The NY SAFE ACT - College Argument

Anything interesting on the news lately? Chances are someone saw it too, talk about whatever it was in here.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
BaronVonRotterdam
UT2004 Server Admin
UT2004 Server Admin
Posts: 2594
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:42 pm
Location: The Terrible State (New York)
Contact:

The NY SAFE ACT - College Argument

Post by BaronVonRotterdam » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:19 pm

Could it be considered a wise decision to ban, or otherwise limit the firepower of a police force? Many would think that doing so would be a matter of great consequence. What being of sound mind would consider limiting the firepower of the “good guys”, thereby endangering them and giving the criminal a decisive upper-hand? No rational person would even contemplate such a dangerous notion, and yet the State of New York is perpetrating this very injustice not on its police officers, but on its citizens. The NY SAFE ACT is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, because it flagrantly infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of NY. Through the explanation of the language and importance of the Second Amendment, the group that the Second Amendment references, the tendency for the courts to misunderstand our rights, and sections of the Constitution that the NY SAFE ACT violates, it will become evident that the NY SAFE ACT is unconstitutional in multiple aspects; thus, making the drafting and enforcement of this law an illegal act to all elements of the state that took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

The NY SAFE ACT is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, because it infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of NY. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The interpretation of the Second Amendment has been a matter of great contention in recent American history. Some believe the militia to be the army, and thus “the people” refers to soldiers. Using that interpretation, some believe that only the army should have guns and not the citizenry. However, it is already noted in law that the militia is not the army, the militia is the people.

Defining who the militia refers to is key when defending the Second Amendment, and by extension, proving that the NY SAFE ACT is unconstitutional. In 1903 the Militia Act was enacted into law which clarified what the militia is. This law defines the militia as two separate groups: the organized militia, which refers to the federally funded National Guard, and the unorganized militia which is simply comprised of all men ages seventeen to forty-five. The Army and other military branches are an entirely separate group of its own which is not related to the militia. With this context in mind, and when one now takes another look at the Second Amendment, it could be read as “A well and adequately armed citizenry, necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to own and use firearms shall not be infringed.” This position however is not only inferred, it was maintained by our founding fathers. George Mason of Virginia who co-wrote the Second Amendment said “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” James Madison who is regarded as the “Father of The Constitution” has said “The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...” When looked at through this lens it becomes clear that any gun control law that infringes upon the peoples firearm rights is unconstitutional, yet these laws have been upheld by the courts.

The courts are not of an infallible nature, their function is to interpret the legality of a law based on their understanding of the Constitution. The NY SAFE ACT was largely found to be constitutional by a judge in Buffalo, NY. His ruling is however incongruous with the Second Amendment, and it is joined by other standing laws that are incongruous with the Bill of Rights. A pertinent example would be the established legality of “1st Amendment free zones” which are government approved areas where protestors are only allowed to protest, else face arrest. This blatantly unconstitutional law is in direct conflict with the First Amendment which states in part: “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” So how is it that the court could get away with such an obvious infringement of the people’s right to assembly? The simple answer is that they do not have a legitimate understanding of the Constitution. When the courts uphold an illegal law, the law is therefore nullified according to our Constitution. The NY SAFE ACT is one of these illegal laws as it is in direct violation of the Second Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the ex post facto law clause.

The NY SAFE ACT is not only an invalid law just because it is unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds, but on other Constitutional grounds as well. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. It also states that Federal law is also supreme to State law as long as the Federal law is also constitutional. Therefore, both Federal and State law must be constitutional to be legal. The NY SAFE ACT is therefore illegal because it violates the Second Amendment. The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Part of the reason the NY SAFE ACT was upheld as constitutional was because of legal precedence set by Federal court rulings. This reasoning however is in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment because the Constitution does not give the Federal Government any authority to regulate firearms. Therefore, the reasoning that the NY SAFE ACT is legal because it is based off of other Federally upheld illegal laws does not make it legal, on the contrary it makes it illegal, along with the Federal laws it is based off of. The Constitution also specifically forbids ex post facto laws which are laws that criminalize people for owning property that used to be legal. The NY SAFE ACT is an ex post facto law because it bans high-capacity magazines that were previously lawful to own, and it also bans “Assault Weapons”. The NY SAFE ACT tried to circumvent the ex post facto clause by “grandfathering” Assault Weapons for those who registered them, but there was no grandfathering for thirty round magazines. Thus the banning of thirty-round magazines is still an ex post facto law and the registration of firearms is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment which forbids a forced admission of guilt.

The NY SAFE ACT is undeniably unconstitutional on multiple grounds. The Second Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the ex-post facto clause of the Constitution are all very clear that any gun control law is not a valid law, regardless of any court ruling. The argument presented in this paper will not survive the scrutiny of State and Federal institutions that disagree with the plain language of the Constitution and endeavor to further violate the Second Amendment. However, the beauty of this argument is that it does not have to convince and be able to resist scrutiny by the courts. The people who understand their rights under their Constitution will be the ultimate judge in this debate over the legality of the NY SAFE ACT and other gun control initiatives. When one sees the combined facts that make the NY SAFE ACT unconstitutional it is not difficult to sympathize with citizens who vocally and voraciously oppose the NY SAFE ACT and those who are refusing to comply with it. This non-compliance is the consequence of all unconstitutional law because the Constitution was plainly written so that all citizens could understand their rights. When the courts get a decision wrong the law can still be overturned by the people if the police will not arrest, the juries will not convict, and the judges will not sentence. This nullification is the ultimate check against the NY SAFE ACT and other unconstitutional law. The spirit of resistance is rising amongst the citizens because they know that any law that violates the Constitution is not a law at all and should not be complied with. If the politicians continue to infringe upon our rights it is not us who will be arrested, it will be them for violating their oaths of office.
| ASRock Fatal1ty X470 | AMD Ryzen 3700x @Stock | 32GB DDR4 3200 mHz | Zotac GeForce RTX 2060 Super | Dell S2417DG |

User avatar
Archangel
UT2004 Server Admin
UT2004 Server Admin
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: Asskicker in Heaven
Contact:

Re: The NY SAFE ACT - College Argument

Post by Archangel » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:30 pm

The SAFE ACT needs to go away........ :evil: :evil: :evil:
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”