Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Hey, Governor Howler, the ball's in your court;

what're you gonna do?
In a stunning repudiation of Governor Andrew Cuomo, his anti-gun Democrat allies, and the hastily-passed and clearly unconstitutional NY SAFE Act, New Yorkers refused to register an estimated one million firearms that the 2013 law arbitrarily determined were “assault weapons.”
Since New York’s SAFE Act gun control law went into effect in January 2013, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their newly defined assault-style weapons with the State Police.
Those individuals have registered a total of 44,485 weapons.
The statistics, hidden from the public for more than a year by state officials, were given to Rochester-area lawyer Paloma Capanna on Monday in response to a lawsuit she filed on behalf of radio host Bill Robinson.
No wonder they fought so hard to keep the numbers secret; that many people saying "Kiss my ass", backed up by lots and lots of LE flatly saying "I believe this is unconstitutional, and I won't enforce it", is big.
Upstate law enforcement agencies still openly, defiantly refuse to enforce provisions of the NY SAFE Act, and prosecutions under the law are best described as a “trickle,” and typically only occur as part of a “kitchen sink” charging process against criminals arrested for other crimes.

Howler & Co. must be crapping their pants, both in outrage and in "What do we do now?" fear.

Ok, so this is big.  Bigger even than CT gun owners telling their governor to piss off.  Now, on the idea of confiscation(which Feinstein and Schumer and Obama have wet dreams about), there's a serious hitch:
The Court ruled in favor of the property owners by an 8-1 margin on the most significant issue at stake: whether the government’s appropriation of the raisins is a taking. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

This is an extremely important result, because it rejects the government’s dangerous argument that the Takings Clause offers less protection for personal property than for real property (the legal term for property in land), which had been embraced by the Ninth Circuit lower court decision.
This is considered a huge decision for property owners.  Now consider some politician threatening confiscation and being told "You can't just seize this property, you HAVE to pay for it; how much you have in your pocket?"  Ignore all the other stands against confiscation, and this throws a huge wrench in their plans.

No comments: