• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Yorkers refuse to register their "Assault Weapons"

blaxshep

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
SARATOGA SPRINGS — Nearly a thousand gun registration forms were turned into ashes Sunday.

The forms are used for people to register with New York State Police firearms that meet the state’s definition of military-style assault weapons. The deadline is April 15. Gun rights advocates gathered at the Saratoga-Wilton Elks Lodge 161 to burn the papers in a symbolic protest.

“Once the Second (Amendment) falls, the rest will go with it. It’s an unconstitutional law, done in the middle of the night with no input from the public,” he said.

“We are opposed to registration because the evidence is clear that registration leads to confiscation,” he said.

He and others hope that so few people will fill out the forms, that the registry portion of the SAFE Act “collapses under its own weight.”

He estimates that less than 3,000 New York assault weapons have been registered and he says Sate Police estimated that there are several hundred thousand. The gun industry believes the number may be high as 1.2 million, according to Palmateer.

Protesters burn gun registration forms | Local | poststar.com
 
Gun registration in another liberal state. I wonder what that is going to be used for? What does California tell us about that? Oh right, gun control advocates tell me that registration is not designed to take peoples guns away. I love how liberals can't get it through their head that people are on to them on this trash.
 
That is a law I would probably disobey.
 
Good for them. I wouldn't register either and I hope many many many MANY more do not also.

PS: Gotta ask, this article is from 2014. I'm wondering if you know the outcome of that effort?
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Good for them. I wouldn't register either and I hope many many many MANY more do not also.

PS: Gotta ask, this article is from 2014. I'm wondering if you know the outcome of that effort?
Click to expand...

I found this from the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, so the fight continues:

Despite the fact that anti-gun politicians secured one of the toughest gun control laws in the country with the passage of the SAFE Act in 2013, they will never be completely satisfied until guns are completely banned in the Empire State. The dozens of anti-gun bills introduced this year are proof of that. Groups like New Yorkers Against Gun Violence unbelievably claim there aren’t enough gun control laws, and they continue to push for more restrictions on your Second Amendment rights.

It has come to our attention the NYPD Licensing Division has taken it upon themselves to deny current gun owners approval to add more guns to their license. We are looking into this and need your input. IF YOU have personally been denied a new acquisition approval please contact the NYSRPA at 518-272-2654 or nysrpalegal@gmail.com.

https://www.nysrpa.org/


There is no incrementalism, it's just common sense gun laws. :bs
 
Also looks like a good time to inform the citizens of New York their rights for jury nullification in the advent that anything makes it to court.
 
Fishking said:
Also looks like a good time to inform the citizens of New York their rights for jury nullification in the advent that anything makes it to court.
Click to expand...

Most of us don't know what jury nullification is. As a public service, would you be inclined to explain how it works?
 
legalimmigrant said:
Most of us don't know what jury nullification is. As a public service, would you be inclined to explain how it works?
Click to expand...

In a jury trial if jurors acquit the defendant even though they know he's guilty. In this case New Yorkers could acquit anyone the state tries to charge with violating the SAFE Act.
 
blaxshep said:
SARATOGA SPRINGS — Nearly a thousand gun registration forms were turned into ashes Sunday.

The forms are used for people to register with New York State Police firearms that meet the state’s definition of military-style assault weapons. The deadline is April 15. Gun rights advocates gathered at the Saratoga-Wilton Elks Lodge 161 to burn the papers in a symbolic protest.

“Once the Second (Amendment) falls, the rest will go with it. It’s an unconstitutional law, done in the middle of the night with no input from the public,” he said.

“We are opposed to registration because the evidence is clear that registration leads to confiscation,” he said.

He and others hope that so few people will fill out the forms, that the registry portion of the SAFE Act “collapses under its own weight.”

He estimates that less than 3,000 New York assault weapons have been registered and he says Sate Police estimated that there are several hundred thousand. The gun industry believes the number may be high as 1.2 million, according to Palmateer.

Protesters burn gun registration forms | Local | poststar.com
Click to expand...

I should think that it would be a bad idea to register the weapons at present.
 
blaxshep said:
In a jury trial if jurors acquit the defendant even though they know he's guilty. In this case New Yorkers could acquit anyone the state tries to charge with violating the SAFE Act.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they be violating the judges instructions and their oath?
 
blaxshep said:
In a jury trial if jurors acquit the defendant even though they know he's guilty. In this case New Yorkers could acquit anyone the state tries to charge with violating the SAFE Act.
Click to expand...

And in a case, where the law is obviously directed against Constitutional rights, it would make sense
 
legalimmigrant said:
Most of us don't know what jury nullification is. As a public service, would you be inclined to explain how it works?
Click to expand...

To put it very basically. You can know a person is 100% guilty of breaking the law, but you don't agree with the law itself, you can declare that person not guilty.
 
Fishking said:
To put it very basically. You can know a person is 100% guilty of breaking the law, but you don't agree with the law itself, you can declare that person not guilty.
Click to expand...

Careful or they will pass a law to put anyone attempting jury nullification in jail. Remember we are a democracy and mob rules. 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the 49% or the individual. Even Trump agrees you can have your rights stripped away from you on suspicion alone. No due process and not facts are needed. You are put on a list and say goodby to your rights. Welcome to the new version of freedom.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Careful or they will pass a law to put anyone attempting jury nullification in jail. Remember we are a democracy and mob rules. 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the 49% or the individual. Even Trump agrees you can have your rights stripped away from you on suspicion alone. No due process and not facts are needed. You are put on a list and say goodby to your rights. Welcome to the new version of freedom.
Click to expand...

Possibly but, as of right now, there aren't any laws that prohibit it. I just wouldn't volunteer that you are aware of this option because the prosecution will dump you on the spot during the interview process.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Careful or they will pass a law to put anyone attempting jury nullification in jail. Remember we are a democracy and mob rules. 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the 49% or the individual. Even Trump agrees you can have your rights stripped away from you on suspicion alone. No due process and not facts are needed. You are put on a list and say goodby to your rights. Welcome to the new version of freedom.
Click to expand...

It's called the liberal utopia. Where the Nanny State knows best and you have no rights only privileges.
 
Fishking said:
To put it very basically. You can know a person is 100% guilty of breaking the law, but you don't agree with the law itself, you can declare that person not guilty.
Click to expand...

yes but you are essentially violating the oath you took as a juror. we can discuss if that oath is constitutionally correct though. The judge essentially charges the jury to be "judges of the facts" but not the law and to accept the law as the judge instructs them

this is done with what are called jury instructions and both parties will spend hours trying to get the court to accept jury instructions that are most beneficial to their clients and indeed many appeals are based on a jury charge they think was not properly given
 
legalimmigrant said:
Wouldn't they be violating the judges instructions and their oath?
Click to expand...

No. For one thing, no judge is going to tell them that they cannot use Jury Nullification. To do so would be to bring it up and let jurors know that they have that option. It would also be swaying a jury on how to vote. Something which our system absolutely forbids. And best part of all, it is a juror's Right to acquit regardless of the law if in good conscience they feel that the person should not be convicted. There is plenty of court precedence of that. Both from SCOTUS judges and lower court judges. Not to mention historical. It's been used to acquit people that were prosecuted for harboring slaves. It's been used to acquit people during the Prohibition Era. It's even being used now by people that know their Rights in marijuana cases.

It IS however a double edged sword. It was once used to acquit people that hung black people simply because they were black. That's why there are many people against it. It can be abused.

I would suggest that you read up on it. I'd start with the Peter Zenger Trial. Before and after the trial. Briefly it was a case where Zenger was tried for libel against the Governor of NY. He admitted that he did indeed write what the Governor considered libel. In the end the Jury acquitted him using Jury Nullification. The case was even hailed by one of the Constitutions drafters, Gouvernor Morris, as "the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America."

As for the oath, no idea. Never actually served on a jury before so don't know it.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Careful or they will pass a law to put anyone attempting jury nullification in jail. Remember we are a democracy and mob rules. 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the 49% or the individual. Even Trump agrees you can have your rights stripped away from you on suspicion alone. No due process and not facts are needed. You are put on a list and say goodby to your rights. Welcome to the new version of freedom.
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of Jury Nullification. The only way to get rid of it would be to get rid of jury trials period. GL on that. ;)
 
TurtleDude said:
yes but you are essentially violating the oath you took as a juror. we can discuss if that oath is constitutionally correct though. The judge essentially charges the jury to be "judges of the facts" but not the law and to accept the law as the judge instructs them

this is done with what are called jury instructions and both parties will spend hours trying to get the court to accept jury instructions that are most beneficial to their clients and indeed many appeals are based on a jury charge they think was not properly given
Click to expand...

As far as I'm tracking, jury nullification is a guaranteed right which cannot be abrogated.
 
Fishking said:
Possibly but, as of right now, there aren't any laws that prohibit it. I just wouldn't volunteer that you are aware of this option because the prosecution will dump you on the spot during the interview process.
Click to expand...

I know. I used it for years to get out of jury duty when I ran my own business. It was much easier than filing hardship reason.
 
blaxshep said:
It's called the liberal utopia. Where the Nanny State knows best and you have no rights only privileges.
Click to expand...

So far they have not attempted to personally take away my rights. Maybe I will die before having to watch this nation lose everything our forefathers fought for. It is sad to see how much of what our unions fought for lost due to a failed immigration policy, cheap labor, combined with moving industry to other countries thanks to favorable laws passed by our bought and paid for political leaders.
 
Kal'Stang said:
That's the beauty of Jury Nullification. The only way to get rid of it would be to get rid of jury trials period. GL on that. ;)
Click to expand...

You do know most judges are already telling jurors that they cannot do that.
 
blaxshep said:
Judges hate when people know their rights
Click to expand...

I think they have always been jealous of the fact that our forefathers believed a handful of men taken from the street would be a better judge of innocence or guilt that the best educated judges. They new the corruption of government and people in power. They were right the people would always be the better choice in deciding a mans fate than any government. Just look at how desperate our government is to restrict our rights and to rule over the people instead of serve the people.

That is the main problem with Hillary. She has become a career politician and puppet of the rich and powerful who now control our government. She is desperate to rule over the people. The inconceivable amount of money she has been given by the rich and powerful to do just that should open the eyes of the people and let them see and fear the danger of her becoming president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom