I recently wrote to a friend who works in Law enforcement in NY City here is his answer about air gun laws in NYC.

1) They are prohibited in NY City (Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Manhattan

, etc..) unless you have secured a license from the Police Commissioner.
2) In the rest of the State, they are prohibited by anyone under the age of 16 AND they are prohibited on school grounds UNLESS "permission has been granted by the educational facility for use on their property yada

yada

yada....."

I have found nothing that says anything regarding possession by an adult as long as its propellant in "spring loaded or CO2".....

The Second Amendment isn't bad. Ignorance about firearms and the true causes of violence is bad.

• The second amendment is neither good nor bad, it is law. Written as the second point in the Bill of Rights it holds sway over everything the founding fathers thought was important other than the 1st amendment's prohibition of the establishment of religion, the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Certainly these aren't considered bad but as cornerstones of an American Republic. The wording of the second amendment is usually how those who oppose individual gun rights try to establish restrictions on gun ownership. They point to the well regulated militia clause and want to say that guns should only be for well regulated militias or more specifically the military. The latest ruling on this issue was just a couple years ago when the Supreme Court struck down a Washington DC law that restricted individual gun rights. Writing for the majority Antonin Scalia wrote, "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"- those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as 'the people'". So, whether a single person thinks the 2nd amendment is bad or good is irrelevant. It is law. It can be changed, of course. Not through court decisions but rather a new law. To ratify a new amendment it takes 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4ths of the states. Good luck with that.

Because they believed that an armed populace, organized into a well regulated militia, was a good way to defend the country without a large professional army and that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical. Look at modern Switzerland. That is the kind of model that our founders were thinking of.

Michael Montagne

I figure it is partly due to the fact that British forces marched into Lexington and Concord with the intent to seize the militia's arms. This imprinted into the American mind a direct relationship between firearms and freedom.

It is'NT even conjectural as many made coment on it. Not for self protection, not for hunting, not even to protect from foreign invaders. Simply that the people, the militia, be able to wrest power from a government, overtly or insideously, removing power form the people. Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them. Our second amendment has been broken already with the 1934 nfa and all subsequent gun control. They are convincing the sheeple of Amereica that they need protecting from themselves. Don't let it happen.

The Second Amendment allowed for state militias on the cheep, by using citizens arms. It also was a counter balance to the power of the federal government. But the Second Amendment has been an anachronism for over 150 years. State Militias , now known as the National Guard, issue arms to its members. In addition, the most significant arms in the modern military include fighter jets, misiles, artillery, heavy weapons and such, not the kind of things most parents want floating around the neighbor. To allow anyone to own such arms by right is completely uncivilized and not the kind of world most sane people would want to raise a family in.

The 2nd Amendment was intended as a final check of government authority

The militia interpetaion...that some how the National Guard constitutes a "well regulated militia" is ridiculous...any force who ultimately is completely controlled by the regular federal armed forces is in no way securing the right of the people to keep and bear arms...even if the governor can call on them to help with hurricane relief...it still in no way means that they are the kind of militia that the Founders had in mind

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows:

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The capitalisation and punctuation are as the original version passed by Congress

Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people.

A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people.

A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier.

The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference.

Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people.

The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it.

So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government.

The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States.

When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous.

Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons)