A Flanking Movement Against the 2d Amendment to the US Constitution

Legal & Second Amendment
1

It is apparent that NY will keep attempting to chip away at the 2d Amendment because there are similar threads posted along these lines. However, post COVID-19 and as late as February 18, 2025, you see that these embers are still smoldering. It appears from my reading of this bill that the powers-that-be, are not taking a direct approach at the 2d Amendment. Instead, they’ve decided on a flanking movement. Not coming at guns directly, so as to be obvious–no, instead, they want to outright deny citizens their constitutional rights by way of exclusion. They are attempting to craft a law that can be put in place where they can say, "We are NOT denying anyone their constitutional rights, they only have to obey the laws of state in doing so! And if passed, the law of the state would be that a citizen must have a liability insurance policy with a minimum of 1-million-dollar coverage, BEFORE they can even purchase a gun. And if a citizen is unable to secure the liability insurance policy, then it would be that according to state law, the citizen would be unable to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They will have been denied their constitutional rights by placing a heavy burden on the people. Furthermore, they will more than likely establish parameters for insurers in order to be able to sell such insurance products in that state.

Is my reading off? I didn’t think that I was wearing a TinFoil hat, but can someone see what I’m not seeing and reading, or may have misread?

If successful, it will have a Dominoe effect. So, don’t sleep on this.

3 Likes
2

Yes you are reading it correctly. Instead of going after 2nd Admendment, they are creating a ball of red tape or a maze one has to go through.

2 Likes
3

No, states cannot enact laws that directly abridge or weaken the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.The Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment ensure that federal law and constitutional protections take precedence over state laws that conflict with them.

Elaboration:

This clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, establishes that federal law, including the Constitution itself, is the supreme law of the land. If a state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law prevails.

Section 1 of this amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying equal protection of the laws. This means states cannot enact laws that undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

States have certain reserved powers (as outlined in the Tenth Amendment), allowing them to regulate matters within their own borders, like local criminal law and speed limits. However, these powers are limited by the Constitution and federal law.

Federal law generally takes precedence over conflicting state laws, particularly in areas where the federal government has constitutional authority. For example, if a state law allows discrimination, it would be illegal under federal law.

While states cannot directly abridge constitutional rights, their actions can indirectly impact them. For instance, a state might enact policies that make it difficult for people to exercise their right to protest, but that action would still be subject to constitutional review.

States can actually offer broader protections for rights than the federal Constitution, but they cannot weaken them. For example, a state’s constitution might guarantee a right to privacy beyond what’s explicitly stated in the federal Constitution.

1 Like
4

I have seen this argument for years… yet many states still abridge rights…

and we the people have to take them to court over and over…

and while we are waiting to go to court the law made stays in place…

4 Likes
5

I knew you were going to say that.

2 Likes
6

Make 2A affordable only to the elitists

3 Likes
7

I was reading the CTguns forum on Reddit, and it looks like if you’re in CT/RI or MA , you could take a NYC permit course at the CT ffl I had do a pin/weld for me some years back. The class is $500. The permit is $434.50. This allows you to have one gun, and you need to go to NYC and interview to determine whether you are allowed the privilege of being able to defend yourself…or not. To CT’s North lies Massachusetts, where for $100/year, you can enter the state that had a great tea party some years back, and be allowed that same privilege by paying for the Mass. out of state class, then driving up near Boston to get your permit in person.
Folks on the NYguns forum are mentioning it taking a year and longer to get their permit.
Flanking movement, eh? Had a state rep, Jillian Gilchrist, West Hartford CT… I’ll remember that name forever unfortunately. Proposed a 50 percent ammo tax, then tried 35 percent her next term. Both failed (Why does Jillian hate poor people?) but I heard something about ffl’s having to pay 11% on their ammo purchases around the time I moved to a state that doesn’t tax guns or ammo.

2 Likes
8

(Gun forums)

Sad but seems to me they’ve reached the point where they’re resigned to the fact that
“Resistance is futile.”

1 Like