Page 1 of 2
New York...ugggg
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:22 pm
by grizzaholic
http://www.kpax.com/news/new-york-gun-l ... -visitors/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
NEW YORK (CNN) -- An online campaign in support of a former U.S. Marine -- arrested for attempting to security-check his pistol while visiting the Empire State Building -- is bringing new attention and a fair amount of scrutiny to one of the nation's toughest gun-control laws.
Ryan Jerome, 28, was charged with criminal possession of his .45-caliber Ruger while visiting the famous New York landmark during a September vacation with his girlfriend. Jerome has a license to carry the weapon from his home state of Indiana, but New Yorks state gun laws do not recognize out-of-state permits.
With his case still pending, Jerome could face up to three and a half years in jail.
Jerome's attorney says its clear his client, who does not have a criminal record, wasn't attempting anything nefarious because Jerome approached security on his own to tell the guards about his weapon.
But the law prohibits anyone -- with certain exceptions such as law enforcement officers -- from carrying a firearm in the state unless that person specifically has a New York state-issued permit.
Jerome spent two days in a jail cell before he could make bail.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:22 pm
by grizzaholic
Dback, I will be waiting for your rationalization on this.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:31 pm
by travelinman67
Fuck New York's laws.
LONG past due for a federal reciprocity law.
Are you listening, Boehner?
That New York would jail a veteran for two days for voluntarily securing a weapon at a security checkpoint is defacto confirmation that the New York criminal justice system is managed by morons.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:34 pm
by grizzaholic
travelinman67 wrote:Fuck New York's laws.
LONG past due for a federal reciprocity law.
Are you listening, Boehner?
That New York would jail a veteran for two days for voluntarily securing a weapon at a security checkpoint is defacto confirmation that the New York criminal justice system is managed by morons.
I am sure Dback and D1B will have well thought out and logical rebuttals for this.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:40 pm
by Col Hogan
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:47 pm
by TwinTownBisonFan
it amuses me that "states rights" conservatives are unhappy that NY has a different law than IN...
I'm not saying he should have been arrested - but wouldn't the responsible thing for a gun owner to have done be to check on local laws before carrying?
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:49 pm
by grizzaholic
TwinTownBisonFan wrote:it amuses me that "states rights" conservatives are unhappy that NY has a different law than IN...
I'm not saying he should have been arrested - but wouldn't the responsible thing for a gun owner to have done be to check on local laws before carrying?
If I go to NY I will be carrying. Don't care about the laws. I also wouldn't be going places that have checkpoints and such. But then again, I won't ever be going to NY in the first place.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:12 pm
by D1B
travelinman67 wrote:Fuck New York's laws.
LONG past due for a federal reciprocity law.
Are you listening, Boehner?
That New York would jail a veteran for two days for voluntarily securing a weapon at a security checkpoint is defacto confirmation that the New York criminal justice system is managed by morons.
Fuck yes, Tman is back.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:21 pm
by Col Hogan
TwinTownBisonFan wrote:it amuses me that "states rights" conservatives are unhappy that NY has a different law than IN...
I'm not saying he should have been arrested - but wouldn't the responsible thing for a gun owner to have done be to check on local laws before carrying?
If I get in my car in Virginia to drive to Minnesota, I don't need to go to several web sites to check where my driver's license is accepted...and where it isn't...I don't have to worry about being arrested "just for driving"...
Each state has different laws regarding getting a drivers license...but they accept each other's licenses...
Why is this any different?
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:29 pm
by Vidav
Col Hogan wrote:TwinTownBisonFan wrote:it amuses me that "states rights" conservatives are unhappy that NY has a different law than IN...
I'm not saying he should have been arrested - but wouldn't the responsible thing for a gun owner to have done be to check on local laws before carrying?
If I get in my car in Virginia to drive to Minnesota, I don't need to go to several web sites to check where my driver's license is accepted...and where it isn't...I don't have to worry about being arrested "just for driving"...
Each state has different laws regarding getting a drivers license...but they accept each other's licenses...
Why is this any different?
In that case, shouldn't all the states just accept all other states regulations for everything? Let's just get some universal laws from the Fed and not allow states to make rules.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:32 pm
by Col Hogan
Vidav wrote:Col Hogan wrote:
If I get in my car in Virginia to drive to Minnesota, I don't need to go to several web sites to check where my driver's license is accepted...and where it isn't...I don't have to worry about being arrested "just for driving"...
Each state has different laws regarding getting a drivers license...but they accept each other's licenses...
Why is this any different?
In that case, shouldn't all the states just accept all other states regulations for everything? Let's just get some universal laws from the Fed and not allow states to make rules.
That's not what I said...read it again...
Each state has the right to make their own laws on getting a drivers license...and for getting carry permits...STATES RIGHTS...
Show me one state that does not accept another states drivers license...
Now, if you can apply just an oz. of logic...why is there a different when it comes to my carry permit???
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:35 pm
by Vidav
Col Hogan wrote:Vidav wrote:
In that case, shouldn't all the states just accept all other states regulations for everything? Let's just get some universal laws from the Fed and not allow states to make rules.
That's not what I said...read it again...
Each state has the right to make their own laws on getting a drivers license...and for getting carry permits...STATES RIGHTS...
Show me one state that does not accept another states drivers license...
Now, if you can apply just an oz. of logic...why is there a different when it comes to my carry permit???
I know, I took it to the extreme on purpose.
My point is, which state laws should just be accepted anywhere, like a driver's license, and which shouldn't? How do you determine that?
I'm honestly curious btw. Where is that line. What makes something worthy of being recognized in all states?
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:46 pm
by travelinman67
Vidav wrote:Col Hogan wrote:
That's not what I said...read it again...
Each state has the right to make their own laws on getting a drivers license...and for getting carry permits...STATES RIGHTS...
Show me one state that does not accept another states drivers license...
Now, if you can apply just an oz. of logic...why is there a different when it comes to my carry permit???
I know, I took it to the extreme on purpose.
My point is, which state laws should just be accepted anywhere, like a driver's license, and which shouldn't? How do you determine that?
I'm honestly curious btw. Where is that line. What makes something worthy of being recognized in all states?
So, if a same-sex couple gets married in Hawaii, then states without same-sex unions shouldn't be required to recognize their marriage.
Got it!
If I'm traveling by car across the U.S. and one of the 9 states I pass through has a ban on handguns, even though the other 8 don't, is it reasonable for that state to require me to either circumnavigate their state, or surrender my rights available in the other 8 states, merely to comply with their non-mainstream laws? Wouldn't a more reasonable approach included states who choose to pass non-mainstream laws provide exceptions for legitimate, documented, visitors from other states who are otherwise acting lawfully under the mainstream laws of their home state?
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:49 pm
by Vidav
travelinman67 wrote:Vidav wrote:
I know, I took it to the extreme on purpose.
My point is, which state laws should just be accepted anywhere, like a driver's license, and which shouldn't? How do you determine that?
I'm honestly curious btw. Where is that line. What makes something worthy of being recognized in all states?
So, if a same-sex couple gets married in Hawaii, then states without same-sex unions shouldn't be required to recognize their marriage.
Got it!
If I'm traveling by car across the U.S. and one of the 9 states I pass through has a ban on handguns, even though the other 8 don't, is it reasonable for that state to require me to either circumnavigate their state, or surrender my rights available in the other 8 states, merely to comply with their non-mainstream laws? Wouldn't a more reasonable approach included states who choose to pass non-mainstream laws provide exceptions for legitimate, documented, visitors from other states who are otherwise acting lawfully under the mainstream laws of their home state?
I asked how you decide which laws should be recognized everywhere. I didn't say I supported one way or another. Which laws do you think should be recognized across state lines?
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:56 pm
by Skjellyfetti
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:13 pm
by travelinman67
Vidav wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
So, if a same-sex couple gets married in Hawaii, then states without same-sex unions shouldn't be required to recognize their marriage.
Got it!
If I'm traveling by car across the U.S. and one of the 9 states I pass through has a ban on handguns, even though the other 8 don't, is it reasonable for that state to require me to either circumnavigate their state, or surrender my rights available in the other 8 states, merely to comply with their non-mainstream laws? Wouldn't a more reasonable approach included states who choose to pass non-mainstream laws provide exceptions for legitimate, documented, visitors from other states who are otherwise acting lawfully under the mainstream laws of their home state?
I asked how you decide which laws should be recognized everywhere. I didn't say I supported one way or another. Which laws do you think should be recognized across state lines?
SCOTUS has identified certain "subjective" areas of law as having "regional" varying standards, like obscenity. Others areas the court rigidly applies federal standards, most often dealing with 2nd through 7th amendment issues.
Liberal states/cities like NY ran amuck after the '68 GCA was passed...pushing local laws to the n'th degree. Cases like Heller and Parker cleared the fog and rightly refocused on fundamental constitutional rights. This is just like any other political pendulum, swinging back to a more central (constitutionally accurate) position.
New York cannot simply create laws without regard to constitutional foundation, and not expect to get slapped back. The time is past due.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:13 pm
by Col Hogan
Skjellyfetti wrote:Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
So, are you saying Jerome should not have been charged with a crime in New York since he has a valid permit from Indiana???
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:24 pm
by Skjellyfetti
Col Hogan wrote:
So, are you saying Jerome should not have been charged with a crime in New York since he has a valid permit from Indiana???
Yes. And marriage licenses to gay couples should be recognized in every state.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:36 pm
by travelinman67
Skjellyfetti wrote:Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
And yet, Obama shit all over every state's existing health laws, having nothing to due with federal constitutional protection...
...an act you supported.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14730&p=275693&hil ... ts#p275693
So, what is it Jellydonut?
If it's State's Rights, explain the justification for the Obama Admin. suing Arizona over SB 1070, S.Carolina over Voter I.D., and on, and on?
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:51 pm
by kalm
travelinman67 wrote:Vidav wrote:
I know, I took it to the extreme on purpose.
My point is, which state laws should just be accepted anywhere, like a driver's license, and which shouldn't? How do you determine that?
I'm honestly curious btw. Where is that line. What makes something worthy of being recognized in all states?
So, if a same-sex couple gets married in Hawaii, then states without same-sex unions shouldn't be required to recognize their marriage.
Got it!
If I'm traveling by car across the U.S. and one of the 9 states I pass through has a ban on handguns, even though the other 8 don't, is it reasonable for that state to require me to either circumnavigate their state, or surrender my rights available in the other 8 states, merely to comply with their non-mainstream laws? Wouldn't a more reasonable approach included states who choose to pass non-mainstream laws provide exceptions for legitimate, documented, visitors from other states who are otherwise acting lawfully under the mainstream laws of their home state?
So you're now in favor of more laws...expanded government?
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:57 pm
by travelinman67
kalm wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
So, if a same-sex couple gets married in Hawaii, then states without same-sex unions shouldn't be required to recognize their marriage.
Got it!
If I'm traveling by car across the U.S. and one of the 9 states I pass through has a ban on handguns, even though the other 8 don't, is it reasonable for that state to require me to either circumnavigate their state, or surrender my rights available in the other 8 states, merely to comply with their non-mainstream laws? Wouldn't a more reasonable approach included states who choose to pass non-mainstream laws provide exceptions for legitimate, documented, visitors from other states who are otherwise acting lawfully under the mainstream laws of their home state?
So you're now in favor of more laws...expanded government?
Put the pot away and turn the Disney channel back on.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:06 pm
by kalm
travelinman67 wrote:kalm wrote:
So you're now in favor of more laws...expanded government?
Put the pot away and turn the Disney channel back on.
Typical conk hypocrisy. All for states rights until you disagree. Always against special privileges until you want them.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:32 pm
by Skjellyfetti
travelinman67 wrote:Skjellyfetti wrote:
And yet, Obama shit all over every state's existing health laws, having nothing to due with federal constitutional protection...
...an act you supported.
So, what is it Jellydonut?
If it's State's Rights, explain the justification for the Obama Admin. suing Arizona over SB 1070, S.Carolina over Voter I.D., and on, and on?
The federal government isn't refered to in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It refers to the relationship between STATES. Government documents awarded by states should be accepted by the other states, imo. Health care law, the questions over immigration laws, etc. have nothing to do with the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
With regard to the relationship between the federal government and state government... the Constitution in the Supremacy Clause says that federal law is the supreme law of the land.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:04 pm
by D1B
Col Hogan wrote:TwinTownBisonFan wrote:it amuses me that "states rights" conservatives are unhappy that NY has a different law than IN...
I'm not saying he should have been arrested - but wouldn't the responsible thing for a gun owner to have done be to check on local laws before carrying?
If I get in my car in Virginia to drive to Minnesota, I don't need to go to several web sites to check where my driver's license is accepted...and where it isn't...I don't have to worry about being arrested "just for driving"...
Each state has different laws regarding getting a drivers license...but they accept each other's licenses...
Why is this any different?
Talking bout guns, Col.
Also, some states wanna keep a lid on gun owners, who are responsible for EVERY firearm accident and murder.
Re: New York...ugggg
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:15 am
by bluehenbillk
Most gum laws in this country are too liberal to begin with. I could give a rat's ass if this guy was a veteran or not - this isn't Iraq or Vietnam, know what you're doing & what the laws are before you bring a gun into the friggin Empire State Building.
