Second Circuit Upholds New York SAFE Act—Threatens Second Amendment


New York holds the dubious distinction of having passed the most stringent piece of gun control in U.S. history—the New York SAFE Act of 2013. That statement alone is significant. However, when you pull the curtain back on the New York SAFE Act of 2013, you’ll discover the law was both presented and passed into law in a mere 15 minutes! No debate, no discussion, and no consideration.

If gun enthusiasts can’t come together and stop trying to point fingers at each other this will be our future.

These types of knee jerk reactions and partisan politics from lawmakers are not new or unheard of. If there was serious consideration over a piece of legislation so significant as the SAFE Act, lawmakers would have taken the time to do their due diligence. That obviously did not happen. The verdict was preordained; the vote was a mere formality. Fortunately, the courts, most often quickly strike down partisan laws such as the New York SAFE Act of 2013, as well.

However, that is not the case in regard to the SAFE Act, and the implications may be far reaching. On Monday, October 19, 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the New York SAFE Act of 2013 ruling it did not violate the Second Amendment. This decision is flawed for multiple reasons, but first, we must understand what the SAFE Act covers.

The SAFE Act is the complete ban on the sale or transfer of all military-style semi-automatic rifles manufactured within the past several decades. In other words, the SAFE Act is a complete ban of AR-15, AK-47, M-14/M-1a, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and many other civilian-legal versions of “military firearms.” The SAFE Act also targets magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Unlike other similar laws, New York’s SAFE Act did not contain a “grandfather” provision for previously legal items.

We should not be surprised considering the rhetoric from lawmakers prior to the passage of the SAFE Act. For instance, Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that he wanted a complete confiscation of existing firearms subject to the SAFE Act. However, in the version eventually adopted, existing owners of subject firearms were allowed to keep their rifles as long as they registered them with the State. However, when the owner dies, the firearm cannot be transferred to a relative within the state. Upon the owner’s death, it will be confiscated.

M1A Loaded Series from Springfield Armory
Competition models such as this M1A Loaded Series from Springfield Armory is subject to New York’s SAFE Act.

What’s Next?

Like all laws, there is a process. Given the Second Circuit’s ruling, the people subject to this law will have to go to the Supreme Court for redress. Often times, after publishing stories like this one, I read the comment section and find it is filled with comments such as, “That’s why I do not live in New York or California.” or “Come to Texas!” That sounds fine, but you need to understand the potential implications. You may not be able to hide from this ruling even if you live in another state.

If the SAFE Act stands or the Supreme Court rules contrary to the way it has in McDonald or Heller, or refuses to hear the case at all, the SAFE Act could become the model for other states that are friendly to the Second Amendment. It could even become the blueprint for a national version of the SAFE Act. That would be disastrous for the Second Amendment.

The President is in his last year in office with nothing to lose but his legacy. He has already signed orders that ban importing or repatriating firearms ranging from AKs and Mosin Nagants from certain countries, and M1s from South Korea. How eager would he be to sign an order banning the firearms covered by the SAFE Act on a national level? Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), has already introduced the legislation and Gov. Cuomo restarted the gun control rhetoric by calling for national recognition as soon as the court handed down its ruling Monday.

Supreme Court Building
The Supreme Court will now have to decide whether or not to hear an appeal on the SAFE Act.

National Ban

The Second Circuit’s decision comes about a week after both President Obama and Hillary Clinton publicly praised the Australian and British mass gun confiscations of the 1990s. If the Supreme Court upholds the SAFE Act, nothing would be left to prevent Congress from summarily outlawing millions of firearms overnight. Who knows how much damage President Obama could or would do through Executive Orders if he smelled the blood of the Second Amendment in the waters? It’s not all doom and gloom; there is a bit of light. First, the President would not be able to ban the firearms outright without Congress and that is unlikely. Second, the Supreme Court would not take the case up until next year. Therefore, they would not be likely to render a decision until late next summer. That would be in prime election season and lawmakers—as well as the President—would be unlikely to take such action with elections only a few months away. It would be suicide for the Democratic Party.

However, it shows the importance of ensuring the next President is firmly pro gun. It is likely, that the next President will get to name one or more Supreme Court justices. This could easily tip the balance and spell the demise of the Second Amendment as we know it.

What do you think? Will the Supreme Court overturn the SAFE Act? Is it a threat to the Second Amendment? Share your views in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (99)

  1. What we need to do as gun owners is build a huge Noah’s Ark type boat, load up all our guns and ammo and go to the Far East where we dont have to deal with all this “Gun Restriction Bullsh*t anymore!!” Nuff Said!

    1. @ Scarface,

      Great idea, but wrong Ark passengers. Since it is the anti-gunners and liberals that stand on the wrong side of the foundations of this Country and the standing Constitution, it is they that should be burdened with having to leave, not us.

  2. The 2nd Amendment was established to maintain a just political system, personal protection and legal sporting participation.
    If the majority of the citizens legal right/rights were being denied by the government they would have their “guns” as a deterrent to non-representation and confiscation.
    The US government has trained its military in the use of the “Sword”
    to kill the enemies of Liberty and Freedom. If or when the armed peoples and many veterans determine the non-representative government is now the Enemy. The lowest rated government and politicians in our history will be in jeopardy. This is one good reason I believe the liberal left is greatly concerned with gun control.

  3. I think the 2nd Amendment, started to DIE when the NRA decided to Declare War on a Subject IT WAS TRYING TO PROTECT!

  4. YOU allowed it, YOU wanted it… AND…. YOU voted for it too!

    How are you liking it now………..SHEEP?

    Democracy at it’s best, Liberty at it’s finest.

    YOU better be serving and paying your elected “Washington Masters.”

    “Ain’t Freedom Grand”…..Fresh Mutton Stew is on the dinner menu.

    Order up!

  5. The 2nd Amendment has been dying a slow but steady death since the evil of FDR and the NFA in 1934.

    And elections are rigged – the establishment will not allow anyone even decent, much less good, to even be on the ballot, much less to win and take office. And sadly, its all so nasty and corrupt now, politics and govt, that no one truly good even wants to run.

  6. I am as pro gun as anyone can be and fight for our rights as much as I can. The only recommendation I can suggest is, if you are Left or Right or in between, if you are pro gun, the next time election day comes around, get off your dead asses. Instead of going to your favorite gun range, go to your voting booth and vote. We are as close as ever to being exactly like England, Scotland, all of Australia etc. If we don’t do something fast it is a done deal, it is going to happen! I won’t be around for many more years but my kids and grand kids (and possibly great grand kids) might see this happen. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS AND VOTE. IT THAT DOESN’T DO IT MAYBE WE ARE LOOKING AT ANOTHER REVOLUTION!

  7. GUN CONTROL: For every article thats written nearly all of the comments express fustration by repeating law, interperting law, sharing common sense, siting FBI statistics and of course deep discussions of the second amendment on who, why, how, what, where. ENOUGH already!
    NOBODY on the left is listening!!!
    Its up to us to VOTE. Everyone needs to start their individual GET OUT THE VOTE CAMPAIGN!!!

  8. Only one way to go, one thing to do, VOTE!!
    Get informed and vote. Every Represenitive in the House is up for election (every 2 yrs) and 1/3 of the Senate is up for election. Get informed on who is representing you and your state and vote pro second amendment and all of your rights!!
    Lets all stand up together and vote. To my liberal friends out there that are firearm owners but believe only in firearms for hunting and protection in the home.You need to understand, confiscation includes you. Get smart, get informed and VOTE!!! Pass it on.

    1. Wake up, already! All elections are now rigged to put establishment Big Brother criminal control freaks in office. Have been for 20-25 years.

      No one good is allowed to come in power or even have a say.

    1. I was in In Scotland about 5 years ago and on a bus tour (I live in So. CA. you get my drift) and this subject came up. The driver told us Scotland has the highest number of knife attacks and deaths (more than all of the US states) in all of the UK. What is next NY? I used to live there till I moved here in 1970. The weather is great but, other than that what a stupid move. Had to follow the wife’s family, back to the subject, NY will outlaw all knives then baseball bats etc. Do you New Yorkers get the trend? Get out and vote so the rest of us are not the next in line Please!

  9. No big surprise here. Legislating from the bench is a lifestyle for liberal judges.
    It isn’t likely that this decision will stand for very long.

  10. The idiots who presented the case to the courts got their own words used against them and were not smart enough to figure out how to win this case shew vs malloy. They said the constitutionality of taking the guns was ease of use and convince, that’s not in the constitution, wtf?

  11. The problem is no one has the balls or the backing to stand up to this. Someone needs to stand up and say these guns keep us free from the government now they took them in new York and Connecticut and the NRA has done nothing.
    The 3% have not been bothered enough by the tyrannical government take over to do anything, while they are buying mraps, m4s billions of 556 and military gear we just keep going through work to make money for the government to out flank us quite ironic

  12. The long term error in the anti-constitution groups are evident. Killing off their own Constitution places them in as weak a position as the pro-gun side. They are destroying the very ground they stand on, a huge mistake.

  13. I’m all for tossing out all politicians after two terms, as well as the judges.
    They can try and get a national safe act but I seriously doubt it would get any traction except in states that are already anti-gun.
    But as for me and my guns we are on the side of liberty and righteousness
    For if the time were to come (and I pray it never does) I would fight to the very end to remove the unpatriotic swine who have abused the offices they’re in, for their own agenda instead of the will of the people that they are supposed to represent and serve.

  14. You are off the wall about the Disqualification Act of 1787. It was passed by the House and Senate of the State of Massachusetts. It was not passed nor considered by the Continental Congress delegation. It was a State Act. The Act was designed to pardon those involved in the Shays Rebellion in the State of Massachusetts.
    The Insolvency Act of 1986 was passed by the United Kingdom parliament, and has nothing to do with the United. Insolvency in the United States has to do with the Bankruptcy Laws.
    At least know whether you are talking about a State Act or a UK Act.

  15. @James…… Today we have the worst of all possibilities, watching a rogue congress pass unconstitutional laws, lateraled off to politically activist Justices to adjudicate them and a POTUS with no respect for either. The result is today the road paved by the “living Constitution” is paved with one baseless Supreme Court precedent serving as an argument for the next baseless precedent. It is indicative of a lack of patriotism, ignorance of the Constitution by the electorate and what it all stands for.

  16. The decision was written by Judge José Cabranes, who was appointed a federal district judge by President Carter and elevated to the 2nd Circuit by President Clinton. The opinion was joined by Judges Raymond Lohier (a President Obama appointee) and Christopher Droney (appointed to the district bench by Clinton and to the 2nd Circuit by Obama).

    Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who represented New York in the case, hailed the ruling.

  17. Jabberwacky,,,,,,The Insolvency Act 1986 essentially governs issues relating to personal bankruptcy, dumbass. WTF are you guys smoking?

  18. 1 ab urbe condita……..“Disqualification” Act 1787 did just that. It allow the Federal Government to “Suspend” the Boll of Right’s for an Unspecified Time******* It did no such thing !

  19. Yup!
    That’s it, in a nutshell.
    The 2nd Amendment was written to protest us against exactly the sort of government that we now have.

  20. I’m more concerned about the next election. Check into the ages of the supremes. The next prez will likely appoint 1-2 new ones, and if the term is 8 years possibly more.

  21. hello as a new York
    strategitly what would be our best defense against this…beside voting an being a member of nra
    open to all suggestions
    trying to nip this thing in the butt

  22. The people must rise up on this one If we do not, it is the beginning of the end!
    How in the hell can they say it does NOT violate the 2nd Amend??? What part of “shall NOT be INFRINGED” Not only should these Justices be thrown out of office, but tried and convicted of treason! The Representatives that legislate , and bring forth ANY bills contrary to the 2nd amendment should also be CANNED, tried and convicted of treason regardless of party affiliation. It`s that simple.

  23. I do not pretend to be a US Constitutional Scholar, I leave that public field of battle to those who need something to hide behind due to their own part in aiding in and lacking of conviction to protect its destruction, instead I concentrate on reality of 2015 and not the imaginary 1700’s.
    I do know, yes know by their own writings and those of their peers, both Tory and Rebels, that at the out break of hostilities all those wealthy plantation owners ran like hell if not out of country but for damned sure out of range of Brit powder and shot range.
    Way less than 10%of populace actually rebelled and of the 10% any were part time to earn a few bucks in beteen end of hRvest and planting and as to militia almost alltheir balls were spent at targets of opportunity, and then out run your hounds back home.
    Interesting talk of Shay Rebellion and yes our attemt but never formaly accepted 14th state but the Whiskey rebellion was a deliberate act to incite the peoplebto riot so that the full might of Central government could crush them there by setting in peoples minds just who the hell ruled this nation; It was put in place in a way heavy handed manner worse than tobacco or tea party Koch brothers twisting GOP by an American hero Alexander Hamilton, and it worked and it was not just Federal troops but StTe sponsored militia groups who joined feds.
    So the use of legislTion as a social engineering proces is not new to American politic.
    There will never be any real armed resistance to Federal powers in this nation as in the past the feds have won every armed incident over the populace.
    MY Gramps spoke of when McCarthur fired upon WWI vets, the auto strikers , wobblies and unions , coal miners, helped fire bomb a whole friggin city block in city of brotherly love, Kent State and even Battle of Seattle and Olympia that used active duty militRy as police auxillRy.
    IN every civil rights battle in US history american gun owners gladly sided with killing the protestors and government copsband security has always got away with murder on american soil. Waco Texas and Branch Davidians got no sympathy nor outpouring of disgust by gun owners instead the loved the pics of gore.
    The far less than 10% mostly sit quietly already knowing howbthey as individuals will respond if confiscation comes about. While thrle nut cSes are hollering for someone to look at them and egg them on.
    Worse yet are all the gun owners who talk of fantCy Constitution ,Republic and representative government when they are all long gone from US of American Empire.

  24. This should all be viewed in the current context of a Federal gov’t gone out of control and, just as important, is losing control.
    Prog policies created problems and the Prog answer to that is more policy that creates more problems.
    This was Prohibition in a nutshell, as well as everything else in the last 100 years.
    I think this could get to the point where WDC actually tries a confiscation but, by that time, will have so little genuine authority left that most us ignore it with impunity.
    After all, they need the police to enforce their laws and they aren’t on good terms with the police, or the military.
    There have been several armed stand offs with gov’t SWATS, like Cliven Bundy Ranch, in which the Feds back down.
    They may not continue to back down, but their prospects for another Waco isn’t good, given the political climate, today.
    We do want to do things the legal way but when the other side won’t honor that, then there really is no alternative to simply not complying with unconstitutional laws, no matter what the Feds say.
    And sticking together about it.
    We really need, at this point, a leader who will state that, should a national gun control law be passed like that in NY, the undersigned commit to not complying.
    Let that group be large enough, and they won’t do it.
    I’ve had enough of this “gun debate”.
    There is no debate, anymore.
    It’s been decided, over and over in favor of the 2nd Amendment.
    But Progs won’t quit until they get their way.
    The time is coming to let them know, they won’t get their way no matter what law they gerrymander through Congress.

  25. There’s a portion of the majority opinion in DC v. Heller that many people are unaware of. It reads:

    “[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia… . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms… . The clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom, not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous abuse, is protected.” J. Pomeroy, An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States 152–153 (1868) (hereinafter Pomeroy).”

  26. The Supreme Court better over turn this draconian attempt to do an end-run around the 2nd Amendment. If they do not, it will only be a matter of time until there will be ultimately a revolution by those that are true patriots wishing to preserve their liberty and freedom as the Founding Father’s gave their all to establish for us.

  27. The following is an FYI from “”: After the 1996 so-called ‘buyback’ in Australia, which seized 640,381 privately owned guns from its citizens, by March of 2000 firearms murders were up by 19%, armed robberies were up 69% and violent home invasions were up by 19%. In the 15 years prior to the confiscation firearms homicides were down by almost 66% and firearms deaths overall were down by 50%.

  28. @1 ab urbe condita
    The Disqualification Act was passed by the House and Senate of Massachusetts on February 16, 1787. It sets forth conditions for granting pardons to the men who participated in Shays’ Rebellion as privates or non-commissioned officers. The men were required to turn in their guns and take an oath of allegiance delivered by a Justice of the Peace. The Justice of the Peace was then required to relay the men’s names to the clerks of their towns. The men were barred from serving as jurors, members of town or state government and certain professions for three years. They also lost their right to vote in town elections

  29. The reason the 2nd A was written into the law at the hest of the Anti Federalist was to insure that no law would be created to disarm the people. it’s just that simple. You seem to be the one the revisionist here. M-ster.

    1. @ Tom Williams

      Not True, the “Disqualification” Act 1787 did just that. It allow the Federal Government to “Suspend” the Boll of Right’s for an Unspecified Time. It could by Law essentially place an entire State under House Arrest. And that away you Guns. The “Disqualification” Act, has be “Modified” over the years, and is NOW called the “Insolvency” Act. Different Name, Same Rules and more of the Latter.

    1. Well, they may not. Just think about it: Obama’s approval raiting is currently 46%. Which means that almost half of this country do approve actions of a man who is trying to destroy the very core of it. They are fine with it. He’s put this nation on a brink of a civil war, but they simply don’t see it. As long as the next candidate keeps on promising more freebies, they will vote for him/her. And this, my Friend, is scary…

  30. Secundius
    The ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius(the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights ( of the people) merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. You’re a moron.

  31. I find it interesting that the Founding Fathers, Ratified the Ten of the Original Twelve Amendments in 1789. Before the Bill-Of-Rights in 1791. It’s like the were giving Themselves a Way Out, Just in Case the “Proverbial SH^T HIT THE FAN”. Just in case, the Concept of a Free and Independent Country Concept didn’t take. Something like Eisenhower have TWO Letter’s at D-Day, One GOOD News and One BAD News…

    1. I find it interesting that the Founding Fathers, Ratified the Ten of the Original Twelve Amendments ****** There were the Federalist and there were the anti Federalist. The antiFederalist were concerned that the Constitution would lead to the same type British Rule they had just fought against. it was they that are responsible for the first 10 amendments of INDIVIDUAL rights. History’s obviously not your strong suit, nor is critical thinking.

    2. @ Tom

      – Preamble and Articles of the Constitution, I through VII. Ratified 17 September 1787.
      – Amendment of the Constitution, Bill of Rights I through X (Originally XII) was Drafted 25 September 1789, but only 10 got ratified by the State Delegates on 15 December 1791.
      – Also originally there were 14 States, not 13. the Lost State “Franklin”, became part of Tennessee.
      – The US Bill of Rights of 1791 is based on the British Bill of Rights of 1689.

    3. @ Tom

      It was called the Disqualification Act of 16 February 1787. Which allowed the Suspension of the Speech, Press, Religion, Assembly and the Right to Bear Arms.

    4. In 1808, Congress added a Provision to the Act, and it now called the Suffrage & Disqualification Act. And in 1986, it was Modified to become the Insolvency Act, which STILL allow’s for Confiscations of Property (including Firearms). New Name, Old Law.

    5. @ Secundius,

      The Founding Fathers couldn’t ratify anything. Ratification of Constitutional Amendments by definition is a process reserved for the States, and only the States. This means you are incorrect to write that 10 of the 12 original amendments were ratified in 1789; before the Bill of Rights in 1791. It is impossible.

      What actually did occurred in 1789 was that 39 Madison proposed Amendments were submitted to Congress for review. Of those, 7 were selected and approved by Congress to move forward and be submitted to the States for final ratification. Congress also added 5 more proposed Amendments to make a total of 12 Amendments submitted to the States for final approval (“Ratification”).

      By 1791 only 10 of those 12 proposed Amendments were finally ratified by the States and became part of the US Constitution which have simply been dubbed “The Bill of Rights”.

    6. @ G-Man

      I just noticed something, and I’m surprised YOU didn’t catch it Sir. The Shays’ Rebellion took place in 1787 through 1788. But the Bill of Right’s, weren’t Enacted to the Country until March 1st 1792. FOUR years AFTER the Shays’ Rebellion. The 2nd Amendment didn’t even Exist in 1787.

    7. @ M Square I,

      I’m missing your point as to what exactly it is that you’ve suddenly noticed and what you feel I should have caught – that has got you all surprised.

      First allow me to correct your dates, as Shays’ Rebellion lasted one year – from August 1786 to June 1787, but not “1787 through 1788” as you wrote. Notwithstanding that correction in history, I continue to struggle to find your surprising revelation, let alone a simple relationship, between Shay’s Rebellion and the Second Amendment not having yet existed.

      However, I am willing to venture a guess that your unnecessary surprise may stem from you thinking that Shay’s Rebellion, having been an armed uprising, should not have been able to happen given that the Second Amendment had not yet existed to allow Shay’s forces to bear arms at the time.

      It was not as though no one could bear arms prior to the ratification of the Second Amendment. Quite the contrary, as everyone was already armed and it was a requirement that stemmed from the Revolutionary War.

      A fear of change and the unexpected as the new Federal Government was first being formed is what prompted a few smart individuals to insist on the addition of Second Amendment. It was merely used to warn the new Federal Government that we intend to continue our pre-existing right to bear arms.

      Thus explains why Shay’s forces already lawfully owned their own firearms and used such weaponry to mount the armed rebellion for a year. If I’ve missed the mark, please do enlighten me.

    8. @ G-man

      As I recall, they tried to take over a Federal Armory. And What Pre-Existing Law was there, if there’s no written documentation support the Law. Your trying to Retroactively write in a law that didn’t exist, 4-years before it was written into Law. I’m No Aware of any Colonial Time Machine Companies of the Times mentioned. And WHERE are these Time Machine’s NOW.

    9. @ M Square I,

      I am not trying to retroactively do anything. You are arguing about something you’ve shown you know absolutely nothing about, and your responses are making you look quite foolish at that.

      We never needed laws or the government’s permission to have guns. And I find it quite unfortunate there exist people like you who are under the misguided impression that a law must first be created before you think a man has the permission to do anything.

      For you to need the hand of your government to guide you through life is a shame. We call you sad folks “sheeple”. So given your weakness, I’ll try to break it down for you one last time:

      The US Constitution and its Amendments are not to tell the People what they can do; it was written by the PEOPLE to tell the Federal Government what they can’t do – by limiting their power. In other words, we did not need a law to give us permission to bear arms, as that was already a natural-right and thus a given law of the land. It also explains why we lawfully had guns during Shay’s Rebellion.

      Instead, we saw a need to place a new law upon the newly forming Federal Government to tell them that one of our several conditions which allow them to exist is that they can NEVER take away our guns. That is precisely what the Second Amendment was created for. Even its very wording is a clear indicator we had ALREADY possessed guns and that “We the People” were speaking to the Federal Government about their limitations over those guns.

      So hopefully you now realize the humiliating position you’ve placed yourself in when you implied that we weren’t allowed to possess guns until after the Second Amendment was ratified. Regardless of what you previously believed, you need to come to terms with the real facts, so I repeat – the Second Amendment does not bestow a right upon the people to suddenly bear arms, the Second Amendment was instead a law designed to restrain the Federal government from ever thinking they could infringe or take away that right which we always already had.

      I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but things like guns were invented and used for years well before their eventual abuse led to the government’s regulatory overreach and laws. To help you put this concept into perspective, I now take you on a journey into the future. A journey that propels you two-hundred years into our future where you would probably be caught posting things like, “No way we had cell phones 20 years before they finally implemented ‘no texting while driving laws’”. Or, “No way did they have cars on the roads 80 years before mandatory seatbelt laws were started”. Oh wait, here’s a really hot topic you’d probably post, “No way were citizens allowed to fly quad copter drones for 10 years before the Feds finally forced them to be registered”.

      I am hoping I’ve made my point by now, but probably not; especially after reading some of your immature posts to others. I now realize your nothing more than an antagonist, or more modernly known on the Internet as a “troll”.

      I am sorry I ever encouraged you with a response. A mistake I now realize after seeing the value of my words fall to waste on someone incapable of comprehending them, let alone the true history of our country. You have sorely missed the boat to freedom if you think you need a law created before you have permission to breathe in this country. A true indicator you haven’t the slightest understanding behind this country’s foundational principles, nor the proper historical education to hold anymore dialogue with me.

  32. . Today we have the worst of all possibilities, watching a rogue congress pass unconstitutional laws, lateraled off to politically activist Justices to adjudicate them and a POTUS with no respect for either. The result is today the road paved by the “living Constitution” is paved with one baseless Supreme Court precedent serving as an argument for the next baseless precedent. It is indicative of a lack of patriotism, ignorance of the Constitution by the electorate and what it all stands for.

  33. Secudius, the Ninth Amendment does no such thing!.”. The NINTH and TENTH AMENDMENTS, clearly reinforce the original document’s intent of the PREAMBLE that was to PROMOTE not IMPOSE. Loosely interpreted, the two AMENDMENTS state that the ENUMERATION in the Constitution shall not be construed to mean that all unspoken authority reverts to the government. It goes to the people. The TENTH AMENDMENT is more specific saying the RIGHTS not specified, revert back to the people. ARTICLE ONE, SECTION EIGHT, specifies that the government should REGULATE commerce, not INTERFERE. Your view suggests that a referee in a football game,would have the right to interfere in the game itself, as opposed to seeing that the game was played within the rules. Through the political give and take in Congress we ended up with the Ninth Amendment we have today. But the purpose of the Ninth Amendment was, clearly and explicitly, to limit the power of government. It achieves this purpose by recognizing that the people have certain rights. It does not specifically delineate those rights, but notes that they are more than the specific rights set out in the Bill of Rights

    1. @ Tom.

      What’s the Publication Date of the Dictionary, your using SIR? The Dictionary used in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration Of Independence, WAS a Oxford Dictionary published in 1690 (Old English)…

  34. There are many of us across the nation that have said, “ENOUGH!!!” and are participating in the Armed Civil Disobedience of Non-Compliance. Rates of non-compliance are 85% in CT and 95% in NY. State officials have blustered that they would “aggressively enforce” the new laws, and to date have only prosecuted a handful of criminals. They DARE NOT do what it is they would have to do for full enforcement, because the bloodshed and body count on both sides could not be tolerated. Therefore, we continue to:


    The lawsuits against the government are failing due to unconstitutional rulings in rogue courts by judicial activists. It amazes me how they will contort logic and The Constitution to make up rights, and perform those same types of gyrations to try and deny those rights that are God given. Therefore, we will simply ignore what they pass, rendering it NULL & VOID!

    As always…..their move.

  35. It is my opinion that no matter how many laws are passed which curtails my right to keep and bear arms, they are blatantly unconstitutional! No discussion! A right is a right, not a privilege!
    Keep that view in mind, don’t let ignorant and stupid politicians and judges whittle our rights away. We have a press which is not doing its job of warning us that we are on the way to a totalitarian government; and we are not using the tools given to us by the Founding Fathers to prevent exactly what is happening before our very eyes! Wake up America!

  36. A national version of the SAFE Act; That would be disastrous for the Second Amendment.

    I look at it from a different angle.

    The Second Amendment would be disastrous for the SAFE act and all those traitors supporting it.

  37. Illegal confiscation or seizure, which is inevitable following mandatory registration is following the path of Nazi Germany, when a power hungry leader massacred his own country’s citizens. The 2nd Amendment is our single most important balance against a corrupt and too powerful government and if our government decides to take that right then I would expect a new Civil War.

    1. @ Matt

      Never happen in a MILLION YEARS! Second or Third Civil War, Has been “BS’d” about 10 years now. Nobody what to be a DEAD “MARTYR”. DREAM ON!!!!

  38. Gee…..I wonder how many Supreme Ct. Judges own firearms ? I bet they don’t rely on a Billy stick for the protection.

  39. For over 200 years the citizenry has upheld its end of the Constitution. Sure, there have been a few skirmishes, but overall with millions of citizens armed, we have never once out-and-out abused our right to bear arms by taking over a legitimate government. In other words, we as a society have proven for centuries that we can be trusted; however, the same cannot be said for the government.

    Dolbee wrote, “It’s not all doom and gloom; there is a bit of light…” However, my version of that light is the fact that right now we are still in possession of our guns, and will be on the day they try to come and take them.

    Would not the government’s actions on such a day in history appropriately be seen by the citizenry as the very act of tyranny for which our Founding Father’s intended us to exercise our Second Amendment rights to begin with? Is that not the very moment we are required to rise up in arms in order that we may keep such a government in check from defying our Constitution?

    Disarming the citizenry undoubtedly creates an imbalance of power just waiting to be abused when the time is right. The Founding Fathers knew this from firsthand experience by King George and thus created the Second Amendment as a warning to future rulers to prevent it. If we instead simply allow such rulers to take our guns, then we have in essence made a statement admitting we yield to them – and thereafter we deserve whatever comes next.

  40. Gun owners need to decide for themselves what they will tolerate and what they will not. As for me, I will not be disarmed nor will I comply with any further restrictions on my fundamental right to self-defense. Period.

    On this issue, the second amendment does not even matter.

    You’ll have to come and take them. My advice would be to make sure that your life insurance policy is up-to-date first.

  41. The bottom line is “rational” gun owners are allowing “insane” gun owners to control this subject. Regurgitating Gun Manufacturers Lobbyist rhetoric as if it were factual.
    There is a real need for everyone that knows some bat shot crazy gun but” to fester into a raging lunitic without being called out has soured the milk.
    Defending blanket “all inclusive” gun ownership is killing your cause. And allowing the NRA to speak for citizens when they are employed by manufacturers shows a true lack of reality grasp.
    If you know some mentally I’ll gun but and don’t make his illness known then YOU are as guilty as they are if it all goes wrong.
    This straw man rant about historical weapons for hunters falls apart when you look at what is available and what the re defending.
    Some guns are useless for anything but killing/wounding humans and there are better choices to hunt with.

    1. Nonsense. Give us a law that would’ve prevented even one of the latest shootings. You cannot because these people have never been convicted of crimes before nor have they been adjudicated mentally ill.

      The idea that “crazy” should be whatever some government bureaucrat says it is, is absurd.

      YOU are the one who is falling for the strawman argument that Papa Government can prevent random acts of violence by taking away YOUR rights, you “crazy” person.

    2. I live in CT and I told ccdl in an email make sure that you win or the country would pay. My iidea was that they can’t take the equal guns from us or it would make the government tyrannical. Instead the law suite talks about convince and ease of use, well the judges used all their words against them. I guess the lawyers wernt the smartest guys in the room. Until someone stands up and says out loud that the government can’t take the equal firearms from us they will keep going where is the NRA sleeping at the switch?

    3. “The bottom line is “rational” gun owners are allowing “insane” gun owners to control this subject.”

      Those you are describing as ‘ Insane ‘, is that YOUR diagnosis as a professional?

      “Some guns are useless for anything but killing/wounding humans and there are better choices to hunt with.”

      Im glad your well versed in what weapons can do. If you would only realize that a .17 HMR can kill a human being just as thoroughly as a .50BMG . Dead is dead, doesnt matter what firearm was used.

      The real problem with this whole article is theres no mention of the REAL CORE ISSUES.

      For starters, with the way the bill was written, there were NO considerations specified for Law Enforcement Officers. YEP! Cops would have had to unload their service weapons down to 7 rounds.

      It gets better!

      The State of New York ( Unfortunately I presently live here.. not for long though! ) put in provisions that violate hippa Laws. Ya know, all those things between a Doctor and their Patient.

      A clue for those whom support ‘ New York S.A.F.E. ” – Veterans ( like myself ) whom use the V.A. Medical Facilities now will have the State looking at our records. If you are a Veteran that has served in any conflict and *might* have been prescribed something for such, your now on New Yorks ‘ watch list ‘.

      So much for privacy? It gets MUCH better!

      Looking at the original bill, there was a measure to make public a record of firearms owners, just like sex offenders!

      Its RUMORED that the ‘ 3 men in a room ‘ had a bill just waiting for a mass shooting to happen so they could jump on the issue before any other state/representatives could as to be the ‘ Nations Leader ‘ on the matter. 15 Minutes and a Vote surely shows something was drawn up before hand and it was a lot worse then what they sent to the floor for a supposed ‘ vote ‘.

      Speaking of privacy folks..

      “If you know some mentally I’ll gun but and don’t make his illness known then YOU are as guilty as they are if it all goes wrong.”

      Im betting this same guy would become a raving lunatic and cry foul if the site owner here posted this guys IP addy, someone did a ‘ whois ‘ on it, traced it back, found out the owners address and sent him a ‘ piss off ‘ card in Postal Mail.

      “Defending blanket “all inclusive” gun ownership is killing your cause.”

      Theres 2 types of people. Those whom own weapons and those whom dont. Theres no ‘ african Americans ‘. Theres no ‘ European americans ‘. Theres no ‘ Im-a-whatever-American ‘. Theres those of us whom have chosen to basque in our liberties and celebrate by partaking in our RIGHT to own firearms as Constitutionally provided for. Then there are those whom choose not to participate. Theres nothing wrong on either side of it.

      The truest part of the problem is when innocent law abiding citizens are now being turned into felons ( Roughly 200,000 thus far as not a lot of people have registered anything as is now required ).

      Good, honest, hard working people are now Felons. What did this reactionary, Knee-jerk Law do?

      Has it stopped anyone from being killed in New York? Buffalo has had 10 shootings this year already, some with illegal hand guns. One of those pulling the trigger had a prior record and couldnt have legally purchased a firearm 20 years ago ( Prior to NYSAFE!! ). How did NYSAFE change the course/outcome?

      Fact is, this was a very bad law to impose a politically motivated belief that disarmed peasants can be more easily controlled.

      To quote Andy Cuomo ” You dont need 10 rounds to kill a deer!! “. He says such with a mob of armed men guarding him. Hes never been to the Neighborhoods I work and live in. I’d like to see him walk the streets of South Chicago without all those armed men around him. Hell, NYC itself would do just fine.

      This Law was written and implemented by the ‘ upper echelon ‘ ( or so they believe ) of the ‘ Political Class ‘. Thats the whole truth, just what it is.

    4. Bud- You state: “Some guns are useless for anything but killing/wounding humans and there are better choices to hunt with.”…. Well sir, the 2cd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about protection from thugs, protection from possible invading armies, and protection from our own government. For those instances you do want weapons that are designed for “killing/wounding humans”.

  42. these people making these new laws need to be ask if and when their law if that includes their body guards too. That includes their ammo also for their handguns. We as Tax Payers should be able to be able to protect ourselves as will as they do seeing how we are paying for them. even after leaving their jobs they still have guards paid for by us .

  43. You have that right. Most weapons today were derived from military use. The ar platform allows people like me to target shoot, and hunt because I have a medical condition that if I were to shoot a bolt action 7mm remington mag, I run the possibility of ending up paralyzed. The ar platform mitigates most of the recoil. If I could get an o/u that shot like an AR15 I could go back to shooting skeet. The powers to be don’t have a clue about firearms. most of their rhetoric is base on scary looking guns.

    1. @ palehorse58

      I don’t understand your Dilemma, Sir. I have Stage/Type-4 Rheumatoid Arthritis in Both Hands. How does operating an “AR” make things easier than operating a Bolt-Action Rifle. Cocking Lever is harder to Grasp on a “AR” Rifle, than on a Bolt-Action. Removing a Jammed Cartridge is Harder on an “AR”, than on a Bolt-Action. And Magazines are Harder to Hand Load, then the Stripper Clips on a Bolt-Action.

    2. In all due respect handi caps and ease of use has nothing to do with the second amendment. That kind of talk is exactly why they lost shew vs malloy. 2A is to keep us safe from all people, governments, foreign and domestic, are you part of the 3% or a fair weather supporter of the 2A

  44. I think the supreme court will not take up this case as they are growing more and more liberal. This is why I believe that any position in government should be limited to term limits including members of the supreme court. There are members on this court that should never be there, because of personal agendas. I think the founding fathers never envisioned a court system like we have today.

  45. Prior to WW1 – the common hunting rifle was a lever-action repeater. The war trained troops on the ’03 Springfield and the M17. After the war, more bolt action rifles appeared in the hunting fields. After WW11 – semi-automatic rifles appeared. Vietnam trained a whole generation on the elevated sight-line and the almost straight-line recoil. History shows us that the form of the “popular hunting rifle” will follow that of the military rifle that the hunters trained with.
    So, the AR-15 “looks” like a military rifle – and that has now become a problem with certain people? It’s just an excuse, which they hope the general public will buy.

  46. Dianne Feinstein want’s to confiscate all so called assault weapons . on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Feinstein said, “If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” So we all know their ultimate goal.

    1. @ Secundius,

      Some of the things you write make absolutely no sense. And I don’t mean they present a debate for which I simply personally disagree either; what I mean is you are flat out wrong as to how you choose to interpret your historical resources.

      I am not sure if it is just bad writing or that you actually think Article 1, Section 8 falls under the Ninth Amendment. It does not -they are two separate things. Regardless, neither of them provide for gun confiscation.

      Article 1, Section 8 is a part of the main Constitution which specifically limits, with a list, what the Federal Government is in charge of. They are not allowed to take on any matters outside of that list; a list which in no ways allows for gun confiscations.

      The Ninth Amendment was added later to the Bill of Rights with the specific intent to ensure that the very explicit list of limitations as set forth upon the Federal Government by Section 8 were never misconstrued as a way to also limit any other rights of the people. In other words, it says to the Federal Government to stick to your little list and stay out of all other matters.

      So in STARK contrast to your assertions, both writings serve to prevent gun confiscation by limiting Federal powers and also supporting the rights of the people; one of which happens to be the right to bear arms.

    2. @ Secundius,

      I’m sorry as I have tried to be patient with you, but you are well out of your depth here and have no concept at all on this topic. You need to just pass on making any further comments.

      Your statement is outrageously incorrect. The Executive Office of the President does not, nor has it ever been vested the authority to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. Only the States have such authority. Every Amendment to the Constitution exists solely by the hand of the collective States.

    3. Secudius believe your ideology is wrong. The 9th Amendment protects one from “unlawful seizure.’ Article 1 Section 8 limits the power of the Congress injunction with the Bill of rights. The 9th is part of the Bill of rights. My reference is Case and Materials on Constitutional Law by Noel T Dowling; University Case Series

    4. @ Joe.

      First such implementation of the 9th Amendment, Article 1, Section 8. Was in 1787-1789 by President George Washington, During the Shaws’ Rebellion (aka The Federalist Papers) in Virginia.

      It gives the President of the United States of America, Broad Power’s to SUSPEND the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. For an Indefinite Period of Time, Including: Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion and the Right to Bear Arms…

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.