[Kevin O'Quinn]

This is true of every item of commerce you can name which is regulated at the State level. States should relinquish "States rights" for firearms?



No. I'm looking for evidence to support the title of this thread. None has been produced. There are no "anti-2nd amendment States".



This could be one meta-analysis, but none of this is expressed in the OP. See above.

This may be your point, but it is not the point of this thread. When you have a fatally flawed foundation (subject title, for instance), all that is built upon it, fundamentally, is not worth consideration by any reasonable person as it only grows more flawed with every layer added.



In one breath, another poster had asked questions regarding abortion while also saying it had no place in this thread. Flag on them. I had already decided to let it be.

So instead of saying "cool, I get what you're saying, but I disagree" you attack the base of my statement in it's entirety. The interesting thing is that you're responding to MY point, but because you don't think it has anything to do with the OP you dismiss it. If you're going to respond to me, at least have the respect to actually respond.

The fact is that these companies FEEL that the states are anti-second amendment. They are businesses and can choose not to sell to a particular customer if they want. Yes, some of those choices can make political statements, but isn't that kinda the point sometimes? Maybe you don't like the choice, but that doesn't mean that you have to stick to just your particular interpretation of what "anti-second amendment" means.

Have you ever actually described what you feel the Second Amendment means? I guess that's the REAL basis of the argument. Being against the second amendment takes on a completely different meaning depending on how you define the second amendment itself. If the definition that's being used is what you're currently allowed to own/carry, then anything that gets more restrictive could be considered "anti". Anti doesn't mean anyone is trying to abolish it, just that they are against the current definition of it.

Make sense?

[Live2ride883]

Probably a negligible amount. I don't see them losing any significant business here, so it's a safe political ploy.

Sent from my SPH-D600 using Android Central Forums

Your use of the word "probably" negates everything else in that statement.

So when a company stands by a set of values, and is willing to surrender not only current profits but future profits as well it's political ploy???


“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”—Thomas Jefferson, “Commonplace Book”

[droidmyme]

Your use of the word "probably" negates everything else in that statement.

So when a company stands by a set of values, and is willing to surrender not only current profits but future profits as well it's political ploy???


“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”—Thomas Jefferson, “Commonplace Book”

If only the opposing side was seeking to "forbid the carrying of arms," then your quote would have some resonance.

In reality, though, Thomas Jefferson would have little reason for concern. The laws passed in New York don't forbid anyone *except the mentally ill and felons* from carrying arms. Rather, they do 3 things:

1. Toughen the ban on assault rifles.

2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 7 rounds.

3. Add provisions which make it harder for firearms to fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

None of these 3 measures equal forbidding people from carrying arms. I think that your sources have misled you there, so let me offer you a better one:



Sent from my SPH-D600 using Android Central Forums

[Live2ride883]

If only the opposing side was seeking to "forbid the carrying of arms," then your quote would have some resonance.

In reality, though, Thomas Jefferson would have little reason for concern. The laws passed in New York don't forbid anyone *except the mentally ill and felons* from carrying arms. Rather, they do 3 things:

1. Toughen the ban on assault rifles.

2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 7 rounds.

3. Add provisions which make it harder for firearms to fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

None of these 3 measures equal forbidding people from carrying arms. I think that your sources have misled you there, so let me offer you a better one:



Sent from my SPH-D600 using Android Central Forums

The quote actually fits when you consider the actual truth within the goal of the NY Safe act.

The seven-round magazine limit effectively bans or severely restricts the use of perhaps 75% of the firearms designed in the past 100 years. Seven-round magazines simply do not exist for common firearms such as the 13-shot Browning Hi-Power pistol, first manufactured in 1935, or the 10-shot Ruger 10/22 rifle, five million of which have been manufactured since the 1960s. The M-1 "Garand" rifle, adopted by the U.S. Army in 1936, was designed exclusively to use an eight-round "clip," which will now be considered an illegal "high capacity ammunition feeding device." Although the Act "grandfathers" existing ten-round magazines, it forbids owners to put more than seven rounds in them, and it requires lawful owners of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds to sell them out of state, surrender them, or destroy them. This is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of private property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The most widely reported provision of the law is the total ban on the sale of military-style rifles classified as "assault weapons," effective Jan. 15. The provision forever prohibits anyone other than a law enforcement agency from acquiring such weapons, including the popular hunting and target variants of the AR-15 rifle. Current owners of such rifles must register them with the state by 2014, and the registration must be renewed every five years. This gives the state a list of persons from which to confiscate them in the future, and the five-year renewal provision gives the state an excuse to find ways to deny ownership once every five years. Current owners of such rifles may never sell them to another New York State resident in the future.

The new law prohibits the sale of any quantity of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed dealer and requires that such dealer perform a criminal background check on the purchaser and forward the purchaser's name, address, age, and occupation, and the quantity, caliber, and make of the ammunition, to a State Police database.


The purchase of large quantities of ammunition will likely set off alarm bells at State Police headquarters. But what is truly sinister about the ammunition registry is that no one actually knows "how much" will be deemed "too much" -- because the law does not prohibit the purchase or ownership of any specific quantity of ammunition. Thus, one may become the target of a police investigation for engaging in a perfectly legal activity. Since many gun owners have vowed to defy the "assault weapons" registration, it is highly likely that the State Police will use the ammunition database as a means to discover and confiscate unregistered rifles.


the ammunition database creates a de facto universal long gun registry. A hunter who purchases a box of five 12-gauge deer slugs may think that his purchase is innocent enough; however, it will have the effect of informing the State Police that he owns a 12-gauge shotgun, enabling them to confiscate it in the future if they so choose.

The ammunition registration is crucial to the law's confiscation scheme. The law affirmatively requires that a person's firearms must be confiscated if any order of protection is filed against him -- no matter how bogus the complaint may be. It also requires that a "mental health professional" (including a physician) who believes that an individual is a danger to himself or others must report his diagnosis to the police for purposes of firearm confiscation. Such a diagnosis is highly subjective and could be easily politicized.

The SAFE Act also severely infringes on the right of self-defense from criminal predation. Although Article 35 of New York Penal law allows the use of deadly force in the event of a home invasion, the SAFE Act restricts the ammunition capacity of all centerfire guns to seven rounds. If you possess a magazine loaded with more than seven rounds in your own home, you are guilty of a criminal offense.

So suppose a criminal with a stolen handgun and an illegal 15-round magazine invades your home. If you shoot at him with more than eight rounds (seven plus one in the chamber), you will be criminally charged, and your magazine (and possibly your firearm) will be confiscated and destroyed without compensation, because you have now used it in the commission of a crime. Beyond that, since a handgun permit in New York is not merely a permit to carry, but a permit to possess, after you have been charged with the crime of shooting at the home invader with a high-capacity magazine, your permit will be revoked, and all of your handguns will be confiscated.

the SAFE Act requires that gun owners report any "loss or theft" of a firearm or ammunition to the police within 24 hours. Failure to do so is a criminal offense. Read literally, a deer hunter in Saranac Lake who drops a single 12-gauge slug in the snow and cannot find it is a criminal unless he reports the loss to the police.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Live2ride883]

If only the opposing side was seeking to "forbid the carrying of arms," then your quote would have some resonance.

In reality, though, Thomas Jefferson would have little reason for concern. The laws passed in New York don't forbid anyone *except the mentally ill and felons* from carrying arms. Rather, they do 3 things:

1. Toughen the ban on assault rifles.

2. Limit the capacity of magazines to 7 rounds.

3. Add provisions which make it harder for firearms to fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

None of these 3 measures equal forbidding people from carrying arms. I think that your sources have misled you there, so let me offer you a better one:



Sent from my SPH-D600 using Android Central Forums

Here is one reason why criminals/felons will not register their weapons in NY, or any other state.

The other reason is of course that they are criminals.

[backbeat]

Here is one reason why criminals/felons will not register their weapons in NY, or any other state.

The other reason is of course that they are criminals.

As one who has previously sworn to never register your weapons under ANY circumstance - and going so far as chest-thumping about it being your [unfounded] right to remain anonymous - are you now admitting that you are/will be a criminal?

[nolittdroid]

Maybe now you can understand the anger and outrage about abortion rights that are guaranteed by law but are under assault by Red states to deny a woman a legally mandated medical procedure because of the beliefs of the religious right. You want your gun rights (and guns DO kill people) but you do not want to afford women the right to control their bodies. We will never see eye to eye on these issues unless we admit the fact that these are both rights not to be infringed upon by the other.

What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
via Gnex

I can agree but I think Roe v Wade is more important than the 2nd amendment. Don't care much about owning every kind of gun but RVW guarantees my bodies absolute freedom.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

[nolittdroid]

This is what I am referring to by anti-second amendment states.

"strict gun control laws that have been passed in New York, and that have been proposed in other states"

How can anyone that supports gun control for the safety of our children support abortion. Some argue it's a woman's choice, but what about the baby inside the woman's body, do you think that baby would choose to be aborted?

What choice would you have made in the womb if given the choice?

I suggest that if anyone wants to start a discussion about abortion, they start their own thread on that topic.

Aabortion isn't up for debate and I fear that in a heavily male populated forum too many uneducated opinions will be tossed out.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

[backbeat]

So instead of saying "cool, I get what you're saying, but I disagree" you attack the base of my statement in it's entirety. The interesting thing is that you're responding to MY point, but because you don't think it has anything to do with the OP you dismiss it. If you're going to respond to me, at least have the respect to actually respond.

I responded as I believed to be responsible to the OP and as appropriate.

The fact is that these companies FEEL that the states are anti-second amendment. They are businesses and can choose not to sell to a particular customer if they want.

Companies do not 'feel' anything. They either act or do not act. Their legal counsel, prior to making this $tunt, would advise them how foolish it would be to 'feel'. If these companies are on contract to supply, they do not have a choice (outside of violating their contract and being responsible for the consequences). This is one of the main reasons why I believe their $tunt to be very temporary and flimsy.

Maybe you don't like the choice, but that doesn't mean that you have to stick to just your particular interpretation of what "anti-second amendment" means.

If the general interpretation of the 2nd amendment is for common citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of life and property, the reasonable definition of "anti-2nd amendment" is that a measure has taken place to remove that right of common citizens to keep and bear arms for the protection of life and property. This simply is not happening - anywhere.

Have you ever actually described what you feel the Second Amendment means? I guess that's the REAL basis of the argument. Being against the second amendment takes on a completely different meaning depending on how you define the second amendment itself. If the definition that's being used is what you're currently allowed to own/carry, then anything that gets more restrictive could be considered "anti". Anti doesn't mean anyone is trying to abolish it, just that they are against the current definition of it.

Welcome to the quagmire of conservative definitions. If the chosen definition is "original intent" as understood by studying the 150 years of firearm regulations and use prior to our "founding", conservatives lose. If the chosen definition is one of constitutional malleability, and therefore, convenience which runs 180-degrees against the principles of conservatism and original intent, again, conservatives lose. Pick one.

[Kevin O'Quinn]

I responded as I believed to be responsible to the OP and as appropriate.



Companies do not 'feel' anything. They either act or do not act. Their legal counsel, prior to making this $tunt, would advise them how foolish it would be to 'feel'. If these companies are on contract to supply, they do not have a choice (outside of violating their contract and being responsible for the consequences). This is one of the main reasons why I believe their $tunt to be very temporary and flimsy.



If the general interpretation of the 2nd amendment is for common citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of life and property, the reasonable definition of "anti-2nd amendment" is that a measure has taken place to remove that right of common citizens to keep and bear arms for the protection of life and property. This simply is not happening - anywhere.



Welcome to the quagmire of conservative definitions. If the chosen definition is "original intent" as understood by studying the 150 years of firearm regulations and use prior to our "founding", conservatives lose. If the chosen definition is one of constitutional malleability, and therefore, convenience which runs 180-degrees against the principles of conservatism and original intent, again, conservatives lose. Pick one.

By that logic we should only be allowed 1 round capacity magazines. Why do we need more than one round when that's all it should take, right? Heck, an unloaded shotgun should suffice, since the "sound" will scare any criminal away, right?

Companies feel because people run them. Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby feel. They've said so. And done things to support those feelings. Just two examples there.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[metz65]

If our (it's for the safety of our children) government made as much in tax revenue from guns as it does from alcohol and tobacco we wouldn't even be having these conversations.

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

[backbeat]

By that logic we should only be allowed 1 round capacity magazines. Why do we need more than one round when that's all it should take, right? Heck, an unloaded shotgun should suffice, since the "sound" will scare any criminal away, right?

To which statement of mine are you referring?

Companies feel because people run them. Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby feel. They've said so. And done things to support those feelings. Just two examples there.

And as shown over time, when companies decide to ignore adequate legal counsel and express their "emotions" through their actions, in a legal context they are shown to be very foolish.

[Live2ride883]

As one who has previously sworn to never register your weapons under ANY circumstance - and going so far as chest-thumping about it being your [unfounded] right to remain anonymous - are you now admitting that you are/will be a criminal?

So, are you the thought police or what....

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

[Live2ride883]

Aabortion isn't up for debate and I fear that in a heavily male populated forum too many uneducated opinions will be tossed out.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

What part of RvW states "shall not be infringed"?

[metz65]

And as shown over time, when companies decide to ignore adequate legal counsel and express their "emotions" through their actions, in a legal context they are shown to be very foolish.

Used to be a time when having a belief and sticking to it wasn't called foolish it was called integrity.



I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

[backbeat]

Used to be a time when having a belief and sticking to it wasn't called foolish it was called integrity.

Please demonstrate that these companies have on-going contracts to supply police depts within the States in question. Without which, this is a cheap $tunt. Thanks!

[metz65]

Please demonstrate that these companies have on-going contracts to supply police depts within the States in question. Without which, this is a cheap $tunt. Thanks!

Please demonstrate this is just a cheap stunt and not standing up for ones beliefs. Thanks!

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

[backbeat]

Please demonstrate this is just a cheap stunt and not standing up for ones beliefs. Thanks

Since it's a matter of public record, I'm disappointed that no one can demonstrate the contractual value of this 'protest'. The lack of record defines this as a cheap $tunt when these companies risk nothing.

[metz65]

They are voicing their support for 2'nd ammendment rights last I checked contracts were not required to voice or show your support for a cause. If so your support for gun control laws is nothing but a cheap stunt if the government doesn't have you under contract. Thanks!

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

[Chosen414]

I would further think if a person was to want a "assault" type weapon (gun) he should pass a strict mental evaluaton, be able to pass a very strict FBI background check, (I have and my wife both have passed all that the FBI could examine us on , due to our past employment, and none were failed, then a special "collectors permit" be issued for that person to be reviewed yearly.
But then, if one of my "Weapons" wanted to kill some one or a group of people, some one could steal them from my premises and they might do the job. But a reminder to all, there are locks on the inside of my doors , not for my protection. They are on the inside for the protection of others.
Due to the second amendment and being a natural citizen of the U.S.A. I am afforded the right "to keep and bear arms", to protect my family, possessions and my property from those who attempt at harming them.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chosen414]

Proposed legislation in 2 states.





I just found this: Berretta is threatening to move if newly introduced gun legislation passes.

Right wing propaganda.... at the end of the day, making machine and assault rifles, harder to get or illegal to have, is the smartest idea we've had since limitimg terms in office. im a centrist yet even i know something had to be done about availabilty of assault weapons on the streets...carry yur pistols, or shot guns, rifles, i mean hell even i've got my ccw, and i carry my .38 with me everywhere but inside my job. but at the end of the day, after all the school shootings, movie shootings, mall shootings, over the last 5 years, it couldnt be avoided any longer.

[backbeat]

They are voicing their support for 2'nd ammendment rights last I checked contracts were not required to voice or show your support for a cause. If so your support for gun control laws is nothing but a cheap stunt if the government doesn't have you under contract. Thanks!

Thanks for the admission that it matters not to your side of this issue if this $tunt is a paper tiger or not. Yet, it is being celebrated (by a blog & the OP) as if these companies are sacrificing something for "the cause". Can't have it both ways.

[Live2ride883]

Right wing propaganda.... at the end of the day, making machine and assault rifles, harder to get or illegal to have, is the smartest idea we've had since limitimg terms in office. im a centrist yet even i know something had to be done about availabilty of assault weapons on the streets...carry yur pistols, or shot guns, rifles, i mean hell even i've got my ccw, and i carry my .38 with me everywhere but inside my job. but at the end of the day, after all the school shootings, movie shootings, mall shootings, over the last 5 years, it couldnt be avoided any longer.

There are more people killed by hammers every year than there are by rifles.

[metz65]

Thanks for the admission that it matters not to your side of this issue if this $tunt is a paper tiger or not. Yet, it is being celebrated (by a blog & the OP) as if these companies are sacrificing something for "the cause". Can't have it both ways.

Thanks for your admission that since gun control advocates are sacrificing nothing then their cause is not meaningful nor does it matter.

I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.

[backbeat]

Thanks for your admission that since gun control advocates are sacrificing nothing then their cause is not meaningful nor does it matter.

2,281 firearm murders/homicides since December 14, 2012 (Sandy Hook) is sacrifice enough. The bipolar game of indefensible circular logic is over. Goodbye.