but trying to reverse gun grabbing laws in this day and time is surely the very definition of a sisyphean task. I do not trust ANY court since all courts are GOVERNMENT courts and I do not trust the government as far as I can shot put a nuclear aircraft carrier fully stocked, manned and armed.
Is anyone really surprised? I'm sure all these judges were taken care of prior to the Safe act. They didn't have a snowballs chance in hell in repealing it. The legal system has been set up to protect them NOT US. I'm afraid legal options are waste of time at this stage of the game.
The judge was right in ruling that the speed was OK. In NY, its just the way it is. NY is kinda unique in how it can e-certify something ~ all it needs is the Gov's OK for any reason; if if it makes no sense. Recommend a change to the constitution there.
FYI, a "Supreme Court" in New York State
is the first court to hear a case, not
the highest NYS court, which is the
Court of Appeals.
Eh, it probably was not a waste of time, even if the outcome was predictable. Why? For the PR benefit. For a Revolution to come to a proper boil, all the less radical remedies must be exhausted first. This is just one more necessary step to the final phase.
Much as I would have loved to seen this ACT overturned (people need to stop calling these things "law", otherwise don't be surprised when it gets used as law against you), Bob Schulz is controlled opposition.
The decision cites his original claim where he said the SAFE Act infringes on rights GRANTED by the Second Amendment while citing Heler and McDonald. The judge knows damn well the 2A is not "granted" to the people, and if one carefully reads the wording, says so.
The SAFE Act only applies to those subject to admiralty jurisdiction (subjects), not Constitutional jurisdiction (of which there is none).
The people are ABOVE the government, and are not its subjects outside of the areas consented to in the Constitution, unless they agree to be general "subjects". That's why the Bill of Rights requires a grand jury of the PEOPLE to indict other people for crimes, or issue presentments against government officials for malfeasance.
As threepers, every single one of us should pay close attention to what Michael Badnarik says and doesn't say in his constitution class (free on YouTube).
No amendment in the Bill of Rights grants any right. The rights mentioned are stated to have been granted by our maker. The government is supposed to protect those rights and/or at the very least, not infringe on our rights. Any judge should know that. Of course, some might have been "educated" in schools such as Harvard whose professors are completely ignorant of such matters.
- Old Greybeard
Post a Comment