New York Handgun Laws vs. the Second Amendment

“ABOVE THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY”

by Montgomery Blair Sibley, ©2019, blogging at Amo Probos

(Jul. 25, 2019) — Once again, I find myself called to file a lawsuit. This time regarding the scope of the Fundamental and Second Amendment rights of resistance and self-preservation in the Home vs. the State of New York’s attempt to circumscribe those rights by banning ownership of handguns. I would rather not be so called as lawsuits are harder to get out of than marriages.  But this one I can not walk away from and here is why:

Young George Washington’s first military and diplomatic venture came in the Fall and Winter 1753 – 1754 through Western Pennsylvania.  He was accompanied by my Fifth Great Grandfather, Christopher Gist (1706 – 1759)*.  Martin J. O’Brien of the Harmony Museum, recounts the story:

At one point, Washington and his traveling companion, Christopher Gist, had a mishap on the Connoquenessing Creek. They tried to take this raft across the Allegheny River, and Washington was controlling it with a pole, and didn’t do a very good job because he ended up being thrown into the river. And with all the wet wool clothes that they used to wear, it was very fortunate that he was able to be saved by Gist.

Washington was the catalyst of the Revolution, he was the leader of the Constitutional Convention, he held everything together throughout the Revolution and afterwards, when we formed our government. And I truly believe, had Washington been killed, that our nation’s history would be quite different and the history of the world, the modern world as we know it, would be quite different.

The way I look at it, I have little choice other than to jump in and assert the fundamental rights of resistance and self-preservation in my home than my great, great, great, great, grandfather Christopher Gist did to jump in the Connoquenessing Creek and save young George Washington from drowning: Indeed, less choice.

The background on this is:

  • On July 18, 2018, I filed my State of New York Pistol/Revolver License Application (“Application”) with the Clerk of Steuben County. The Application was referred to Chauncey J. Watches, a New York Penal Law §265.00(10) Pistol/Revolver Licensing Officer for Steuben County, New York and, incidentally, a County Court Judge.
  • On May 29, 2019 ‒ three hundred fifteen (315) days or 10 ½ months after I filed my Application ‒ Chauncey J. Watches sent me a letter denying to me a Pistol/Revolver License stating in pertinent part: (i) That he had reviewed my application and “the investigation submitted by the Steuben County Sheriff’s Department”; (ii) “The basis for the denial results from concerns about your being sufficiently responsible to possess and care for a pistol”; (iii) “[T]he Court is concerned that your history demonstrates that you place your own interest above the interests of society”.
  • In response to my request for the factual basis of his decision, on June 25, 2019, Chauncey J. Watches wrote me stating that:“I have reviewed your requests for information and documents and find them to be without legal basis and therefore they are denied.”

My response: Sibley v. Watches, a federal lawsuit in the Western District of New York.


Read the rest here.

 

4 Responses to "New York Handgun Laws vs. the Second Amendment"

  1. Robert Laity   Monday, August 12, 2019 at 1:56 AM

    Did you know that Japan declined to attack the mainland of the U.S. in WWII BECAUSE the people were well armed?

    It is necessary in a free state to have the means to defend against tyranny. This includes,to a point, weapons on a level with those the tyrants possess. Of course, I realize we shouldn’t all have nukes in our arsenals but we must have “Military level” guns as originally stated in the militia act, which “all abled bodied men from 18 years of age” belongs to.

    The right to bear arms must be defended. History can and has repeated itself. Dictatorships start when first the populace is disarmed so that it cannot defend itself. Invasions also occur.

    As for Red Flag Laws, that also brings up the fact that Due Process, in confiscating the guns of an individual merely accused of being a danger, is of prime importance, lest the government promulgate an unconstitutional habit of labeling their opponents as unstable whenever they please, just so they can dominate them. Example: This was done by the Nazis in WWII. No Jew was able to own a gun. No one deemed unstable, albeit on unfounded grounds, could own a gun.

    We saw what happened in that case!

  2. thinkwell   Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM

    Gun ownership is not a right granted by any law or even the Constitution. It is a natural right of man merely recognized by the Constitution. And yes, it is a bit frightening for our so called elected servants when We the People, the sovereign citizens they supposedly serve, are as well armed as the military, but that is the whole point, isn’t it?

    Of course, self defense, defense of family and hunting — in that order — are natural rights, too, but the primary purpose of a well armed citizenry is to strike an ongoing undercurrent of well placed fear into the hearts of our feral government servants, lest they forget who are the servants and who are the sovereigns and so that they never be tempted to overstep their limited and temporary powers.

  3. Robert Christopher Laity   Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 1:11 AM

    Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York once stated that “You don’t need an automatic rifle to shoot a deer”. In response to that statement, I told our leftist Governor Andrew Cuomo, that “We the People” need automatic rifles to defend against prospective tyrants who want to attack us.

    Joseph Biden recently said something similar. He Said “You don’t need a 100 round clip to protect yourself”. He also say we “don’t need automatic rifles, buy a shotgun”.

    Senator Feinstein asks “why does anyone need an AR-15”

    Fact is, that in the original Militia Act, “Military level weapons” were allowed to be owned and borne by all men 18 years and older. ALL abled-bodied men 18 years and older were considered to be IN the Militia.

    The first step to sow the seeds of a dictatorship IS to disarm the populace.

    “The second amendment is the reset button of the Constitution”-Doug McKay.

  4. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Friday, July 26, 2019 at 8:11 AM

    All, well most, people get their ‘jollies’ when they (1.) can extract money from someone else for no exchange of anything of value and (2.) exercise control over another person or a situation. But, when it comes to U.S. citizens’ unalienable rights, the underlying reasons turn ugly. These little ‘fits’ of money extraction and control are a broad-based effort to eliminate the U.S. Constitution.

    The Founders gave us a hint what was to be in the U.S. Constitution by writing and signing the Declaration of Independence. Then, the Framers constructed the U.S. Constitution and signed that document, too.

    I downloaded the federal lawsuit linked to the article. Author and his law team rightly starts out the lawsuit by claiming his “fundamental rights” have been violated.

    Is it any wonder why politicians and judges continue to undermine our God-given right to possess and bear arms? Authors of anti-gun control, even members of the NRA (National Rifle Association) do not get it right. These so-called promoters of gun rights do not properly explain the Second Amendment.

    When framing the U.S. Constitution our Founding Fathers did not mince words, use needless phrases, nor leave doubt in the mind of the reader. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” One sentence formed by the Founding Fathers that is plain and simple to understand, except for Liberal Loons and RINOs.

    The Second Amendment has no ‘exception’ clauses, phrases, nor sentences.

    Many pro and con debaters imply that the Second Amendment GRANTS authority to keep and bear arms. Not so. The Second Amendment does not GRANT the citizens of the U.S. the right to keep and bear ‘arms’. The Second Amendment commands lawmakers not to make ANY laws banning or restricting the God-given right to keep and bear any ’arms’.

    All ‘arms’ laws directed at non-incarcerated U.S. citizens, including the laws requiring the need to be licensed to ‘carry’, are unConstitutional.

    When the Department of Justice starts prosecuting lawmaking politicians at all levels of government that make ANY laws that ‘infringe’ on our God-given right to keep and bear arms of any type, that’s the day that the Second Amendment will be understood.

    The Second Amendment was not enacted to make sure you had a weapon for buck season, but to make sure that citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government by making it illegal to make laws contrary to our God-given rights. Focus on prosecuting lawmakers (aka politicians), not the U.S. citizens, when it comes to the Second Amendment.

    The violation of the Second Amendment seems to get the most attention; yet, when everything comes into focus, many other unalienable rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights are directly affected too when trying to deal with a Second Amendment issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.