lkfmdc

lkfmdc writes:
My friend, there is a state law, since 1997 making MMA illegal in NY state,

======David, I understand that, and that is my point. If they can outlaw one form of fighting why be surprised when they decide to go after another? Even if they (in your opinion) are deliberately misapplying the statue.====

Whether you agree with that law or not, it's a law and one should not break it.


===David, there is nothing in my previous post that a reasonable person could possibly read as a suggestion that anyone break any law.====


If you disagree with it, form a movement, hire lawyers and go through legal means.


====Ditto. I would imagine that was done by the MMA promoters in NY, and found to be financially impossible seeing as taxpayers pay and furnish the NY AG with unlimited funds to defend these unreasonable statutes. Bear in mind that promoter probably doesn’t have the money it takes for a lengthy and protracted court battle with an attorney general who has the advantage of unlimited funds that a private individual does not have.
I don't live in NY, and have no legal standing. I am simply expressing my support for all martial artists to have the right to practice their sport without unnecessary state restrictions-let alone being totally banned====


No one, under any circumstances, should break a law.


===Who suggested otherwise??====


And with that being said, kickboxers


===unnecessarily said, seeing as how no one I know of has advocated breaking the law in the first place=======


Kickboxers have a perfect right to complain when a law that does not apply to them is applied to shut their events down.


==David, Nobody was denying your right to complain or say anything. I simply said I thought there was a more effective way to approach the problem of unnecessary state interference in a relatively benign sporting activity. I am sure you realize that if they (NY State) really want to prohibit drinking at any event, they can and will simply pass another statute to that effect-if they lose in court the issue of how the 1997 statute should be applied. Legislators often do that to nullify an unfavorable court ruling. And if they do, then you will find yourself back at square one. And in the same position as the people you seem to dismiss as “crusaders”.
Frankly, I don’t understand the anger, with someone who simply suggested another way to approach the problem.
On the other hand, if you raise the fundamental issue of what justifies their Legislating in such a harmless activity, other people who don’t really care about any kind of combat sport, but think government should show more restraint in restricting people’s freedom to enjoy activities which harm no one, may also give you some support. And that helps a lot if the legislators perceive it is not just a very small constituency that objects.=====



Our events are 100% LEGAL and the athletic commission has said so, so they have no right to shut us down.


===I agree. I don’t think they have any moral right to shut you down, and I am on your side. As to the legality, it will be up to the courts to have the final say. Not you or I.
If the enforcement side of the law, and the administrative side, (commission) are in I conflict; it will most likely have to be resolved by a judge-who will try to ascertain the intent of the legislature. Then, if he rules in your favor, the legislator could come back and draft a less ambiguous statute, which accomplishes their purpose. That’s why I suggested trying to appeal to the more fundamental question, of whether there is really in public need served by restricting any promoter’s right to serve beverages at their events-be it KB, MMA or whatever
Now if you disagree, fine. But I don’t think it is necessary (or fair) to label people with another viewpoint as “crusaders”. It s the meddling legislators who best fit that description.====





That should be the only issue, not a crusade to make MMA legal



==Well, forgive me, but I honestly don’t think “crusade” is a fair characterization of anyone who simply thinks legislation in something like this is appropriate. I guess we ought to agree to disagree, instead of being huffy with one another. Have the last word,

Dan====