It banned many semi-auto firearms. NYC residents were required to get them out of NYC. There was no grandfather clause. Possession after a certain date was deemed a crime. How should gun owners in NYC have reacted to this new law? resist? rebel? ignore? retreat?
Slow news day I am guessing Ron. They should have reacted how ever they want I guess. From what I hear about crime in NYC many people did not turn in their weapons, so I will go with some ignored and some followed the law.
Zero causal result considering all the crime cimmitted in NYC with so called assault weapons, not many more than were committed with magic wands.
What causal effect? What laws passed in 1990-1991 drove down the murder rate, and given its long history of strict gun laws, how did it get so high with them?
I believe that NY figured out that there was ultimately something like a 92% non-compliance rate regarding this law; so it looks like most gun owners in NYC chose "ignore". Mass civil disobedience can be a powerful tool. Personally, I think every New York legislator that supported this law should have been arrested and prosecuted for violations of their oath to the Constitution; but that's just me.
If we prosecuted people for breaking their oath, we wouldnt have much of a government. Hey, we should definitely do that! LOL
lets pass the following law and see what happens Those guarding politicians or providing security to the offices or meeting places of politicians may not use, carry, possess or have access to any firearm or weapon that ordinary citizens in said jurisdiction may not use, possess, buy or own.
Precisely! Prohibit any politician or public figure promoting gun bans from having armed bodyguards & name it the "Hypocrisy Act"
cant prosecute someone for supporting a Constitutional law. and to this day, AW bans are Constitutional.
But the criminals will still have those guns so the security details should get to keep them, right? I've seen plenty of people on here saying they wouldn't comply with an ban where a certain gun is confiscated. So if you get to keep yours, why can't the security detail keep theirs? Do you not care about the men and women of the security details being able to defend themselves?
Murder in most of the U.S. is dramatically down since 1991, despite not having draconian gun control.
Honest question; why the focus on "assault weapons"? Semi automatic rifles are disproportionately low on gun death statistics. Handguns are used in crime way more often, as they're cheaper, easier to carry concealed illegally, and they're more practical for criminals. Your average criminal will pick a handgun before a rifle any day, yet gun control seems to be focused on semi automatic rifles, even though they amount to a rather small minority of deaths compared to other guns.
By any intellectually honest reading of the Constitution and the Founders' own words about the issue, such bans are clearly UNconstitutional. That the courts have thus far chosen to rubberstamp governmental overreach and authoritarian actions corrupts the courts' credibility and lets us all know just how deep the corruption has truly gone. The Republic hangs in the balance.
the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law in the USA and they consistently REFUSE to hear any AW ban cases. suck it up.
Probably true. But it's still silly. Over ten thousand gun homicides a year, of which about 600 is committed with rifles, semi automatics and bolt actions included, and then there's around 40 gun deaths to mass shootings. Not really a lot in a country with over 300 000 000 people. I could sort of understand people not wanting as many handguns around though, as those are the go to guns for criminals, and by proxy responsible for most gun deaths. But if there's a "gun problem", rifles are not really it, no matter how scary they look like.
