Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,146 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Friend I brought to the Fulton match won the random new shooter prize certificate and sent it in for a new 19. It was returned to him stating due to our new state law they will only award a glock 36 or 39 to ny residents! ( our new law states you can only carry 7+1 but are ok to load 10 at the range and still own and buy 10 rounders ) so it looks like glock is playing legal cya by only allowing guns with a seven round or less cap to toto New Yorkers. Funny every shop in town has plenty of other glocks with ten round mags in stock. Friend is calling glock today for clarification - hope they see it out way. Makes me wonder if glock can/ will direct them not to sell other models in ny as well.
The politics here make we want to puke. ( don't blame glock for the cya stance since the law is so confusing)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,146 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Glock contacted - apparently a simple oversight and things will be handled. Glad it has worked out for a couple of friends who have ordered prize guns. Glad glock could straighten this out!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
I really hate it for you law abiding gun owners up there having to deal with that kind of crap. Just plain stupid. Hang in there!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,064 Posts
Hang in there guys. The lawsuits are moving along at both the state and federal levels.

Don't get rid of your high-caps. Don't get rid of, nor modify grip, nor register your AR's or other "assault weapons". We shall prevail :)

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
 

·
Not a golfer
Joined
·
432 Posts
Pulling for you guys out here in Colorado. We seem to be following suit, and I'm uninterested in the "move" thing. (Well, I am a little but not for those reasons). Stand and fight, legislatively and in court, of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
Pulling for you guys out here in Colorado. We seem to be following suit, and I'm uninterested in the "move" thing. (Well, I am a little but not for those reasons). Stand and fight, legislatively and in court, of course.
The Bill of Rights is where the Authority of our Government ends, and the rights of the individual citizens begin.

Government does not LIKE to be so limited.

Especially with regard to the 2nd Amendment, which says that the Government will NOT have a monopoly on the use of force IF AND WHEN it should break faith with the American People and turn tyrannous.

Governements at all levels therefore historically played a lot of games with the 2Am simply because SCotUS left the true meaning of it ambigous.

2Am has 4 components, of which SCotUS only ruled on two.

Gov's continue to play games with the remaining two, and will continue to do so until SCotUS finally reins them up short on those as well, if an when.

The four components are:

Does a citizen have to be a member of a govenment-sponsered "militia" in order to even have a "right" to arms (Answer per Heller/McDonald; No.)

Does a citizen have the RIGHT to possess arms? (Answer per Heller/McDonald; Yes, but only in the home.)

Does a citizen who has an acknowledged RIGHT to possess arms, also have the RIGHT to "Bear" those arms outside the home?

No answer at this time; the Heller/McD cases only addressed arms wthin the home and did not extend to the question of arms outside the home.

However, note that 43 States now have conceded on the "to bear" question by enacting "shall issue" CCW laws.

The remaining 7 States still have old "discretionary" CCW laws by means of which the right to Bear the Arms you have the RIGHT to possess have in the first place can still be denied arbitrarily.

That is not going to last.

There is nothing in the 2nd Am that says your right to bear the gun you have the right to own a gun stops at your front door.

It is only a matter of time until such a case makes it up to SCotUS>

Four, Government will not infringe the right to keep arms. (Again, unresolved by SCotUS at this time.)

NFA 1934 only stands until someone finally challnges it. It, and its attendant 1986 Machine Gun "ban" will remain in place as a clear "infringement" of the RtK&BA until it is successfully challenged in court. People do not realize it, but NFA '34/MGB '86 is a legal house of cards, just waiting for the breeze that will knock it over. It only stands because it has not been challenged. HOwever, it will not, and cannot, be successfully challenged until we finally get a ruling on "to Bear" issue at the SCotUS and clears the way for such a challenge.

This 15 round thing in Colorado, the 7 round thing in New Yawk, and so on, are just reflections on the fact that Governements can and will mess with us on the "Infringe" question until SCotUS finally tells them they cannot.

The tide is on our side and we will eventually win.

But we must continue to fight for our complete Right to Keep AND BEAR arms until that happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,231 Posts
Very good post, comrade Bork.

Keep and bear arms.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
Yes I agree its a very good post,

Reminds of the day before the Safe act was put in place when all of my friends were telling me THERE IS NO WAY they can pass a bill like that its unconstitutional, And yet as unconstitutional as it was it still sailed thru and became law. A simple stroke of a Pen decided the future of New Yorkers. Fight or Flight. I never run from Fights but there is so much corruption in NY politics and protecting the Block voters who only consume our resources, not add to them that has hammered home that New York is not for me any more. With in 5 years or so we should be able to leave
 

·
Not a golfer
Joined
·
432 Posts
Indeed. Great Post, Comrade Bork.

I'm very hopeful about the magazine limits being overturned here, and the suit in our particular case is the unenforceable aspect of it due to grandfathering. The question of "in common use" and the legal precedent with that should help. Should. But I don't know how much they [i2i] plan to lean on it. Keeping on topic here - how "common use" is the G17? Feels like given year over year sales of it - EXTREMELY common. (Likewise with a 30rd for AR/AK). But, I'm sort of skeptical given how mag limits have held over time in other states. So, we'll see. Perhaps if Colorado can push back, maybe some of the others are next!

But I very much hope you are right in your speculations!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
Indeed. Great Post, Comrade Bork.

I'm very hopeful about the magazine limits being overturned here, and the suit in our particular case is the unenforceable aspect of it due to grandfathering. The question of "in common use" and the legal precedent with that should help. Should. But I don't know how much they [i2i] plan to lean on it. Keeping on topic here - how "common use" is the G17? Feels like given year over year sales of it - EXTREMELY common. (Likewise with a 30rd for AR/AK). But, I'm sort of skeptical given how mag limits have held over time in other states. So, we'll see. Perhaps if Colorado can push back, maybe some of the others are next!

But I very much hope you are right in your speculations!
20 round .30-06 magazines were "in common use" as early as 1918 in the Browning Automatic Rifle, in the hands of John Browning's own son Val Browning, in the trenches in France, in the closing weeks of WW1.

BARs were not regulated at all until NFA '34.

Between 1918 & 1934, if you had the bread, you could buy a BAR, or it's civilian model, the "Monitor", by just going into any Hardware store and having them order one for you from Colt just like a pusher lawn mower.

Slightly different crop, though. :upeyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Just remember Cuomo is planning on running for President, hoping Hillary either stumbles (again like in '08) or withdraws. Then he'll promise to do for America what he's done for NY.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
Just remember Cuomo is planning on running for President, hoping Hillary either stumbles (again like in '08) or withdraws. Then he'll promise to do for America what he's done for NY.
Don't forget.

Andrew Cuomo was Secretary of HHS under Clinton.

This was in the days when about 30 anti-gun cities were suing gun manufacturers, wholesalers, etc., on BS grounds just to get them into 30 different courts and literally bleed them to death and drive them all out of the gun business with legal defense fees.

Good ol' Andrew threatened to to bring another TWO HUNDRED such cases against the gun industry through that many HHS offices around the country! :steamed:

It was THAT which made S&W's then British-owners force S&W USA to knuckle under to the "consent" document to avoid those lawsuits.

Which led to the "S&W Boycott" you might remember.

By the way, Mr. Gaston Glock told Cuomo "I'll see you in court".

The only reason it did not work as planned was the Republicans taking and holding both the House and Senate after the 1st 2 years of the Clinton Administration and for about 8 years thereafter.

During that time, they passed legislation to make that Fascist "let us control your business or we will sue you out of buisiness" tactic illegal.

If it wasn't we would probably have seen it during the 1st two years of Obamoron Administration when the Dimocrats had control of the entire Congress -- As Clinton did his first two years.

:upeyes:
 

·
Arms Dealer
Joined
·
854 Posts
I thought in Heller the SCOTUS ruled that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and only used "in the home" as an example. I know that's not how the antis see it, but I'm pretty sure the opinion said "like in the home".

Heller also introduced the idea that the 2A can be reasonably limited, and this idea of firearms in common use.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top