The Nassau County local law banning the possession of handguns mislabeled “deceptively colored” has been put on hold indefinitely pending the outcome of a legal challenge by gun-rights activists.Maybe they don't like "Furious Mike"?
And here's the good part:
It does not grandfather currently owned guns and mandates that gun owners surrender all banned guns for destruction without any compensation, and with no opportunity to sell them outside the county.Here's what the edict says about that:
This title shall not prohibit possession of any deceptively colored handgun by any person who possesses it on the effective date of the local law enacting this title, or by any person who acquires it by inheritance or operation of law after the effective date of this title, provided that, within thirty (30) days, such person either (i) surrenders such deceptively colored handgun to the Commissioner of Police for disposal in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of the penal law; or (ii) modifies such handgun to be in conformance with this title. This title shall not prohibit the possession of any deceptive coloring product by any person who possesses it on the effective date of the local law enacting this title, or by any person who acquires it through inheritance or by operation of law after the effective date of the local law enacting this title, provided that within thirty (30) days such person surrenders such deceptive coloring product to the Commissioner of Police for disposal.See? You can keep it--for 30 days, or you could, or, hell I don't know. And then you're required to perform either the surrender or the obedience ritual. Kneel before Zod! And if you don't, they can use all the force at their disposal, including killing you if they claim you resisted--and even if you don't, their fear of that is generally enough to make home invasion executions fall within acceptable department use of force policies.
Because, you know, they don't want anybody getting hurt over colored guns.
But then, Nassau County is the same jurisdiction that authorized this bit of juris dicktion.
Squeeze, baby. Keep bringing us that good police state love.
[Via Jeffersonian]
5 comments:
I've never seen what I would consider "a deceptive color". I have seen camouflage. Does that count?
So they said a toy gun can't be black because Only Ones might mistake it for a real gun, now they say a real gun can't be colored because an Only One might mistake it for a toy gun.
Sounds like they think their Only Ones are pretty stupid.
I seem to recall about 1975 or so, the city of new york (not capitalized on purpose) begged the citizenry to register their guns as a way of returning them to their true owners if they were ever stolen.
Unfortunately, I don't have a citation for it.
Here's what the article says about what constitutes "deceptively colored":
The law bans all handguns except for those that are "black, grey, silver, steel, nickel or army green."
I have a pistol that's sort of blueish with white (ivory) grips. I'm not clear on what about that is supposed to be deceptive, though. Perhaps all this time I just thought I owned a Single Action Army revolver, and it was really a miniature coke machine?
Personally I have never had a desire to own a purple and chartreuse striped M-1 Garand nor have I ever considered painting my house or vehicle in that combination of colours.
However, I fail to see the constitutional authority of government to deny me my right of constitutionaly protected self expression in my choice of colours for any piece of personal property I may own.
The SCOTUS has already (cite forgotten) ruled on the right of self expression – It has to do with the 1st Amendment. But, I forget. Those Left Wing Liberal Bast***ds aren’t concerned with the Constitution unless it advances their agenda.
Post a Comment