Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Federal Judge Rejects New York Gun Law Challenge

September 14, 2011 by  

A Federal judge in New York has upheld the State’s law concerning an individual having to show a necessity for self-protection in order to obtain a license to carry a handgun, The Associated Press reported.

District Judge Cathy Seibel ruled against the challenge to the State law because of an alleged important government interest in preventing crime. While leaders on the left applauded the ruling, Alan Gura, the attorney for the plaintiff, noted that an appeal would be filed, according to the news outlet.

“The question here is whether the government gets to regulate a constitutional right or completely abolish it,” Gura said.

The five plaintiffs from Westchester County brought the suit in an effort to freeze the “proper cause” element in the permit-application process, something that they argued was a direct violation of their 2nd Amendment rights, Reuters reported.

Gura noted that they might take the case as high as the Supreme Court, as the plaintiffs argued that the threat of significant random violence is all too prevalent in New York City, reported the AP.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Federal Judge Rejects New York Gun Law Challenge”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • RalphPierre

    The only document necessary to provide the ‘necessity for self-protection’ is the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Second Amendment. If the “Judge” wants to see ‘proof of necessity’, all one has to do is to show him the front page of any city newspaper on any given day.

    • William L. Hart Jr.

      All elected officials are required by law to take the oath of office as their obligation to We The People. They swear to defend the Constitution protecting it from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
      When they uphold an unconstitutional law …are they then violating that oath and therefore unfit to hold the position they swore to?

      The Amendments to the Constitution(Bill Of Rights) grant us nothing. Read the Bill Of Rights and listen to whom they are directed toward.

      What the Bill Of Rights does is limit government’s power over We The People. We derive our rights from our Creator by the fact of our birth which is self evident. This is listed in the Declaration Of Independence another good read.

      Freedom is never free .. you must be vigilant to keep it!

  • Roadkill


    • Cliffystones

      I’ll raise your bet that the pathetic mayor of NYC Bloomberg has hired armed bodyguards to “protect” him. 2nd amendment rights, if you’ve got the money!

    • Bus

      How many “illegal” guns exist within the borders of the Empire State. Stupid laws create honest criminals.

  • http://TalkTalk Lära Connor

    This Judge needs to read the Constitution. I have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for this Judges Freedom to carry a Firearm. I was an Admiral in the U.S. Naval Special Forces but I resigned to stand up for the rights of gays to join the Armed Forces.

    • Charlie Tall

      You resigned to help homosexuals? Not to take another job with the Swedish Air Force? Did you also give up your flag-rank pension?

      You think the judge needs to read the Constitution? How about you try reading American history? That might help you understand how a judge might find it quite acceptible to disregard the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights.

      After all, the US government has been doing that with appalling consistency since Ape Lincoln took office.

    • old sarge

      Admiral in the naval special forces that resigned to support gay rights you are so full of bs. just stay on the subject. That has no bearing on this thred

      • Charlie Tall

        Sarge, Connor is female. She was a RADM with really impressive creds – 2 PhDs, a BS in psych, pilot, fast-track to flag rank, some SEAL training, airborne training, lots of good stuff – but actually accomplished nothing of significance during her naval career. As I understand it, she is also a “pagan,” a Wiccan, witch, or whatever they call themselves.
        In other words, she is reminiscent of Shakespeare’s “Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”
        Witches were involved in that case, too, by the way.
        Bottom line is, she’s a loose cannon, but luckily an unloaded one, and now she’s careening about someone the Swedes’ deck.

    • John Haines

      Yeah! Go mudpacking sperm burpers.

    • sean murrey ILLInio

      Good we dont people like you in there.

  • David in MA

    So, are you getting more used to socialism yet?
    Socialists & communists are in positions throught out government at every level and it is the voters fault. Now, we have islam getting a foot hold. And it is the voters fault. Why is it the voters fault? BECAUSE YOU, THE VOTER, DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN YOUR GOVERNMENT AND YOU DO NOT INVESTIGATE THE BACKGROUND OF THOSE WHO ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE OR APPLYING FOR AN APPOINTMENT IN GOVERNMENT!
    Obozo as the illegal president, for example, has positioned all his czars in powerful positions and at the snap of his illegal fingers can bring America to a screeching halt, AND CONGRESS IS IMPOTANT, and to enforce his decisions and he has (un-officially of course) the willing likes of the unions and “new” black panther types……..people, obozo has successfully accomplished a coup on America and hardly anyone knows it.

  • Pathfinder

    First our rights come fro God, NOT government. Second, there is no reason that a permit is required to exercise a God given right. Thus, no one should be begging the city of new york for any permits in the first place. If need be the citizens should be offering armed rebellion to this tyrannical city government.

    • PS

      Pathfinder will show the way. Well said and a big AMEN!

    • James

      I wouldn’t go off half cocked. The NYC annual police budget is $8.5 billion. Their police force is larger than most country’s armies.

      • Thor

        It does not however outnumber the citizenry.

        • James

          True, but they are organized, the citizenry isn’t.

      • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Clinging to My Religion and My Guns

        When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away. The Police are not “legally bound” to protect Life, only property! Look it up! If this isn’t enough reason to own a gun in NY, I don’t know what is! This Liberal sow of a Judge is suffering from a Rectal-Cranial Inversion and should be recalled immediately for Treason and Sedition.

    • 45caliber


      I agree. This is also one reason many on the left insist there is no God. If there really was no God then we couldn’t insist that God gave us the rights.

  • dan

    If laws are written (and judges and police/court officers ) are necessary to protect citizens from criminals…then it follows that the tools needed to defend citizens are also a necessity…or else why would cops and judges be armed.

    • Thor

      Good point, dan, with this added caveat: although the ‘government’ through local law enforcement has the general obligation to protect the ‘public’ if and when it can, it has absolutely no obligation to protect individuals.

      Here is the case unfolded in court cases and illustrated with the anecdotal evidence of real examples:

      [It is a ]“fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
      Opinion of the Court: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

      “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.”

      Same ‘Opinion of the Court’ reflected in the following cases:
      DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services , 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006

      Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990).

      Zinermon v. Burch, 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 (1990).

      These laws and court precedents affect real people:

      Maria Navarro, 1989, LA County—Police were informed that her abusive ex-husband was on his way to kill her and that there was a restraining order in place. Police did not respond because no crime had been committed—yet. Thirty minutes later, police were informed that Maria and two other people were dead.
      See Navarro v. Block, 1999 at

      Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.

      There is no shortage of examples in which the courts have made it abundantly clear that the police are under no obligation to act on behalf of individuals to protect them. Obviously, this is a rational and realistic precedent based on the practical impossibility of it. Although the cases mentioned are extreme examples in which any prudent person would have at least tried to act on behalf of potential victim, cases in which it is obvious that the police did less than nothing, police agencies would have to hire one officer for every person and the population would be comprised of half law enforcement to rise to the standard of prevention and protection demanded by the public outcry.

      When courts like this one rule, in effect, that a person first prove he is in danger before he is allowed to protect himself, the cumulative effect then is that the court leaves us on our own without any kind of protection whatever.

      The only prudent thing for a person to do then is to defy the law.

    • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

      The Sacred Constitutionally Guaranteed Second Amendment of the Bill Of Rights of the Constitution was written for many reasons and especially for the common civilian citizenry to be able to use armed force if necessary or as a last resort as a defense against tyrannical dictatorial repressive and oppressive Governments including the Federal, State, County, City and Town Governments, that are dominated, controlled and corrupted by special political interest groups who decide that once they dominate or totally control any of those Governments, that special political interest group dominated or controlled Government will use what ever excuses they can, regardless if it violates the very clearly Constituionally Guaranteed Second Amendment Right of the common private civilian citizen to bear arms,(any arms including any firearms), for the sole and specific purpose to disarm the common civilian citizenry in order to much more easily coerce, intimidate, threaten, control, brain wash, mind control and force the common civilian citizenry to conform to and obey the special political interest groups that dominate or that totally control any of those Governments within the borders of the U.S. and specifically for the purpose to tyrannically dictate the thoughts and the behaviors of the common civilian citizenry for the selfish self serving benefits of those domineering special political interest groups regardless if any of those Governmental bodies infringes on the Constitutionally Guaranteed Second Amendment, the Constitutionally Guaranteed First Amendment or any other or all of the Amendments of the Bill Of Rights and any of the other Guaranteed Articles and Clauses of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitutionally Guaranteed Second Amendment Right to bears arms is, as a last resort after all else has failed, all that stands between WE THE PEOPLE and any out of control abusive tyrannical dictatorial, repressive and oppressive Governments that fails to Uphold, Defend, Protect, Preserve, ENFORCE and OBEY any parts of the People’s Constitution and the Will of WE THE PEOPLE sort of like what the Obama Tyrannical Anti-Constitution Democrat Ultra Liberal Ultra Leftist or Extreme Leftist Socialist/almost Marxist Communist Regime is attempting to accomplish at this present time and the very similar situation with the Anti-Constitutional or Un-Constitutional Patriot Act as originated, dictated and enforced by the previous Bush Regime including both Republicans and Democrats.

  • Kevin

    The first actions of any dictator is always to attempt to disarm its citizens so that there can be no revolution. That is the purpose of the UN treaty to ban small arms (which would, of course, violate the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.) A treaty must comply with the Constution, it does not supercede it. Thus, even if the Senate approved this treaty (by a 2/3rd majority), it would still be ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama and Clinton are fully in support of this treaty since they are autocrats and tyrants to their cores. The citizens would be totally impotent. When the people fear the goverment, you have tyranny; when the government fears the people, you have freedom. It’s like a wild animal losing its fear of humans. This government has lost its fear of the people and thus disregards their interests and claims its dictatorial place. The only way to stop it, is to replace the present government before it is too late. This judge believes that a government interest supecedes the Constitution. However, if the government interest runs counter to the Constution, then the government interest is unconstitutional and irrelevant. The Bill of Rights was written to insure that Government interests cannot supercede the God-given rights of the people.

    • James

      Kevin, You are ignoring State constitutions with similar provisions. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”
      The Bill of Rights’ restrictive clauses apply to the federal government.

      • Thor

        State governments on the other hand cannot defy the Bill of Rights. Just because an inalienable right resides within the purview of states, there is no provision in the Constitution or anywhere else that allows states to ‘infringe’ on that right with restrictions.

        • James

          Thor, You are confusing our unalienable rights with the Bill of Rights. Rights are not dependent on any document for their existence. The Second Amendment is not the Right, it’s a restriction against infringement by Congress. Or stated otherwise, if the Bill of Rights were repealed, nothing would change concerning our rights. Or stated still otherwise, no State law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment. It has been alleged several times that various state laws had violated the Second Amendment (for example U.S. v. Cruikshank; Presser v. Illinois; etc.) but the High Court has always held that the amendment applies exclusively to the federal government.

          • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

            The Constitution and the accompanying Bill Of Rights supersedes all Federal, State, County, City and Town Laws meaning all Federal Government Laws and all Local Government Laws unless a State secedes from the Union(the United States). An example is the 5th Amendment and the Miranda warning required to be stated by all Local Law Enforcement Officers and all State Law Enforcement Officers and all Federal Law Enforcement Agents and Officers.

          • James

            Gary, Concerning the Fifth Amendment right you are correct. In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Superme Court did hold that the right against self-incrimination extended to the States as well as the federal government. But your foregoing is nonsense.
            The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting…or prohibiting…or abridging” the five rights mentioned therein. The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certainj rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And the Tenth Amendment reads: “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
            Aside from that, the U.S. Constitution just created the three branches of the federal government and delegated certain poswers to it.

          • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

            Yes all Federal Laws, State Laws, County Laws, City Laws, Town Laws and all other Local Laws and Ordinances must all be Constituitional meaning those Laws and Ordinances must not infringe on any of the Amendments in the Bill Of Rights and the Articles and Clauses contained in the Constitution such as apparently, regardless that the U.S. Federal Government fails to or is unable to or refuses to enforce any or all U.S. Federal Immigration Laws at any time, as the Obama Regime is currently doing now, the States “apparently” do not have the Constitutional authority or mandate to fill in the void deliberately neglected, deliberately ignored or deliberately abandoned by the U.S. Federal Government, by enforcing any U.S. Federal Immigration Laws, unless the States are “invited” to “co-enforce” any U.S. Federal Immigration Laws by a strict, limited and Federally regulated prior agreement with the U.S. Federal Government. Ultimately the SCOTUS exists to decide, according to the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, what is Constitutionally Legal and Constitutionally Permissible and what is not Constitutionally Legal and not Constitutionally Permissible.

          • Patriot1776

            Gary, you couldn’t be more wrong. Good lord. Read the Notes from the Philadelphia Convention…the State ratification debates…..READ THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS! The Bill of Rights was meant to apply to the newly created FEDERAL government. NOT the States. The States ALREADY had those protections in their State constitutions. They were concerned that the Federal government would infringe on their sovereign rights to Guns, speech, illegal searches and seizures, Quartering of soldiers, religion etc. Speaking of religion….If the Bill of rights extends to the States then why were there several State’s with an official religion well after the Bill of Rights was ratified with no objection? Answer: Because the States were and still are (legally, though not enforced) able to decide these matters for themselves….its called liberty.

            And to say the purpose of the Supreme Court was to be the final arbiter on interpretation of the Constitution is historical blasphemy. Actually most of your comments are. But, The Court was NEVER meant to have the last word on these matters….Their job is to UPHOLD the FEDERAL Constitution NOT interpret it, and to keep the line clear between State and Federal powers. Please read some history on these matters. You might just find out how we have been swindled out of our sovereignty, and have been put under this illusion of Federal supremacy for reasons antithetical to liberty.

          • James

            Patriiot1776, At last! Someone who agrees with me. Virginia had a state sponsored religion, and taxed its citizens to support it whether they adhered to that particular sect of Christianity or not. Thomas Jefferson disagreed with that and said so publicly.
            Our problem here is that the National Rifleman Association never mentions state constitutions, it always refers to the right to bear arms as a Second Amendment right. Members shold write to LaPierre and ask him Why?

          • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

            Patriot1776, You are trying very desperately to read way too much into things that I have never stated and it appears that you are trying to “interpret” what I have stated. I suppose you are doing your sarcastic immitation of a Justice Of The Supreme Court, probably Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Read and understand on face value only. The Constitution is meant to insure and guarantee that any Government of any type including many different shapes, forms, versions, varieties or creations of “a Federal Government” that exists now or that is created in the future will not infringe on any part of the Constitution including the Bill Of Rights. Yes the Constitution also exists to insure and to guarantee all Sovereign State’s Rights which is of course a major part of the Constitution and to insure and to guarantee that the State Governments also do not infringe on any part of the Constitution including the Bill Of Rights. Freedom of Religion is a Right that is reserved only to the People and not to the Federal Government and not to any State Governments and the Federal Government and the State Governments must not infringe on that Right Of Freedom Of Religion that is reserved only to and only for the People. And the SCOTUS only exists to guarantee that any present or future Governments of any type including any type of Federal Governments, State Governments and Local Governments does not supersede and does not infringe on any part of the Constitution including the Bill Of Rights. The present SCOTUS of course is now presently evolving into a totally independent illegal legislative and illegal “interpretive” branch or institution separate(is meant to be a separate institution, but not to compete with or replace the U.S. Congress or Legislative branch of government) from the U.S. Congress similar to voodoo witch doctors without the bones in their noses who are only a few steps away from “interpreting” or more accurately defined as predicting or pre-dictating which literally means dictating our future for all of us by “interpreting” how sheep bones or lamb bones discolor and carbonize after being seared and fire scorched in a Pleistocene Stone Age Sacred Hearth to the Sacred God Of Fire. You can tell alot by reading fire scorched sheep bones and lamb bones! Just ask any of the Justices of the Supreme Court! I understand that palm reading and reading tea leaves are also very popular in the SCOTUS. One thing is for sure, the SCOTUS sure has the SCROTUM to be doing what they are unethically, immorally, illegally and Un-Constitutionally doing.

  • sean murrey ILLInio

    Bloomburg is an a hole.

    • 45caliber

      I disagree. He is what comes out of one.

  • Buck

    Judges that aren’t intelligent enough to understand ” shall not be infringed ” need to be removed from the bench for ignorance because , they will be the first to tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse .

    • 45caliber

      But as Clinton would tell you, it depends solely upon the definition of the various words ….

  • James

    States have always regulated gun rights through their police power, and most States require a special license before one is permitted to carry a handgun. However, when to acquire such a license it takes a ton of money and umpteen pages of paperwork, then that goes beyond mere regulation to denial of the right. The Supreme Court has held that such regulations are acceptable, but the cost of the license should be no more than is what is requuired to process the paperwork.

    • Thor

      The courts have ruled consistently that the Federal Government cannot interfere with the states’ right to regulate and license; at the same time, the Supreme Court has intimated that the states cannot violate a person’s rights under the Constitution. These are separate issues.

      • James

        Thor, The Supreme Court has held that State laws may not deny their citizens from possessing a handgun for self protection (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). They have never held that rights are dependent on the U.S. Constitution. Fourty-four State constitutions have provisions similar to the Second Amendment, that’s what controls state law. In McDonald, the Chicago ordinance had violated the Illinois Constitution. The High Court held that the 14th Amendment’s “Liberty” now contains the right to posses a handgun for self-defense. That decision did not hold that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment. Confusion arises because we think of our right as a Second Amendment right, it isn’t, it’s unalienable.

    • 45caliber

      The last I heard the government was trying to require a license to OWN a gun – and that license would cost almost as much as the gun did – EACH YEAR. In three years, the license would cost MORE than the gun did. And you would have to pay a license for EACH gun you owned, not just a one time deal. The rich can pay without a problem. The poor wouldn’t be able to own a gun at all. Those in the middle class might be able to own one or two but no more.

      I forgot the bill number but it had been submitted to both the Senate and the House by some of Oblama’s friends.

      • Libertarian58

        Licensing is a Marxist concept that prevents your property from ever really becoming yours. The fees start out low and everyone says “no problem” but then get raised every year and finally reach astronomical amounts that nobody can afford. I am old enough to remember when you could register a car for 10 bucks. What does it cost now, HUNDREDS, or more? Once the camel’s nose is in the tent, the sky’s the limit.

        The “federal judge” making this ruling is an idiotic moron with NO UNDERSTANDING of rights and needs to be thrown out.

  • http://charter howe

    I fully agree with the supporters of the 2nd amendment rights but if New York State or NYC wants to legislate controls on guns, I don’t have a violent objection as long as judges and politicians do no try to take guns away from normal citizens, especially those who want to have a carry license which allows concealed carry. I would have no objection for controls to NOT allow convicted felons and nutjobs to carry along with minors and foreignors who are visiting our country or illegals.I would even support no carry license for a two or three time convicted drug addict or a three time convicted alcoholic. That is being too generous, but far too many people who should not have guns due to their personal nasty behaviors are a danger to their fellow man. Their should never be a denial for gun permits and there should be no reason other than self protection for their carry by mentally competent citizens of our great country. The folks who elected this judge should file a recall immediately and vote her out of office. Where the heck do all these liberal judges come from?

    • James

      Howe, Every state has a law which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. That has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

  • Thor

    While it is obvious that jurisprudence that has never evolved beyond the incest of recycled judicial theory has precluded the use of plain practical common sense, if that standard were to be used in matters of the Second Amendment, as it has been in say the licensing of the privilege to drive automobiles then perhaps some of those same standards and criterion used by states would be helpful: we don’t grant licenses to drive to blind people, to those who cannot demonstrate a driving proficiency, to those who have had too many accidents or DUI’s and in many cases to those who cannot prove citizenship. We do not require that a person first prove he needs to drive a car and the license to do so is freely granted to those who are not precluded by the list above. It seems incumbent upon the state to prove the person should be excluded for one of these reasons–not the other way round.

  • Zermoid

    Why do you have to have a “need” to exercise a Right?!?!

    I have the right to do it, and feel like doing it, that should be all the “need” required.

    • 45caliber

      I totally agree. No need is required to exercise a right. If need is required, then who determines that need? Apparently not you.

      • GaryTraditionalUltraConservative

        Yes you are exactly correct. Another example of sarcastic hypocrisy: You have the “RIGHT” to be born, however to be born only as an Ultra Liberal Extreme Leftist Socialist/almost Communist Marxist Democrat! If you at the time and place of your birth, refuse to be born as a Democrat, “WE” who will be present at the time and place of your birth have a pillow placed on your face to help you see the light and to help you see the error of your ways. Yes you have the “RIGHT” to Pursue, Life, Liberty and Happiness but only on “OUR” Conditions and only on “OUR” Terms which “WE” have the “RIGHT” to impose on you and which “WE” have the “RIGHT” to change at any time, when ever “WE” damn well feel like it, for “OUR” own self serving interests at “OUR” own self serving conveniences, which you are reqiured to meet on “OUR” own self serving terms and conditions for you to be able to be qualified to be permitted to be able to Pursue, Life, Liberty and Happiness, otherwise, fogettaaaaaaaboutit!!! In other words, “OUR” self serving “RIGHTS” are much Much MUCH more important than your Trivial, Meaningless, Unimportant, Trifling, Insignificant, Irrelevant, Amusing, Silly and Laughable so called “Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights” in that ridiculous piece of scrap paper known as the so called “Bill Of Rights” to that other ridiculous piece of scrap paper known as the so called “Constitution”, which “OUR” Sacred Almighty Holier than Holiest Devine Walk On Water Socialist/Communist/Marxist God named Obama treats as his own Personal Political MacDonalds Drive Thru Cheap Fast Food Restaurant Menu to very selectively cherry pick and very selectively choose from that political MacDonalds cheap fast food menu, better known as the so called “Constitution”, what “HE”, God Obama the Almighty Devine Holy One, decides to obey and decides to enfore and what “HE”, God Obama the Almighty Devine Holy One, decides not to obey and decides not to enforce and decides to deliberately mostly ignore or decides to deliberately totally ignore, *>[{(especially WE THE PEOPLE'S Mandatory Constitutionally Legally Required Enforcement of ALL U.S. Federal Immigration Laws at ALL times everywhere in the U.S. and Mandatory Constitutionally Legally Required Enforcement of ALL U.S. Federal Border Protection Enforcement Laws at ALL times everywhere at the sovereign U.S. Borders with both Mexico and Canada)}]<*, at his own almighty Devine holier than holiest all knowing and all seeing and all wise self serving political conveniences and political benefits, regardless of what WE THE PEOPLE'S Constitution LEGALLY Mandatorily Requires!!! Not too long from now, WE THE PEOPLE will be required by Obama's Law to kneel down on the ground into total political submission and worship and kiss the very sacred holy ground that the Sacred Holier than Holiest Walk On Water Almighty Devine One named God Obama has trodden!! Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Halleluiaaaaah!!! Praise Thee Obama!!!!

  • 45caliber

    New York City has this law. The only people who can get permits there are the politicians, the lawyers, the police, and a very few businessmen who frequently carry large sums of money.

  • dropdeadcommies

    These comments are so good and great that I don’t really need to ad anything just thanks for not being commies and loving freedom.

  • Jeff in OH

    Just do what the Democraps do, Keep taking it to court until you run across a real judge that does what the constitution says. Then jump up and down and claim victory..If that doesn’t work, make the city vote on it, if it fails, go back through the court system, then back to congress.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Clinging to My Religion and My Guns

    Why do you think the Japanese Empire never invaded America during WWII? Because Hirohito said if they did “There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass!” It is our right to keep and bear arms that has kept us free and scared the bejesus out of our enemies. They knew even Grandmothers and senior citizens would be shooting their asses off! Fast foward to the present. Hillary, Obama, and their Progressive Taskmasters want to leave our asses out in the breeze. The Second Ammendment is the only one that gives the others “Teeth.” Without it, the others will fall like a house of cards and your children will wake up slaves on the continent their Forefathers conquered!

  • Jim C.

    Some things about the 2nd Amendment:

    1. The Founding Fathers didn’t give us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves, or to hunt. They knew people needed to do these things, but the saw a higher need. They guaranteed the right so that, God forbid, we could defend ourselves against our OWN, and foreign governments. They did this, because they just got through fighting a brutal war against their OWN government. YES, the colonists were British subjects before they won their freedom.

    2. Take a look at amendments #1 and #3- 14. They’re all quite obviously INDIVIDUAL rights. Yet some people actuallly think the Founding Fathers slipped in a “states” right as the 2nd most important amendment. NO! The Founding Fatehrs knew the right to bear arms would be required to protect freedom of speech, religion, etc. That’s how it earned #2 ranking.

    3. The “right” is not dependent on the “reason for the right”, anymore than freedom of speech is dependent on an interest in speaking.

    4. What part of “not infringed” do people not understand? I take “not infringed” to mean that there will be no taxes on guns or ammo, no registration or licensing, and no limitations on what we can “bear”.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.