unconstitutional laws

[SharonAnne]

we must all remember, unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional from the time they are enacted, not from when they are ruled unconstitutional. This has already been a ruling of the Supreme Court.

[ironglow]

  SharonAnne;
  You just can't believe how radical those big city Democrats in the People's Republik of New York can be.  Talk show on radio today, talking with a member of the NY State assy.  He spoke of some of those idiots this morning.  The Dems were discussing "confiscation" of ARs, AKs and anything else thay could construe as an "assault" weapon.     
      In a bill yet to be brought before the lawmakers, part of what they want are taxes on each box of ammo (about $25), A million dollar insurance policy on each gun (short, long any caliber), and complete registration of all privately held guns.
   When liberals get just a little bit of power, they are ALL just little Stalins..
 
  Didn't want to, but I may have to move out and take my substance with me.  These stupid liberals are about to drive many people out of the state..and by nature, they will be among the most productive people.
 
   Crooks, bums and gangbangers don't worry about what the law says...but they contribute nothing at all positive  to society..

[Mike in Virginia]

I have never understood New York's and California's and D.C.'s prohibition on firearms.  I don't see how a state can mandate their own regulations when the 2nd takes priority. 
One of my permits is national; I can carry anywhere in the U.S. or in any U.S. held territory.  It seems like N.Y. says no, I cannot.  I think it best not to go there at all.  I don't know why anyone would want to be there anyway.  Same goes for D.C. and California. 
Here in VA, a licensed carrier cannot carry in schools or post offices.  I can live with that.  But when a state says I can't carry at all inside their boundaries, it makes me wonder how they get away with it. 
 
 

[SharonAnne]

ironglow, I refuse to live, work, visit or otherwise enrich any such state. If all gun owning tourists stayed away from such places they would soon feel the pinch.

[ironglow]

ironglow, I refuse to live, work, visit or otherwise enrich any such state. If all gun owning tourists stayed away from such places they would soon feel the pinch.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  I think you have a point there SharonAnne & Mike..they (the stupid lawmakers) don't deserve out of state money coming in.  If they are so stupid as to pass such laws, the Indian reservations will also be building ammo shops alongside their tobacco, liquor shops and gas stations..then NY governors will whine abouit the Indians selling all the ammo too...  I live about 16-18 miles from an Indian reservation which already sells the other stuff.  Failing that, I can go through the reservation and drop into Pennsylvania for bulk purchases..STUPID DEMOCRATS!!!

[JPShelton]

ironglow, I refuse to live, work, visit or otherwise enrich any such state. If all gun owning tourists stayed away from such places they would soon feel the pinch.

I wish I could do that.  I was born in California, lived most of my life thus far there, and served in law enforcement there.  Much of my family still lives there.  It wasn't always the bastion of "Nanny State Tyrany" it has become.  It used to have a thriving shooting sports culture, evidenced by companies like Sierra Bullets that started there, or Weatherby, or RCBS, or Pachmyr, or a host of others I could name.  What changed is urbanization....   Back when the balance of power in Sacramento favored country folk and even up to the time there was a 50/50 balance of political power between urbanites and rual communities, government there wasn't so hell-bent on being your surrogate parent.
The more urbane a society gets, the more isolated from reality it becomes.  Still, what is supposed to happen is that the Constitution should protect the rights of the minority against the tyrany of a majority.  No matter how urbane U.S. society gets as a whole, "gun control" SHOULD be a settled "non issue" as long as the Second Ammendment remains in full force and effect.  It SHOULD be universally considered intellectually dishonest to seek gun control in this country, just as it SHOULD be intellectually dishonest to seek control on free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and so on. 
Thanks to "incrementalization," it is difficult to see how much freedom you don't have as a born and raised Californian until you escape to a place like Oklahoma, as I did.  Only when I was away from constant government nannying did I fully appreciate how pervasive government has become in workaday life in California.  There is absolutely NO WAY I would ever want to return to living there.  And it isn't just the tyranical stance on gun control, but the absolutely insane level of government regulation that occurs there in virtually every aspect of human existance.  It saddens me that my home state has become more closely allied with European socialism than the pricniples of personal responsibility, rugged individualism, and liberty that used to be halmarks of what it meant to be an American.
JP

[tom548]

I agree with the thing about not having to follow an unconstitutional law. The only catch is it has to be declared unconstitutional by the courts. That takes years, and you will be convicted and punished until that time. Then there is the problem of the judges the interpit the 2ND the way they see it not the way it was meant.
In NY Stats we have had the 1994 AW ban that did not have a sunset clause, When the Heller  ruling backed the 2ND Amendments right to bear arms every one thought our law would be thrown out and there was a court case in progress. This case was taken care of by a female Judge in NY State after the Heller decision and she said that the State did have the right to pass laws infringing on the 2ND.  She had allways been anti gun so she followed he agenda and now we have to take it to the Fed court ( Which Obama has appointed her to) and hope for the right ruling.
My point you could be in jail many years before and unconstitutional law is ruled in your favor. Be careful.

[jhm]

      I dont think any one who has been cleared by the State police, the FBI, or any other agency to get a CCW license should after jumping thru all those hoops should have to leave their gun in the car when entering a Post office, local police station, school, ETC. ETC.    Jim

[TNBilly]

  "gun control" SHOULD be a settled "non issue" as long as the Second Ammendment remains in full force and effect.  It SHOULD be universally considered intellectually dishonest to seek gun control in this country, just as it SHOULD be intellectually dishonest to seek control on free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and so on. 
Thanks to "incrementalization,"

JP......   couldn't agree with you more.  The understatement of course is in the section I quoted.  As even to the SCOTUS no longer, well hasn't for since before I was aware, is no longer intellectually honest.  The change was most noticable between the 34 NFA and the 68 firearms act under LBJ.  Although the outcome in 34 was a step-around directly infringing on the 2nd it's still a slight of hand, most like the recent changing by Justice Roberts of a fine to a tax.  68 was the blood--line in attacking the 2nd head on, everything since is the incrementalization you are talking about.  They've gotten away with it and with their allies well placed and dispersed, I just can't see how anything we've considered normal in the past will be successful.