The Dick Act is, indeed, a valid US law. Pete's initial post was that your interpretation of what is said in that law is incorrect. He is righ about that. The main thing the Dick Act did was to establish the National Guard. It is by no means unrepealable. Nor does it guarantee anything with respect to the Second Amendment.
With respect to the current NYS SAFE law, the general public is in favor of it, for the most part. This is because, in my opinion, the general public does not understand the historical signifigance nor do they understand the political reasons for the Second Amendment. Hell, most people think that the Bill of Rights grants the rights it enumerates! The fact is, the Bill of Rights identifies certain "inalienable" rights as being given to all free men by their creator and prevents the government from passing any laws that would stifle those rights. That's perhaps overly simplistic since the courts have determined that certain "reasonable" restrictions may be applied in the name of public safety and national interest. The most important thing is that most people do no understand the implication, not only life without a Second Amendment, but the possibility of a government usurping a right. In this case, it's the Second Amendment. But without the Second Amendment in place, what is to prevent this "ebenevolent" government from taking away the right to petition the government to redress grievences? Or fo free speech? Or the right to a speedy trial? Or any of the others.
My point here is that only a majority public opinion will force the law makers to repeal this law if the court battles fail. We would do well to serve as spokespeople for the Second Amendment and spread the word of how it is important to Joe Average who may not choose to own a fire arm. How the Second Amendment was viewed at its inception and how that basic premise is as true today as it was in 1791.
We all need to get our facts straight and 100% correct. No "right wing, gun nut propaganda". Once you have the irrefuteable truth, that cannot be denied, the anti gun arguments become exposed to reasonable people. And remember, you will NEVER convince an anti gunner that they are wrong, just as they will never convince us that we are wrong. The war of words is waged to persuade the "silent majority", those bystanders that have no direct stake in the argument. Those "independents", if you will, are the ones that are going to decide things. Right now, the majority of them do not believe that they will be giving anything up to this law, and that's just the way Andy boy and his henchmen want it.
I feel slightly sorry for a man who has never patterned his gun, who has no idea how far his chosen load will retain killing penetration. But I'm extremely sorry for the ducks he shoots at beyond the killing range of his gun and load - Bob Brister