Would a new NY Republican Governor be able change NY Gun Laws for the better.

[Jchrisls]

SSo what am I still doing in this state then?

I sk myself that all to often, as I'm sure many others do.

 

[Catskillkid]

So if SCOTUS rules that AWB and Mag limits are ruled unconstitutional. What happens to NY? Can NY make another unSAFE ACT?

If SCOTUS rules that AWB and Mag limits are unconstitutional then NYS would have to allow them. However, shit weasel politicians could conceivably enact another law that bans them a different way. For example, they may not be able to ban them outright like the SAFE Act does but they could put a tax on every magazine over 10 rounds or an extra tax on "assault weapons," "semi-autos," or whatever they deemed. Then the process could proceed again and take years if not decades in the courts to overturn...if it gets overturned. This is why the saying exists that rights can be taken away in a matter of minutes but it takes years to restore if they ever are.

I'm truly worried about the antis pushing a tax on guns as the I think that ultimately will be the way they ban them. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear and previously court rulings (Heller and McDonald) have made it so. However, the Constitution makes it clear that the government has the power to levy taxes as it sees fit. That's ultimately how they'll get us, by just tax guns out of existence like they do cigarettes.

 

[DrBleachCocktail]

If SCOTUS rules that AWB and Mag limits are unconstitutional then NYS would have to allow them. However, shit weasel politicians could conceivably enact another law that bans them a different way. For example, they may not be able to ban them outright like the SAFE Act does but they could put a tax on every magazine over 10 rounds or an extra tax on "assault weapons," "semi-autos," or whatever they deemed. Then the process could proceed again and take years if not decades in the courts to overturn...if it gets overturned. This is why the saying exists that rights can be taken away in a matter of minutes but it takes years to restore if they ever are.

I'm truly worried about the antis pushing a tax on guns as the I think that ultimately will be the way they ban them. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear and previously court rulings (Heller and McDonald) have made it so. However, the Constitution makes it clear that the government has the power to levy taxes as it sees fit. That's ultimately how they'll get us, by just tax guns out of existence like they do cigarettes.

Boston Tea Party Part 2.

 

[Saltwater60]

Agree with some soldier. Even if the nys Republican Governor was more progun than me he or she doesn’t make laws. We would need to flip the state house and senate as well. Me winning the power all is more likely and I don’t play the lottery so what’s that tell you.

 

[Acer-m14]

with FUAC un-controlled powers that were granted to him via Covid by the other assholes .. now if a 2A gov had that gift ummmm could be a fun party .. your all fking fired (dem judges and dem AG .. ect ) lol ..

 

[Gort]

We likely have a favorable SCOTUS now who would follow the words and meaning of the Constitution and avoid the living constitution's Humpty Dumpty approach.

What we want next is a strict scrutiny test. That would be huge, and would likely open up the avenue of attack on nearly every unconstitutional gun law in the country. If the SCOTUS determines that strict scrutiny applies, we won the war, but it may take years to clean things up.

Also, a loss on a weak case may prevent a strong case from being determined. Put another way, avoiding a loss is the key until its time to win. For what its worth, this was George Washington's approach in fighting the British, so it is as American as it gets.

For the SCOTUS to take a case, it requires four votes. Since all 2A cases were declined after they mooted NSPRA, that means the pro 2A justices didn't want to engage due to the fear of a loss. Odds are Roberts is the swing vote and cannot be counted on. He could go either way.

WIth ACB likely to apply the actual words of the Constitution on all cases, not just the 2A cases, odds are much greater that Constitutional rights will be upheld.

We may not have a 6-3 majority, but a 5 and 1/2 to 3 and 1/2 is still pretty good.

The next step is getting a good case to the SCOTUS. By good, it means a "clean" case to the extent possible. No messy procedure issues, no nut case plaintiffs if at all possible, something very narrow and focused without side issues to distract. The goal being a strict scrutiny test to become the rule of law in deciding 2A cases.

If that happens, then new challenges to the SAFE act and the Sullivan Law can occur, as the prior rulings were not made under strict scrutiny.

That is how NY onerous gun laws will go away.

 

[Defilade]

Democrats Should not be allowed to own AR's! Guns either! and now they question gun laws? Gotta be kiddin me.

 

[spat]

I suspect if we had a Republican elected governer, the Democrat-owned legislature would suddenly discover the true nature and purpose of the branch of government they were elected to.

We 100% absolutely need to get off this 100+ year long obsession with the incorrect notion that the Executive branch is the most important and powerful. By design, it is not.

The legislature at all levels has abdicated power yo the executive for a long time.

It is a result of a woefully uninformed electorate.

They take credit for passing vaguely worded legislation that they can sell as all solutions to all people, then blame the executive for it's failure when the details to implement it inevitably have to be filled in.

If the voters recognized this and held them responsible for the utter BS they pass things would be a lot better.

 

[Vapor]

The ONLY way this happens is a magical world where we are allowed to split from NYC

 

[Robin]

First you have to find a republican that can win. That narrows the field considerably. From the remaining handful you need one with balls. It is a certainty that, that one is busy right now, and has moved to Florida.
Robin

 

[Modean]

As long as the Assembly is owned by NYC Democrats, there is zero chance of better gun laws. Regardless of who the Governor is.

 

[Modean]

So if SCOTUS rules that AWB and Mag limits are ruled unconstitutional. What happens to NY? Can NY make another unSAFE ACT?

Yes they can. That’s the unfortunate reality of our legal system. They can jam through any laws they want to, and it takes years to overturn them. If you manage to at all. We’ve had SAFE for almost 8 years now.

 

[DrBleachCocktail]

Yes they can. That’s the unfortunate reality of our legal system. They can jam through any laws they want to, and it takes years to overturn them. If you manage to at all. We’ve had SAFE for almost 8 years now.

But how? If SCOTUS says it’s unconstitutional. Wouldn’t that be another lawsuit and the feds get involved?

 

[Modean]

But how? If SCOTUS says it’s unconstitutional. Wouldn’t that be another lawsuit and the feds get involved?

Sure would, and as I said, it takes years to get it fixed, if you ever do. SCOTUS gets to pick and choose what cases they want to hear.

 

[maverick52]

If the Dems raised taxes on all New Yorkers to 89% and began putting people in concentration camps who dissented...a Republican still wouldn’t have a chance of becoming governor. The only hope is to leave the state.

 

[SonOfSun]

And still others may not be down with gun control, but just don't care about it as much as some other issue that the Democrats better represent them on.

Ding. Ding. Ding.