“The question becomes, if you argue an inventors right to a limited monopoly granted by the Constitution is unfair, than that argument can easily be argued back that we have no personal right to other property.”

I do not think it unfair. I think what you create/write is and always should be your own. Please post some links on this subject. Just whom in the Firearms industry is pushing this?

I am glad you talked about the rights offered by the Constitution.

You should read article 1, section 8, clause 8.

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

It is interesting that the firearms industry argues the 2nd amendment, but argues that the inventor has no rights to a limited monopoly. Property rights, even intellectual property rights should be honored. If these rights were not provided by the US government, people like Samuel Colt would have not been as successful as they were.

Note, this clause was originally written by the true Federalists as well, 1790.

The question becomes, if you argue an inventors right to a limited monopoly granted by the Constitution is unfair, than that argument can easily be argued back that we have no personal right to other property.

I think the firearm industry representatives should watch what they say.

May Matthew forgive me. LOL

BTW, It’s “Samuel Clemmons”, or would you like me to address you as “Mark”?

You know less than nothing about the Bill of Rights. If you knew that you know nothing at least you’d know something.

The Bill of Rights does NOT give anyone anything!!!
It restricts the Government from taking “Natural Rights” away from the people. Period.
The Bill of Rights is written in “Clauses”. Each having a Decalatory and a Restrictive Clause.

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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Decalatory Clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (This is not the National Guard which wouldn’t be federalized until 1903) The Militia referred to is almost the entirety of the population, aka The People, not the Government. Try reading the Anti-Federalist, Federalist Papers and Thomas Jefferson’s writings on the issue.

Restrictive Clause: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Now what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.—James Madison, The Federalist Papers

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”—Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

“As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.”—Thomas Jefferson

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.—Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.—Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace book

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?—Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

“To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”—George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

“The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun.”—Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…—Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”—Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”—Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

Now go get a real Education.

Oh, and sheriff’s and police chiefs are indeed politicians. Do some homework and learn about the difference between groups like FOP and LEAA that represent street cops, and IACP that represent the political hacks.

You don’t like him. Fine, criticize his record. Leave his serve to the country out of it. When you do that, you sound like a buffoon. If I were in his district, I would be more and not less likely to vote for him based on the attacks on his millitary record on this blog.

Whether this is good law or not, I will reserve judgment but I am not going to blindly support something based solely on police organizations endorsements.

What do people NOT understand about the phrase “Shall Not Be Infringed”?

As with all gun laws, this one will only affect the law-abiding while criminals laugh. But the purpose of the gun-grabbers is not to prevent crime, but to remove the capacity of lawful citizens to defend themselves. Their transparent appeals to emotion (speaking about “mothers”, for example) belie their utter disregard for both Constitutional rights and reason.

And here’s why such legislation should be opposed (via NSSF). Recent independent, peer-reviewed, studies published in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners proved that the technology of microstamping is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims. It can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools or criminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology.

Experts at the University of California, Davis, recently finished a study of the technology which was requested and funded by the California State Legislature. The conclusions about the technology are straightforward and direct. The researchers found this patented technology “flawed” and concluded that “At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”

Sport shooting and other groups, including major law enforcement organizations, are opposed to this unproven and unreliable technology. The cost of this dubious technology is a great concern to firearms owners and taxpayers alike. Microstamping legislation in California would not only have forced consumers of firearms to pay exorbitant price increases ― as much as $200 per firearm ― to cover the increased cost of microstamping, but substantially higher taxes for the cost of microstamped law enforcement guns.

To date, three comprehensive studies have been done on firearms microstamping: Professor George Krivosta, for the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners; The University of California at Davis; and most recently the National Academy of Sciences. All three of these independent studies concluded that the patented, sole-sourced technology of firearms microstamping is easily defeated by criminals, flawed, unreliable and must be studied further before any legislature even considers mandating the technology.

“Further studies are needed on the durability of microstamping marks under various firing conditions and their susceptibility to tampering, as well as on the their cost impact for manufacturers and consumers.”—National Academy of Science Study

“Implementing this technology will be much more complicated than burning a serial number on a few parts and dropping them into firearms being manufactured.”— Professor George Krivosta, The professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners

“At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”—University of California at Davis on Firearms Microstamping

After Columbine & Virginia Tech we don’t need to be making it easier for children to have access to deadly weapons.

Just one more extreme position adopted by Greg Ball. This guy doesn’t care about his community, he cares about making news and promoting himself and his hyper-partisan agenda.

If NY feels so strongly about passing more laws, then they should come up with a few that address criminals and stop infringing upon law-abiding free citizens.

Schimel, Silver, Schumer, and Clinton among others should all be dismissed from their duties for violating their oath of office—to uphold the United States Constitution.

Where does Ball live? Back with Mommie and Daddy? If that is true, shame on him for being so dependent on his parents. Time to move on and be independent.

He does not live in Carmel. His partner kicked him out and he is now back living in Pawling claiming his residence as Putnam Lake… Just one more example of how sloppy Greg Ball’s office is. They can’t get anything right and they lie to cover up all wrongdoing.