|
Post by redstone14 on Mar 15, 2013 1:39:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by coots on Mar 15, 2013 1:41:31 GMT -5
The Intelligentsia and the Liberals are the first to go when a Dictator takes over...Dumbasses
|
|
|
Post by redstone14 on Mar 19, 2013 0:24:35 GMT -5
Letter published in the Troy Record.......... Pulse of The People: Gun law will turn police into criminalsPublished: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Kudos to the Rensselaer County Legislature for its Resolution condemning Gov. Andrews Cuomo’s irrational gun and magazine ban. Now, as a former police legal advisor and alumnus of the FBI National Law Institute for police legal advisors, I propose the real dangers to law enforcement be considered. First, it is plain that the new law fails to exempt police from being felons if they carry firearms onto school property. Indeed, it technically makes it a crime for anyone — including police — to possess any firearm. There are many other “mistakes” too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say that this law was drafted and passed by a bunch of incompetent ideological zealots who rushed it through in the middle of the night to escape rational review. But police must also consider civil rights liability if they choose to enforce an unconstitutional law. Those of us who are or have been in law enforcement know we can be sued in federal court under 42 USC 1983 if we violate a citizen’s Constitutional rights. These lawsuits are filed regularly. The Second Amendment is prominent on the list of “rights,” as is the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — which makes vague laws unenforceable and unconstitutional. Ex post facto laws are also a violation of the Constitution, Article I, Sections 9 and 10. A police officer can be held personally liable for damages — as well as punitive damages — if he violates one’s Constitutional rights. Thus, besides making felons of our police, Cuomo’s law creates a real dilemma for law enforcement. Police have an independent obligation to not violate a person’s Constitutional rights. It is not enough that a politician “assures” us that our actions are Constitutional. The politician will not be held liable, will not lose his bank account, or house, or other assets. But the police officer who violates Constitutional rights will. Thus, a police officer’s informed use of discretion regarding whether to enforce some of the new law’s provisions may, on the one hand, anger political zealots who want every word enforced regardless of the law’s probable Constitutional infirmity or, on the other, subject the officer to financial ruin from civil liability for violating one’s Constitutional rights. The officer will be well advised to exercise his discretion in his own self interest — the politicians will surely throw him under the bus when the going gets tough. I previously used the phrase “Ex-Post Facto” law. Basically, an ex post facto law is one that punishes previous conduct undertaken when such conduct was not a crime. For example, it can be credibly argued that a person who had lawfully acquired and owned a 17 round magazine on Jan. 14 had committed no crime — perhaps he had owned the magazine for decades. Yet Cuomo’s “best law in the nation” suddenly made owning this previously lawful magazine a crime. The owner did nothing between the time he lawfully owned the magazine and the time his ownership was made a crime. Rather than “grandfather” this magazine in his new law so that its continued ownership would remain lawful, Cuomo made the previous lawful conduct of owning it a crime. But, you may argue, it is not the previous conduct that is now criminal, but the ownership after the effective date of the new law that is made criminal. Nice try — but the government may not force a forfeiture of private property to avoid criminal liability. This argument is only credible if the effect of the new law was to not effectively force the previously lawfully owned magazine to be forfeited. Yet this is what Cuomo’s law does. It also forces the forfeiture of previously lawful weapons that now fall within the more restrictive so-called “assault weapon” definition. The current owner can register them but cannot pass them on to his children or anyone else. They are, essentially, forfeited by the arbitrary and uninformed action of the government. With such an argument that this law is an unconstitutional Ex Post Facto law, I fear that some good intentioned law enforcement officers will “step into the trap” laid by the governor and have his or her life ruined by the lawsuits sure to follow. Nice job by the gaggle of incompetent ideological zealots in Albany. This law must be repealed. Robert Jones Troy www.troyrecord.com/articles/2013/02/26/opinion/doc512bb4bc0d9f2614205104.txt
|
|
|
Post by aconcernedcitizen on Apr 16, 2013 15:41:40 GMT -5
Hello, I need some help. I am writing a term paper due by Sunday April 21,2013, and I having an issue finding any credible sources for my paper. opinion is not a credible source. (My professor is a Lib) I read your post NY's 'SAFE' Act: The 'Rape' of the 2nd Amendment, and am very impressed. Is there any way that you could point me toward the information I need? My email address is Michelle.seeley1@yahoo.com. This law is the bane of my existence, my husband is a gun maker, and I am sick of the government telling us that our livelihood is based on their stupid ideas. You can look up his website, gunmaker.biz. I am legit. Thank you in advance for your help.
|
|
|
Post by coots on Apr 20, 2013 0:59:04 GMT -5
|
|