![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
OMG.... how can anyone listen to this rambling commentator? I'm following this stuff with rabid interest, since it affects me personally... despite 30 years of handgun ownership, pistol permits from 5 states, and legal concealed carry for decades without issue, I now risk being a class E felon on a regular basis (or so Hochul would have me be). However, I simply cannot listen to this Crump dude...
|
|
This dude sounds like a child molestor with a stroke. Post details.
|
|
jesus you whiny bitches about a whiney bitch....here....
now shut it and lets argue about the 2nd instead.... ![]() ![]() 2A WIN - Federal Gun Law Ruled Unconstitutional Under NYSRPA V. Bruen |
|
|
I think that any politicians that are involved in any aspect of making laws that violate COTUS/BOR should be inflicted some sort of pain.
Be it financial, status, or legally, I am good with it. But not violence. First time, maybe a very painful fine, that will be deducted from the "salary" and perks. Like 1/2 or more of the annual income from tax payers. 2nd time, the rest. 3rd time, jail and barred from civil service. If the continue on a local level, many years in jail. I wish they would remove any laws on exiling citizens ![]() |
|
Quoted: OMG.... how can anyone listen to this rambling commentator? I'm following this stuff with rabid interest, since it affects me personally... despite 30 years of handgun ownership, pistol permits from 5 states, and legal concealed carry for decades without issue, I now risk being a class E felon on a regular basis (or so Hochul would have me be). However, I simply cannot listen to this Crump dude... View Quote Yeah, I made it about 2 minutes. This guy needs speech therapy. A transcript would be a vast improvement. |
|
Y’all be nice. He delivers a necessary message and is devoted to the cause.
|
|
|
Quoted: That claims state legislators are immune. Does that apply to municipalities? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: That claims state legislators are immune. Does that apply to municipalities? I believe it says municipalities are not immune |
|
Quoted: Yeah, I made it about 2 minutes. This guy needs speech therapy. A transcript would be a vast improvement. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: OMG.... how can anyone listen to this rambling commentator? I'm following this stuff with rabid interest, since it affects me personally... despite 30 years of handgun ownership, pistol permits from 5 states, and legal concealed carry for decades without issue, I now risk being a class E felon on a regular basis (or so Hochul would have me be). However, I simply cannot listen to this Crump dude... Yeah, I made it about 2 minutes. This guy needs speech therapy. A transcript would be a vast improvement. If I could listen to it so can you. If you can’t stand six minutes listening to somebody who speaks with an impediment but has important information to share, I’m not sure I can rely upon you when shit goes sideways. ![]() |
|
Quoted: OMG.... how can anyone listen to this rambling commentator? I'm following this stuff with rabid interest, since it affects me personally... despite 30 years of handgun ownership, pistol permits from 5 states, and legal concealed carry for decades without issue, I now risk being a class E felon on a regular basis (or so Hochul would have me be). However, I simply cannot listen to this Crump dude... View Quote ETA: He's doing whats right, more than most of us can say. I retract my previous statement other than to say we always need to put our best out there when dealing with the ignorant masses. Some could mistake his unique speech pattern as inebriation. But again, here I sit, not doing much to help the cause ![]() |
|
|
Quoted: New York loses, they slightly change it to be worse, keep it. With no punishment, it won’t matter. a law found to be unconstitutional should at a minimum, cost everyone who signed off on said law their political position / job, and barred from future office. View Quote Add revoked citizenship and you have a deal. Boot them off the island. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here. |
|
|
Quoted: Add revoked citizenship and you have a deal. Boot them off the island. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here. View Quote I wonder if we will ever see this used - it’s called deprivation of rights under color of law. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law Long copy paste Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. |
|
I’ve been saying this in the njhtf that the SCOTUS needs to just rule that constitutional carry is the way of the world now and that no state, town, city, municipality can restrict where you can or cannot carry and that they can’t put permitting, training or any other kind of restrictions on the right to carry. Enough of these stupid fuck fuck games.
|
|
|
Quoted: If I could listen to it so can you. If you can’t stand six minutes listening to somebody who speaks with an impediment but has important information to share, I’m not sure I can rely upon you when shit goes sideways. ![]() View Quote If he’s actually got a speech impediment, maybe it should be labeled as such. That wasn’t clear. He just seemed to be high, and not all that competent at times. Not the image you want to project in this case. Maybe that’s not the case, but it is how it looked. |
|
These assholes will never quit till they are in jail for denying
millions of people their rights |
|
So by judging how well the last ruling in our favor turned out if they win this one Im gonna have to pay to store my firearms at my local PD and will have to pass a background check every time I sign one out to go to the range.
|
|
It is docketed and back in front of Suddaby. working on getting it uploaded to Dropbox and a link to share.
|
|
BTT PDF of complaint in OP and here.
|
|
|
Quoted: PDF of Revised Complaint ![]() Watch it, no Cliff Notes. If you can't be bothered to make the time, neither can I... ![]() Seriously, great work to the GOA team, especially @nolocontendere who I'm sure will comment when he is allowed to and able. View Quote I'm gonna have to send them another $100 |
|
Quoted: BTT PDF of complaint in OP and here. View Quote It’s Kathy Hochul not Karen, though I can see why you’d think so. ![]() |
|
Quoted: Add revoked citizenship and you have a deal. Boot them off the island. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here. View Quote It seems like it would be easier to just have the Supreme Court review every piece of legislation before it is voted on. Would it add a ton of bureaucratic delay to every piece of legislation? Yes. Is that a feature, as opposed to a bug? You betcha. 3 allegedly co-equal branches of government. The first two coordinate and work together all the time, but the third one has to sit an watch them violate the constitution until someone gets harmed who actually has enough money to hire the right attorneys to make appeal after appeal after appeal until the case finally gets put in front of them. And then half the time they can only rule on the singular part of the law that got challenged, for the reasons cited in the suit. It would be like referees at a game not being able to call a foul, even if they witnessed it, unless the individual harmed by the foul reported it to them. |
|
Quoted: I wonder if we will ever see this used - it’s called deprivation of rights under color of law. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law Long copy paste Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. View Quote If we made it through Waco and Ruby Ridge without seeing it used, nah, it'll never happen. |
|
Quoted: It seems like it would be easier to just have the Supreme Court review every piece of legislation before it is voted on. Would it add a ton of bureaucratic delay to every piece of legislation? Yes. Is that a feature, as opposed to a bug? You betcha. 3 allegedly co-equal branches of government. The first two coordinate and work together all the time, but the third one has to sit an watch them violate the constitution until someone gets harmed who actually has enough money to hire the right attorneys to make appeal after appeal after appeal until the case finally gets put in front of them. And then half the time they can only rule on the singular part of the law that got challenged, for the reasons cited in the suit. It would be like referees at a game not being able to call a foul, even if they witnessed it, unless the individual harmed by the foul reported it to them. View Quote You're singing my language and I love it. Only problem is, the USSC would then become the most powerful entity on earth and political fighting would shift towards packing the courts, even worse than already. I love the concept. I just don't know how we keep the court honest. |
|
Quoted: It’s Kathy Hochul not Karen, though I can see why you’d think so. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: BTT PDF of complaint in OP and here. It’s Kathy Hochul not Karen, though I can see why you’d think so. ![]() I identify her as Queen Karen |
|
Quoted: When it’s ruled on. It hasn’t even been docketed yet to my knowledge. Briefs will be exchanged, a court date set, arguments made, a verdict rendered, and hopefully at the beginning an injunction issued. This is a marathon, not a sprint. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: When will this case be ruled on? When it’s ruled on. It hasn’t even been docketed yet to my knowledge. Briefs will be exchanged, a court date set, arguments made, a verdict rendered, and hopefully at the beginning an injunction issued. This is a marathon, not a sprint. FWIW, the initial complaint was filed on July 11 and, with all that process, the decision was issued on August 31. It was somewhat accelerated so that the judge could rule on the PI motion before the law went into effect. But, it shows that it doesn’t have to take forever. |
|
Quoted: Hasn't been docketed yet, but it has been filed. stay tuned for the Complaint when it is formally docketed. There are some other things that will happen, soon, as well. View Quote ![]() |
|
Quoted: FWIW, the initial complaint was filed on July 11 and, with all that process, the decision was issued on August 31. It was somewhat accelerated so that the judge could rule on the PI motion before the law went into effect. But, it shows that it doesn’t have to take forever. View Quote Since it's virtually the same complaint he should tell the state that they have 72 hours to respond before he rules... |
|
|
Too bad they can't file criminal charges and put her in jail.
We need to take away any immunity for deliberately ignoring the law by politicians. |
|
|
Quoted: Or passing "laws" that are against the law. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Too bad they can't file criminal charges and put her in jail. We need to take away any immunity for deliberately ignoring the law by politicians. Or passing "laws" that are against the law. Yep, everyone who votes yes to an unconstitutional law should be prosecuted for sedition & treason. |
|
|
Quoted: You're singing my language and I love it. Only problem is, the USSC would then become the most powerful entity on earth and political fighting would shift towards packing the courts, even worse than already. I love the concept. I just don't know how we keep the court honest. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: It seems like it would be easier to just have the Supreme Court review every piece of legislation before it is voted on. Would it add a ton of bureaucratic delay to every piece of legislation? Yes. Is that a feature, as opposed to a bug? You betcha. 3 allegedly co-equal branches of government. The first two coordinate and work together all the time, but the third one has to sit an watch them violate the constitution until someone gets harmed who actually has enough money to hire the right attorneys to make appeal after appeal after appeal until the case finally gets put in front of them. And then half the time they can only rule on the singular part of the law that got challenged, for the reasons cited in the suit. It would be like referees at a game not being able to call a foul, even if they witnessed it, unless the individual harmed by the foul reported it to them. You're singing my language and I love it. Only problem is, the USSC would then become the most powerful entity on earth and political fighting would shift towards packing the courts, even worse than already. I love the concept. I just don't know how we keep the court honest. Back in the 1990s, a bill was introduced which would have required all legislation to have a section describing how the proposed law was Constitutional. It was shot down with one Democrat complaint they would never get any law passed if it had to be shown Constitutional. |
|
I’m hoping the left learned something after RvW got struck down. More radical laws and enforcement interpretations can mean some of their goals might be undone when cases get in the right court. They kept pushing for later term abortion laws that even European countries don’t have and it affected nationwide abortion. I hope the same thing happens with 2nd Amendment cases. Eventually other liberal governors and politicians might start telling their peers to temper their expectations and quit overcompensating their attempts to keep un Constitutional laws and activities going after SCOTUS spanks their ass.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: I believe it says municipalities are not immune So like, the mayor or like "the city" From my reading it is those who enforce the law - executive powers. While the legislature may pass the law, they don’t arrest and don’t prosecute. It’s bullshit but I kind of get it. |
|
Quoted: I’m hoping the left learned something after RvW got struck down. More radical laws and enforcement interpretations can mean some of their goals might be undone when cases get in the right court. They kept pushing for later term abortion laws that even European countries don’t have and it affected nationwide abortion. I hope the same thing happens with 2nd Amendment cases. Eventually other liberal governors and politicians might start telling their peers to temper their expectations and quit overcompensating their attempts to keep un Constitutional laws and activities going after SCOTUS spanks their ass. View Quote Leftist Liberals are mentally ill……you can’t expect them to be reasonable |
|
Quoted: From my reading it is those who enforce the law - executive powers. While the legislature may pass the law, they don’t arrest and don’t prosecute. It’s bullshit but I kind of get it. View Quote Without enforcement, laws are merely words on paper written by old men yelling at clouds. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.