Signatures 42 total
Page: 1
-
1
Name: Mark H Osatchuck on Mar 5, 2013Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Anonymous on Mar 5, 2013Comments: It should be a red flag that tgis "Law" was shoved down our throats in the dark of nightFlag
-
3
Name: John McMahon on Mar 6, 2013Comments: Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution similarly binds the states: “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.” In plain English, neither the Federal government, nor the Sovereign States, may single out a person or group (EG gun owners, the NRA, etc.) for punishment by legislative act. Nor may they pass a law which makes an act which was legal at the time it occurred (EG obtaining a gun) retroactively illegal. Simply put: We bought our guns, we keep our guns, we are not criminals today, and they cannot legislatively make us into criminals after the fact. Thus we have no obligation to comply with any efforts to make us register or surrender said guns under penalty of an invalid act of Congress (the word “law” cannot apply to an action which is in contravention of the Constitution). Now would be a good time to support and expand the activities of Oath Keepers, and ensure that our local law enforcement and county sheriffs are aware that any such law is not valid. Let us also remember the principle of Jury Nullification – if the jury can be convinced that a law is unconstitutional, they have the right to refuse to convict under that law.Flag
-
4
Name: James Williams on Mar 6, 2013Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: Larry Banfield on Mar 6, 2013Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Patrick Gibbs on Mar 6, 2013Comments: The Consitution is the supreme law of the United States! It is NOT the right of an ego-maniacal governor to trample the rights of the law abiding american gun owner! Governor Cuomo went against his sworn oath to protect and uphold our state and national constitutions..frankly I believe this qualifies him as a traitor and he should be tried as such.Flag
-
7
Name: Shane Dunn on Mar 6, 2013Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: JJ Johnson-Smith on Mar 6, 2013Comments: The Constitution is the LAW! Non-Negotiable!Flag
-
9
Name: Rick Fantrazzo on Mar 7, 2013Comments:Flag
-
10
Name: Michael Leonick on Mar 7, 2013Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Richard T Rutt on Mar 7, 2013Comments: As abstracted from the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 07-290, District of Columbia, et al, Petitioners. v Dick Anthony Heller (June 26, 2008), (affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense), beginning on page 55: Because of the new (2008) Supreme Court data above, BANNING the carrying of an MSR-(Modern Sporting Rifle), of which most are semi-automatic and based on the M-16 platform, would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This was applied to the States by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. See Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 08-1521, McDonald et al v City of Chicago, Illinois, et al (June 28, 2010).Flag
-
12
Name: Jared Brush on Mar 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: Jeff Ghee on Mar 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
14
Name:
Kevin Woolley on Mar 8, 2013
Comments:Flag -
15
Name: George Vignaux on Mar 9, 2013Comments: Molon LabeFlag
-
16
Name: Anonymous on Mar 9, 2013Comments: Officials said there were enough of those red soles to add up to a suggested retail value of $18 million, an unbelievable profit.The original shoe is made in Italy,” said chief CBP officer Guillermina Escobar. “Once we saw it was coming in from China, we knew there was a problem with the shipment.Officials took pictures of the shoes and consulted with the trademark holder to authenticate the shoe. Once they learned they were counterfeit, the hot commodities were taken off the black market and placed into the border patrol’s possession.Had the shoes slipped through the cracks, Escobar said, they would likely have been sold on illegitimate websites and underground outlets, some of which may fail to mention the shoes are counterfeits. christian louboutin wedges http://picklouboutinshoex.webstarts.com/Flag
-
17
Name: Jukka Paljarvi on Mar 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
18
Name: Karl W. Bloom on Mar 9, 2013Comments: Law violates both the U.S. and N.Y. State Constitutions. The way it was passed was unjust and in violation of procedure.Flag
-
19
Name: Anonymous on Mar 10, 2013Comments: Yves Saint Laurent, the company named for the designer who died in 2008, began selling shoes with red outsoles “long before Mr. Louboutin began using them,” Bernstein told Marrero at a district court hearing in July. He told the appeals court that the designer’s monochromatic shoe is “the DNA of the brand.”had put off deciding whether to cancel Louboutin’s trademark for the red sole until the appeals court ruled.We are pleased that our central premise, that color on the red sole, can be a trademark,” Harley Lewin, a lawyer representing Louboutin at McCarter & English LLP, said in an e-mail. “We consider this a significant win, not only for Louboutin, but for the fashion industry in general.” He said he would “carefully study” the part of the ruling referring to monochromatic shoes. cheap christian louboutin shoes http://christianlouboutinshoesb.webs.com/Flag
-
20
Name: Anonymous on Mar 10, 2013Comments: Louboutin, a Paris-based fashion company, claimed in its lawsuit filed in April 2011 that Yves Saint Laurent’s red-soled shoes “threaten to mislead the public.”Nail PolishChristian Louboutin, the designer for whom the company is named, said he got the idea for the red soles when he painted red nail polish on the black soles of a pair of women’s shoes.Louboutin’s red soles were introduced in 1992 and have been on all of its luxury shoes since then, according to court papers. They have been popularized by people including Sarah Jessica Parker, the star of the TV show “Sex and the City.” christian louboutin store http://cheapchristianlouboutinsus.webs.com/Flag
-
21
Name: Kristine Cole on Mar 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
22
Name: Heidi Jones on Mar 11, 2013Comments:Flag
-
23
Name: Donna Redsicker on Mar 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Michael Lynch on Mar 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Gino Leonardi on Mar 12, 2013Comments: Repeal the SAFE Act, it discriminates against law abiding citizens.Flag
-
26
Name: Diana Bryant on Mar 12, 2013Comments: As a long time gun owner, it is not the gun law that upsets me most, it is the unethical way they pushed this into law. People on both sides of this issue need to ask themselves, where does this stop. What happens when Gov. Cuomo decides that the economy in NY needs a boost, and he closes his door and pushes a law through without the 3 day waiting period and no input from citizens? What will happen if he decides to allow Fracking every place but the NYC watershed after all NYC seems to be where he gets his guidance and votes. People need to see how this law affects them, they need to see that it has set a precedence in how legislation is passed in NYS.Flag
-
27
Name: Jon Littlefield on Mar 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
28
Name: Kelly Smallidge on Mar 12, 2013Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Scott DeMonte on Mar 12, 2013Comments: Never before has the 2nd amendment been under attack like this. The SAFE Act destroys ones ability to own, buy, sell or use guns. In addition, the background check on ammunition purchases is insane mixed with the 5 year renewal of gun permits with open ended "disqualifying" events not written in advance means the state can move the goal posts at any time. The facts are clear, military styled weapons are responsible for less than 5% of gun crime/deaths and were only used in a handful of mass shootings, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Webster, and one other one, but all these people had a handgun. Not to mention this law makes my Ruger 10/22 target rifle as an "assault rifle" even though it has zero actual military characteristics except for a pistol grip built into the stock, not a true pistol grip. I was willing to compromise on gun restrictions, but they call me an extremist when I was willing to give up some of my rights... how am I an extremist when their first move is to just ban things, isn't that extreme? Not to mention, "assault weapons" are great for training potential service members before they enlist, they are easy to shoot )good for self defense and WOMEN to use), accurate and dependable all of these things are key to self defense and these weapons are good for hunting as well.Flag
-
30
Name: Anonymous on Mar 12, 2013Comments: This was Shoved thru and is unconstitutional!!!!Flag
-
31
Name: John J. Norman on Mar 12, 2013Comments: THIS LAW ? should be REPEALED !!!! It will not stop crime and infact helpe criminals . This was a poorly thoyght out law.We need to rethink the way we handle mental illness in the USA.Flag
-
32
Name: Anonymous on Mar 13, 2013Comments: dont even try!Flag
-
33
Name: Rodger Ward on Mar 13, 2013Comments:Flag
-
34
Name: William E. Best on Mar 13, 2013Comments: Gov.sFlag
-
35
Name: Bill Holtkamp on Mar 13, 2013Comments: Please repeal the SAFE Act. It is not safe, it is not constitutional.Flag
-
36
Name: Roger W. Calkins on Mar 13, 2013Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Eric Bomboy on Mar 13, 2013Comments: This law violates my Second Ammendment rights and should be repealed immediately!!Flag
-
38
Name: Ronald F. Norman, Jr on Mar 13, 2013Comments: I want to be free.Flag
-
39
Name: Brian Snell on Mar 15, 2013Comments:Flag
-
40
Name: Darin Podrazik on Mar 23, 2013Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Steven P.Knapp on Mar 25, 2013Comments: Protect my rights , Coumo swore to uphold the Constitution and now he has broke his oath . He will be voted out .Flag
-
42
Name: Cwiouzyxxg on Apr 1, 2013Comments: S4d0BI kkfgxqblhjju, sbihsrghaoem, fatqjrvhquzq, http://suugndfyitnr.com/Flag
Page: 1