Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Recommended Posts

Guest One of Five

Really?? That was put together by the National Shooting Sports Foundation based in Newtown who operate the range I use at Wooster Mountain on Route 7. This is their analysis from your link:

 

 

 

Ammunition Sales

Effective January 15, 2014, sellers of ammunition must (1) register with the New York State Police, (2) run any buyer through a State-‐created review of disqualifiers to ensure that the buyer is not prohibited by law from possessing ammunition, and (3) keep records of sales that are electronically accessible to the State. The NY SAFE Act also bans direct internet sales of ammunition.

 

Let me know how they're defining Seller please. A lot of people would like to know.

 

I've heard that NY State is the least friendly state for business.

 

Totally with you on NAFTA - Canadians don't exactly like it either.

 

Who knew that Chuck Woolery would have a position on this - the date is November 12, 2012 for this video.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?? That was put together by the National Shooting Sports Foundation based in Newtown who operate the range I use at Wooster Mountain on Route 7. This is their analysis from your link:

 

 

 

Ammunition Sales

Effective January 15, 2014, sellers of ammunition must (1) register with the New York State Police, (2) run any buyer through a State-‐created review of disqualifiers to ensure that the buyer is not prohibited by law from possessing ammunition, and (3) keep records of sales that are electronically accessible to the State. The NY SAFE Act also bans direct internet sales of ammunition.

 

Let me know how they're defining Seller please. A lot of people would like to know.

 

I've heard that NY State is the least friendly state for business.

 

Totally with you on NAFTA - Canadians don't exactly like it either.

 

Who knew that Chuck Woolery would have a position on this - the date is November 12, 2012 for this video.

 

 

 

I couldn't find it anywhere on their webpage, not saying it isn't there, but i didn't find it. NSSF seems like a good group and this article with its bashing of medicaid, NY in general including gun industry facilities and flippant remarks of seeming disgust that a domestic partner may be a gay partner just doesn't fit. It does fit with the web blog "American Thinker" where i found it though.

 

The author was fired from Monroe Community College, seems like both he and the defendant are assholes in their own rights from reading this lawsuit. He lost with prejudice, apparently forgetting that it is perfectly legal to fire a person for being an asshole that apparently no one liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Howler,, have you looked at the legislation? I have - I honestly can't parse a lot of it. The ammunition requirements is an across the board limitation on ANY gun use. The author's correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Really?? That was put together by the National Shooting Sports Foundation based in Newtown who operate the range I use at Wooster Mountain on Route 7. This is their analysis from your link:

 

 

 

Ammunition Sales

Effective January 15, 2014, sellers of ammunition must (1) register with the New York State Police, (2) run any buyer through a State-‐created review of disqualifiers to ensure that the buyer is not prohibited by law from possessing ammunition, and (3) keep records of sales that are electronically accessible to the State. The NY SAFE Act also bans direct internet sales of ammunition.

 

Let me know how they're defining Seller please. A lot of people would like to know.

 

I've heard that NY State is the least friendly state for business.

 

Totally with you on NAFTA - Canadians don't exactly like it either.

 

Who knew that Chuck Woolery would have a position on this - the date is November 12, 2012 for this video.

 

 

 

I couldn't find it anywhere on their webpage, not saying it isn't there, but i didn't find it. NSSF seems like a good group and this article with its bashing of medicaid, NY in general including gun industry facilities and flippant remarks of seeming disgust that a domestic partner may be a gay partner just doesn't fit. It does fit with the web blog "American Thinker" where i found it though.

 

The author was fired from Monroe Community College, seems like both he and the defendant are assholes in their own rights from reading this lawsuit. He lost with prejudice, apparently forgetting that it is perfectly legal to fire a person for being an asshole that apparently no one liked.

 

You need to look at your own link as first posted. Then go to the FAQ's on the SAFE act (which is what we're talking about) and read it. Get back to me after you've done it. I really don't give a fuck about the messenger attack on the American Thinker piece. Great - I'm glad you've done some research on the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm.... why don't we actually look at what the legislation says, rather than looking at what other people say the legislation says. Primary sources and all that...

 

I tried.

 

Kevin can tell you how much I got wrong.

 

That section of NY's penal code is incredibly convoluted, to begin with. The new law makes it even more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howler,, have you looked at the legislation? I have - I honestly can't parse a lot of it. The ammunition requirements is an across the board limitation on ANY gun use. The author's correct.

 

No, I haven't.... but then again I'm not arguing about what it does or doesn't say, either. But even without any background, one place where the author is clearly wrong is right here:

But the law exempts such "professionals" from civil liability; thus, any "mental health professional" who believes that all gun owners are "nuts" could initiate the confiscation of a person's firearms, and the gun owner is forbidden to file a civil suit to challenge the "diagnosis."

 

The fact that a shrink is exempt from civil liability does not mean that you can't file suit to challenge the diagnosis, it means that you can't collect damages from him. That's a huge difference, and the fact that the author plays fast and loose with that one fact instantly renders the rest of the article somewhat suspect.

 

I'm not, by the way, arguing about the law here: based on what I know I certainly don't like the law nor do I like the way it was rammed through, and if I voted in that jurisdiction I would have a hard time voting for any legislator who supported it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?? That was put together by the National Shooting Sports Foundation based in Newtown who operate the range I use at Wooster Mountain on Route 7. This is their analysis from your link:

 

 

 

Ammunition Sales

Effective January 15, 2014, sellers of ammunition must (1) register with the New York State Police, (2) run any buyer through a State-‐created review of disqualifiers to ensure that the buyer is not prohibited by law from possessing ammunition, and (3) keep records of sales that are electronically accessible to the State. The NY SAFE Act also bans direct internet sales of ammunition.

 

Let me know how they're defining Seller please. A lot of people would like to know.

 

I've heard that NY State is the least friendly state for business.

 

Totally with you on NAFTA - Canadians don't exactly like it either.

 

Who knew that Chuck Woolery would have a position on this - the date is November 12, 2012 for this video.

 

 

 

I couldn't find it anywhere on their webpage, not saying it isn't there, but i didn't find it. NSSF seems like a good group and this article with its bashing of medicaid, NY in general including gun industry facilities and flippant remarks of seeming disgust that a domestic partner may be a gay partner just doesn't fit. It does fit with the web blog "American Thinker" where i found it though.

 

The author was fired from Monroe Community College, seems like both he and the defendant are assholes in their own rights from reading this lawsuit. He lost with prejudice, apparently forgetting that it is perfectly legal to fire a person for being an asshole that apparently no one liked.

 

You need to look at your own link as first posted. Then go to the FAQ's on the SAFE act (which is what we're talking about) and read it. Get back to me after you've done it. I really don't give a fuck about the messenger attack on the American Thinker piece. Great - I'm glad you've done some research on the guy.

 

From the original article;

The law also prohibits the private "sale" or "exchange" of any firearm to any person unless a licensed dealer performs the "sale" and a background check. The politically correct law exempts parents, spouses, children, stepchildren and "domestic partners." Thus, the divorced Cuomo may legally give his live-in girlfriend Sandra Lee a firearm without a dealer transfer and background check, but if a serial rapist and murderer (such as the notorious "Bike Path Rapist" Altemio Sanchez , who terrorized women for three decades while the cops put the wrong guy in prison) is on the loose, you may not give a shotgun to your sister for self-protection. You may give your live-in gay lover a firearm, but you may not give your brother or nephew a .22 rifle on Christmas Eve. The law does not clarify how long someone must be in possession of a firearm before such possession is understood to be an "exchange"; thus, it is possible that lending a rifle to your brother-in-law for deer season without a dealer transfer and a background check could be construed as an illegal "exchange." You would then be a criminal, and the gun used in the "crime" could be confiscated and destroyed.

 

Finally, the SAFE Act requires that gun owners report any "loss or theft" of a firearm or ammunition to the police within 24 hours. Failure to do so is a criminal offense. Read literally, a deer hunter in Saranac Lake who drops a single 12-gauge slug in the snow and cannot find it is a criminal unless he reports the loss to the police.

 

Please cite these claims in the law. I have read both the 50 something page law (convoluted hard-core legalese) The Governor's webpage FAQ which isn't very helpful - but has pictures! The responses of the Sheriffs, PBA, NYSRPA, NSSF, listened to the response of my State senator and read the legal filing against the law by the NYSRPA. What the author wrote above is either completely missed by the lawyers and representatives of the agencies above or indeed false.

 

I did a simple "bing" search on the author to see the source of the article, the top two results are the "American Thinker" publication and the pdf of the court case pursued by the author against his former employer. Reading that court case there may be some on here who would see him as a martyr fighting the man, messenger attack my ass, this author's past works clearly detail his prejudices. I particularly enjoyed how, in one of his articles, he referred to Native Americans as "stone age savages". Just as an example of an actual messenger attack, he is a homophobic, racist bigot.

 

The law is unreasonable and quite possibly unconstitutional infringement, the organized opponents have forwarded a solid amount of work on topic, reviewed by lawyers and in a constructive tone. NY is not a tea party state, ok some counties are, but not enough to hold the sway necessary to repeal the portions of the S.A.F.E. act that are so objectionable. In my opinion the approach taken by this author is counterproductive to the greater cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

So you've got nothing on the definition of "seller" from your own cite? I've already told you that I can't sift through that primary source dense manure. You came up with a secondary source. You said "hey looky here." I looked there. I quoted something from there - you don't want to use that now?

 

You'd prefer to talk about the author and blast away at that... Cavandish??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S 400.10 Report of theft or loss of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

1. (a) Any owner or other person lawfully in possession of: (I) a

firearm, rifle or, shotgun who suffers the loss or theft of said weapon;

(II) AMMUNITION AS WELL AS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WHO SUFFERS THE

LOSS OR THEFT OF SUCH AMMUNITION AS WELL AS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN;

OR (III) AMMUNITION AND IS A DEALER IN FIREARMS OR SELLER OF AMMUNITION

WHO SUFFERS THE LOSS OR THEFT OF SUCH AMMUNITION shall within twenty

four hours of the discovery of the loss or theft report the facts and

circumstances of the loss or theft to a police department or sheriff's

office.

( B) Whenever a person reports the theft or loss of a firearm, rifle

[or], shotgun OR AMMUNITION to any police department or sheriff's

office, the officer or department receiving such report shall forward

notice of such theft or loss to the division of state police via the New

York Statewide Police Information Network. The notice shall contain

information in compliance with the New York Statewide Police Information

Network Operating Manual, including the caliber, make, model, manufac

turer's name and serial number, if any, and any other distinguishing

number or identification mark on the weapon.

2. The division of state police shall receive, collect and file the

information referred to in subdivision one of this section. The division

shall cooperate, and undertake to furnish or make available to law

enforcement agencies this information, for the purpose of coordinating

law enforcement efforts to locate such weapons.

 

OK damn it, i found what i think you were referring to, the following is buried in there.

24. "SELLER OF AMMUNITION" MEANS ANY PERSON, FIRM, PARTNERSHIP, CORPO

RATION OR COMPANY WHO ENGAGES IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING, SELLING OR

KEEPING AMMUNITION.

 

i have now read that law twice, still oppose most of it. Also now know that a "Kung-Fu star" is indeed illegal in NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shuriken....

i've seen them called ninja stars but "kung fu star" is a first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S 400.10 Report of theft or loss of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

1. (a) Any owner or other person lawfully in possession of:

(I) a firearm, rifle or, shotgun who suffers the loss or theft of said weapon;

 

(II) AMMUNITION AS WELL AS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WHO SUFFERS THE

LOSS OR THEFT OF SUCH AMMUNITION AS WELL AS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN;

 

OR

 

(III) AMMUNITION AND IS A DEALER IN FIREARMS OR SELLER OF AMMUNITION

WHO SUFFERS THE LOSS OR THEFT OF SUCH AMMUNITION shall within twenty

four hours of the discovery of the loss or theft report the facts and

circumstances of the loss or theft to a police department or sheriff's

office....

...

 

That looks to me like you have to report a lost or stolen gun that you own, and if ammo is lost or stolen along with the gun you must report both ammo and gun, but only dealers must report ammo that is stolen without an accompanying gun. The article saying you have to report a round dropped in the snow is wrong.

 

Not sure how that could be enforced, unless they are keeping track of all the ammo everyone owns and how much of it has been shot up at any given time, which seems impossible. I have only a general idea of how much ammo I have at the moment.

 

It also sounds like yet another law that is only likely to be obeyed by the people who own guns but do not use them for criminal purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

OK - thank you Cavandish for finding that. I really want this repealed, pronto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shuriken....

i've seen them called ninja stars but "kung fu star" is a first.

 

I used to love those throwing stars when I was a kid, I got as accurate as a ten year old boy could be expected.

 

I had forgotten about those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

the problem was not in the throwing but in digging them out of the logs that you hit. Dangerous little gizmos. Almost as bad as lawn darts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S 400.10 Report of theft or loss of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

1. (a) Any owner or other person lawfully in possession of:

(I) a firearm, rifle or, shotgun who suffers the loss or theft of said weapon;

 

(II) AMMUNITION AS WELL AS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WHO SUFFERS THE

LOSS OR THEFT OF SUCH AMMUNITION AS WELL AS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN;

 

OR

 

(III) AMMUNITION AND IS A DEALER IN FIREARMS OR SELLER OF AMMUNITION

WHO SUFFERS THE LOSS OR THEFT OF SUCH AMMUNITION shall within twenty

four hours of the discovery of the loss or theft report the facts and

circumstances of the loss or theft to a police department or sheriff's

office....

...

 

That looks to me like you have to report a lost or stolen gun that you own, and if ammo is lost or stolen along with the gun you must report both ammo and gun, but only dealers must report ammo that is stolen without an accompanying gun. The article saying you have to report a round dropped in the snow is wrong.

 

Not sure how that could be enforced, unless they are keeping track of all the ammo everyone owns and how much of it has been shot up at any given time, which seems impossible. I have only a general idea of how much ammo I have at the moment.

 

It also sounds like yet another law that is only likely to be obeyed by the people who own guns but do not use them for criminal purposes.

 

That is how i read it as well. Although most criminals go through much, much less ammunition, if any at all compared to a target shooter or even hunter. However maybe if an owner reported an uncommon caliber of firearm stolen and then a red flag were place on purchases of said caliber....maybe find the thief? A big stretch and i don't want to have to go back to the law to quote the wordy explanation of how the ammunition records can and can not be used, but there are advantages in keeping electronic records of stolen firearms.

 

Beyond simple filing of a police report that results in a trip or two to the local pawn store and then gets filed away unavailable for cross-reference at later crime scenes and warranted searches. Which in turn could make an additional charge of "possession of stolen property" fair game in a criminal investigation.

 

Poor record keeping adds value to stolen guns on the black market, good record keeping makes it difficult to sell illegitimate property. The problem then is, with the new law taken as a whole, otherwise law abiding responsible owners of assault weapons will likely not participate out of fear of registration. In which case their weapons will retain their current desirability by thieves as others more traditional weapons desirability will be reduced due to the reporting requirement and electronic record.

 

I'm ok with a requirement of all firearms owners to report theft and would encourage every owner to keep photographs as well as record serial numbers ect. of every weapon they own. The penalty and time period is tricky, but remember it is "upon discovery" within 24hours. This also closes a loophole to universal background checks and enforces accountability by the owner.

 

7 rounds, reducing the definition to 1 feature, transferability of currently owned assault weapons being disallowed, vagueness in requirements to medical professionals and banning the legal sale of anything that fits so broad a definition remains the portions i consider absurd, as a whole not keeping with the current interpretation of the second amendment and just simply bad law. While no maximum allowed values currently exist i would strongly oppose the establishment of them.

 

I approve; universal background checks with $10 as a fair maximum fee so long as no minimum fee is added although i would prefer the state establish a free option, an accessible registry of stolen firearms (provided the names/person information of the person stolen from is held confidential), pistol permits/weapon registrations being exempt from FOIL inquiries and i could take or leave increased penalties.

 

The tracking of ammunition as shall be required by the new law goes way too far, valid ID is fine as a requirement in my opinion. A free of charge instant database should be a yes or no and not a full catalog of items purchased wouldn't bother me either to be honest. Setting maximum limits would be highly unlikely to effect those interested in using their firearm unlawfully, but would really affect target shooters in a negative manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even without any background, one place where the author is clearly wrong is right here:

But the law exempts such "professionals" from civil liability; thus, any "mental health professional" who believes that all gun owners are "nuts" could initiate the confiscation of a person's firearms, and the gun owner is forbidden to file a civil suit to challenge the "diagnosis."

 

The fact that a shrink is exempt from civil liability does not mean that you can't file suit to challenge the diagnosis, it means that you can't collect damages from him. That's a huge difference, and the fact that the author plays fast and loose with that one fact instantly renders the rest of the article somewhat suspect.

 

I'm not, by the way, arguing about the law here: based on what I know I certainly don't like the law nor do I like the way it was rammed through, and if I voted in that jurisdiction I would have a hard time voting for any legislator who supported it.

 

Uhhh, I wouldn't say "clearly" wrong. Although he could have used better terminology. I'm not a lawyer and its been a while since I've stayed at a Holiday Inn..... but my understanding of civil cases is that its all about the damages or threat of award damages which often compels some one to change behavior and/or deters them from the bad behavior in the 1st place. While someone could technically challenge the "diagnosis" I suppose, there is nothing from preventing that doc from doing it over and over as a harrassment tool without the ability to sue for damages. I believe this is what the author meant when he said "forbidden to file suit to challenge the diagnosis". If all that happened was a judge said.... yep you're right, you're not crazy and you can have your gun back"..... by then the plaintiff gunowner is out many tens of thousands of dollars and potentially years of ass pain to get to that point. Without damages, the doc just moves on the next one and does the same thing.

 

I think you understand what I mean.....

 

I agree with you, but that's not what the author of the original article said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets betterer and mo betterer

 

 

“In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York - henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.”

 

 

 

“…will not sell anything to the following local government agencies until their firearm and/or magazine restrictions have been repealed:, City of Chicago, Illinois ;New York State ; Washington, D.C

 

 

 

“we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

 

 

 

 

Yuck Foo, Gnu Yawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am i missing something or does Olympic arms primarily manufacture weapons that were just made illegal to sell in NY anyway?

 

A bit like responding to an employer who just fired you by yelling, fuck you i'm not coming here to work anymore!

 

From what i've seen, provided i don't pay close attention to this specifically, most of the law enforcement officers carry glocks. Also doubt thier armories are lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEO agencies purchase more than just Glock handguns. scary black rifles are standard kit for most LEO these days. Glock is just one of the suppliers of handguns to LEO. Some officers also choose to carry other brands. This varies widely and you are painting with a very ignorant brush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am i missing something or does Olympic arms primarily manufacture weapons that were just made illegal to sell in NY anyway?

 

A bit like responding to an employer who just fired you by yelling, fuck you i'm not coming here to work anymore!

 

 

Yeah, in the event of the law being repealed or declared unconstitutional, I'd love to see how long they would hold out on their pledge, waiting for the State of New York to officially issue "an apology... to the American People"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am i missing something or does Olympic arms primarily manufacture weapons that were just made illegal to sell in NY anyway?

 

A bit like responding to an employer who just fired you by yelling, fuck you i'm not coming here to work anymore!

 

From what i've seen, provided i don't pay close attention to this specifically, most of the law enforcement officers carry glocks. Also doubt thier armories are lacking.

 

You may be missing two things.

 

1. In their haste to pass the law, they forgot to exempt law enforcement, further evidence of how careful they are being.

 

2. They plan to correct that oversight, so LE will be able to put "military style" weapons on NY streets, just not from a couple of companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just agreeing with you that NY police forces aren't likely to care about Olympic's boycott. That factory makes AR's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEO agencies purchase more than just Glock handguns. scary black rifles are standard kit for most LEO these days. Glock is just one of the suppliers of handguns to LEO. Some officers also choose to carry other brands. This varies widely and you are painting with a very ignorant brush.

 

As i said, i doubt their armories are lacking, as in they already have the weapons they need. Also none of these companies make anything that can't be bought from a dozen other manufacturers. AR-15 platform rifles and 1911 pistols aren't unique and even it they were, Olympic at least, is declaring a 8-10 MONTH back order. So what weapon aren't they selling to NY that they would have otherwise, if not for this statement.

 

There is this company called Colt, who makes this thing called a M-4, who sells guns to police. I'm willing to bet those models aren't back ordered.

 

Colt, Mossberg, Remmington, Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Baretta, Bennelli, H&K, Marlin, Savage, Walther, Kimber ect ..... I'd say the officers of NYS have a pretty good selection remaining and how many of these companies make near identical weapons as Olympic?

 

Hot air is hot air, those who are against all assault weapons will take it as a victory even if it meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just agreeing with you that NY police forces aren't likely to care about Olympic's boycott. That factory makes AR's.

 

There is already some evidence emerging that these policies are popular in the much larger civilian market. Their order backlog is about to get even bigger from what I'm seeing on gun nut forums.

 

Others will want to gain that competitive advantage in the civilian marketplace, which is large.

 

NICS checks from the month of January, 1999-2013 show what's going on out there... almost 2.5 million of them in a month.

 

nics-checks-jan-99-13.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, in the event of the law being repealed or declared unconstitutional, I'd love to see how long they would hold out on their pledge, waiting for the State of New York to officially issue "an apology... to the American People"...

 

I doubt such an apology will be forthcoming, but I suspect the increase in sales from this new policy will more than make up for any lost sales to certain governments.

 

Meanwhile, up in your home state, a package of gun control measures passed out of committee and to the legislature...

 

Among the notables to me:

 

Other bills would require ammunition sales to be conducted in person (A3645), disqualify those included on the federal terrorist watch list from buying guns (A3687)

 

I buy ammo online because price and selection are generally better, but if I wanted to make purchases without leaving a paper trail, I'd go buy in cash from a local shop. They have an ammunition tracking bill to deal with people like me. I doubt this will have any effect on crime, but it will create huge numbers of records about gun owners. It strikes me as a lot like restricting paper and ink supplies while claiming to support 1st amendment free expression.

 

You can land on the terrorist watch list through one tip. That should not be enough to override 2nd amendment rights. There have been tens of thousands of false positives.

 

"They are secret lists with no way for people to petition to get off or even to know if they're on," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely, Missouri's newest proposals go much further than New York or New Jersey and propose confiscation of mean looking guns.

 

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

 

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

 

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

 

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

 

 

If they really don't want to take r gunz, I wish elected officials would quit talking about it and proposing it in legislation. That kind of thing just makes the NRA sound believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minnesota is also considering some severe gun control measures.

 

9.14 Subd. 5. Registration of assault weapons. (a) A person who legally owned or

9.15possessed an assault weapon before February 1, 2013, and who desires to keep ownership

9.16or possession of the weapon shall comply with the following requirements:

9.17(1) submit to a background check conducted by the chief of police of the

9.18municipality in which the person resides, or if there is no police department the sheriff

9.19of the county in which the person resides, to confirm the person is not prohibited from

9.20possessing a firearm under state or federal law; and

9.21(2) unless the person is currently prohibited by law from possessing a firearm,

9.22immediately register the weapon with the appropriate law enforcement agency.

9.23(B) A person described in paragraph (a) shall comply with all of the following:

9.24(1) safely and securely store the assault weapon pursuant to the regulations adopted

9.25by the appropriate law enforcement agency;

9.26(2) agree to allow the agency to inspect the storage of the weapon to ensure

9.27compliance with this subdivision;

9.28(3) annually renew the registration, subject to the completion of a new background

9.29check;

9.30(4) possess the weapon only on property owned or immediately controlled by the

9.31person, or while engaged in the legal use of the weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or

9.32while transporting the weapon in compliance with United States Code, title 18, section

9.33926A; and

9.34(5) report the loss or theft of the weapon to the appropriate law enforcement agency

9.35within 48 hours of the time the discovery of the loss or theft was made or should have

9.36been made.

10.1© Registered assault weapons may not be purchased or transferred, except for

10.2transfer to the appropriate law enforcement agency for the purpose of surrendering the

10.3weapon for destruction.

10.4(d) The registered owner or possessor of an assault weapon may not purchase

10.5additional assault weapons.

10.6(e) The appropriate law enforcement agency may charge a fee for each registration

10.7and registration renewal pursuant to this subdivision.

10.8(f) Persons acquiring an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession shall,

10.9within 120 days of acquiring title, do one of the following:

10.10(1) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction; or

10.11(2) modify the weapon to render it permanently inoperable.

 

Translation: if you already own a mean looking rifle, you can keep it until you die, but must pay a registration fee and have a background check every year. You can't sell it, nor buy another. If you do not already have one, you never will. Does anyone still wonder why sales of these guns have gone through the roof? There are probably a lot of people like me in America, who do not own mean looking rifles but might want one some day. Better get one now if you fit that description.

 

When you die, the gun must be given to the government for destruction or permanently disabled. Meanwhile, you must allow the government to inspect your method of storage and you can only have the gun on your property or at a licensed firing range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, see the part starting at line 10.1. It can not be transferred, except to the government for destruction. Not that there's a fifth amendment problem with that or anything.

 

If you discover it has been lost or stolen, they'll decide when you should have discovered that fact. 9.35-6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it to the Minnesotans to come up with a very reasonable and accommodating solution to a very troubling problem.

It should be used as a template for any state wishing to something about military weapons in the hands of civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow, so you can't even sell it to someone out of state???

 

No, see the part starting at line 10.1. It can not be transferred, except to the government for destruction. Not that there's a fifth amendment problem with that or anything.

 

If you discover it has been lost or stolen, they'll decide when you should have discovered that fact. 9.35-6

 

Correction to the above: if you don't want to register it, you can get it out of the state prior to next September, per the next section of the law:

 

10.20 Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE

10.21OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.

10.22Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault

10.23weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to

10.24prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:

10.25(1) remove the weapon from the state;

10.26(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;

10.27(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or

10.28(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section

10.29624.7133, subdivision 5.

10.30EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.

 

In addition to the second and fifth amendment problems (and the fourth amendment problem with agreeing to the storage inspections) it seems like they are regulating interstate commerce. That's Congress' turf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps gun loving Minnesotans can claim refugee status in North Dakota. That is unless North Dakota builds a dang fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the proposals in Minn. and Missouri actually have anything close to actual majority support in any of their governing bodies?

 

I think i have mentioned before that, state elected officials are individually a mixed bag of nuts, due to the lack of attention by many voters. Yeah, he with the most signs win!! Way, way back about 11-12 years ago i was active as a volunteer in Albany...there were assembly members that, to put it nicely, i wouldn't trust to govern a student club. On both sides of the aisle. It ......is....... scary.

 

Then again i am perpetually amused at how so many gun nuts opine the virtues of bright red states and their gun laws and ignore that, when it comes to full extension of the right to own and carry whatever you want, however you want. Vermont, a mostly "blue" state, is the leader. Many places in Upstate NY have more in common politically with Vermont than NYC, they are just VASTLY outnumbered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it to the Minnesotans to come up with a very reasonable and accommodating solution to a very troubling problem.

It should be used as a template for any state wishing to something about military weapons in the hands of civilians.

 

 

I saw no mention of "military weapons" in the Minnesota draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it to the Minnesotans to come up with a very reasonable and accommodating solution to a very troubling problem.

It should be used as a template for any state wishing to something about military weapons in the hands of civilians.

 

 

I saw no mention of "military weapons" in the Minnesota draft.

My bad. Assault weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the proposals in Minn. and Missouri actually have anything close to actual majority support in any of their governing bodies?...

 

Then again i am perpetually amused at how so many gun nuts opine the virtues of bright red states and their gun laws and ignore that, when it comes to full extension of the right to own and carry whatever you want, however you want. Vermont, a mostly "blue" state, is the leader. ...

I do not know how much chance of passage they have, Cavandish. My point in posting them was to show that Governor Cuomo is not the only elected official for whom confiscation is an option. There are a bunch of extremists on the other side. Just today I had yet another over in GA saying that we gun nutz want any and all weapons with no restrictions, but I have yet to see one of them post actual proposals from actual elected officials saying any such thing - mostly because there are not any.

 

I'm well aware that Vermont was the leader and have been using "Vermont Carry" to mean "concealed carry with no permit required" for a long time, but they are not any more in at least one sense: You can't get a permit in Vermont. That's fine if you never leave the state, since you don't need one. However, it makes a reciprocal agreement to carry in other states impossible. Nothing to reciprocate. That makes Arizona the new leader. They have "Vermont carry" with optional permits and reciprocity with many other states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the proposals in Minn. and Missouri actually have anything close to actual majority support in any of their governing bodies?...

 

Then again i am perpetually amused at how so many gun nuts opine the virtues of bright red states and their gun laws and ignore that, when it comes to full extension of the right to own and carry whatever you want, however you want. Vermont, a mostly "blue" state, is the leader. ...

I do not know how much chance of passage they have, Cavandish. My point in posting them was to show that Governor Cuomo is not the only elected official for whom confiscation is an option. There are a bunch of extremists on the other side. Just today I had yet another over in GA saying that we gun nutz want any and all weapons with no restrictions, but I have yet to see one of them post actual proposals from actual elected officials saying any such thing - mostly because there are not any.

 

I'm well aware that Vermont was the leader and have been using "Vermont Carry" to mean "concealed carry with no permit required" for a long time, but they are not any more in at least one sense: You can't get a permit in Vermont. That's fine if you never leave the state, since you don't need one. However, it makes a reciprocal agreement to carry in other states impossible. Nothing to reciprocate. That makes Arizona the new leader. They have "Vermont carry" with optional permits and reciprocity with many other states.

 

It has been 5+ years since i lived there, but Alaska is also a state that requires nothing to open carry/concealed carry except the gun. They also shall provide a permit if one desires to attain one for reciprocity. Provided, they do not share a land boarder with any other states.

 

Just for fun;

 

Crime rates by state in 2010: Violent

crime

(total)1 Murder2 Forcible

rape Robbery Aggravated

Assault

 

Read more: Crime Rate by State, 2010 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html#ixzz2L0GAybjw

NY State 392.1 4.5 14.3 146.9 226.4

Arizona 408.1 6.4 33.9 108.5 259.3

Alaska 638.8 4.4 75.0 83.6 475.8

Vermont 130.2 1.1 21.1 11.8 96.2

Texas 450.3 5.0 30.3 130.6 284.4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like bringing it up when folks from ...usually either TX or Alaska..... talk about all that "NY Crime". Yeah bud, you're twice as likely to get forcibly raped in TX and only slightly less likely to get robbed.

 

Arizona....once again less likely to get robbed, twice as likely to get raped, more likely to be murdered or assaulted.

 

Alaska, yup, forcible rape 75 out of 100,000 no other state comes close to that level of violent sexual deviance.

 

Then there is Vermont, socially liberal, gay marriage, almost zero gun laws, low on the nutter scale .... fuck "Gun and God culture" long survive "Live and Let Live". Provided they lack any major metropolitan areas, but that crime rate is absurdly low, it has to be cultural and should be something that is explored in the search of a less violent future for America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like bringing it up when folks from ...usually either TX or Alaska..... talk about all that "NY Crime". Yeah bud, you're twice as likely to get forcibly raped in TX and only slightly less likely to get robbed.

 

Arizona....once again less likely to get robbed, twice as likely to get raped, more likely to be murdered or assaulted.

 

Alaska, yup, forcible rape 75 out of 100,000 no other state comes close to that level of violent sexual deviance.

 

Then there is Vermont, socially liberal, gay marriage, almost zero gun laws, low on the nutter scale .... fuck "Gun and God culture" long survive "Live and Let Live". Provided they lack any major metropolitan areas, but that crime rate is absurdly low, it has to be cultural and should be something that is explored in the search of a less violent future for America.

 

If you look only at the rural areas of states that do have big cities, they start to look a lot more like Vermont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wisconsin proposal to ban hollow point bullets which are required by state game laws for hunting. Clueless city people.

 

Obviously little chance of passage, just an illustration of the different worlds city people and rural people inhabit.

 

We had wabbit fwom the yawd fow dinnew tonight.

 

 

http://mediatrackers.org/2013/02/15/democrats-seek-to-ban-hunting-ammunition-in-wisconsin/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like bringing it up when folks from ...usually either TX or Alaska..... talk about all that "NY Crime". Yeah bud, you're twice as likely to get forcibly raped in TX and only slightly less likely to get robbed.

 

Arizona....once again less likely to get robbed, twice as likely to get raped, more likely to be murdered or assaulted.

 

Alaska, yup, forcible rape 75 out of 100,000 no other state comes close to that level of violent sexual deviance.

 

Then there is Vermont, socially liberal, gay marriage, almost zero gun laws, low on the nutter scale .... fuck "Gun and God culture" long survive "Live and Let Live". Provided they lack any major metropolitan areas, but that crime rate is absurdly low, it has to be cultural and should be something that is explored in the search of a less violent future for America.

 

If you look only at the rural areas of states that do have big cities, they start to look a lot more like Vermont.

 

That would be pretty easy to do.

 

Gun murders per 100,000 and population density per square mile

 

Vermont 0.3 + 67

New Hampshire 0.4 + 147

 

Montana 1.2 + 6.8

Wyoming 0.9 + 5.8

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#section_1

 

Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like bringing it up when folks from ...usually either TX or Alaska..... talk about all that "NY Crime". Yeah bud, you're twice as likely to get forcibly raped in TX and only slightly less likely to get robbed.

 

Arizona....once again less likely to get robbed, twice as likely to get raped, more likely to be murdered or assaulted.

 

Alaska, yup, forcible rape 75 out of 100,000 no other state comes close to that level of violent sexual deviance.

 

Then there is Vermont, socially liberal, gay marriage, almost zero gun laws, low on the nutter scale .... fuck "Gun and God culture" long survive "Live and Let Live". Provided they lack any major metropolitan areas, but that crime rate is absurdly low, it has to be cultural and should be something that is explored in the search of a less violent future for America.

 

If you look only at the rural areas of states that do have big cities, they start to look a lot more like Vermont.

 

That would be pretty easy to do.

 

Gun murders per 100,000 and population density per square mile

 

Vermont 0.3 + 67

New Hampshire 0.4 + 147

 

Montana 1.2 + 6.8

Wyoming 0.9 + 5.8

 

http://en.m.wikipedi...ulation_density

http://en.m.wikipedi...state#section_1

 

Fail.

You are looking at state population density, not the city population density.

 

Both Vermont and Wyoming have a population less than the city Washington DC. All four states together wouldn't equal the Washington Metro area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those stats are statewide. If you want to compare the biggest cities in NH and VT against WY and MT, have at it.

 

For Nashua, violent crime per 100,000 wasn't that much higher than statewide. More than that, look up your own stats.

 

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nh/nashua/crime/

 

Population of Burlington 42,000

Population of Nashua 86,000

Population of Cheyanne 60,000

 

Not having big cities makes your rural Valhalla argument even worse. But again, look up your own stats.

 

Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like bringing it up when folks from ...usually either TX or Alaska..... talk about all that "NY Crime". Yeah bud, you're twice as likely to get forcibly raped in TX and only slightly less likely to get robbed.

 

Arizona....once again less likely to get robbed, twice as likely to get raped, more likely to be murdered or assaulted.

 

Alaska, yup, forcible rape 75 out of 100,000 no other state comes close to that level of violent sexual deviance.

 

Then there is Vermont, socially liberal, gay marriage, almost zero gun laws, low on the nutter scale .... fuck "Gun and God culture" long survive "Live and Let Live". Provided they lack any major metropolitan areas, but that crime rate is absurdly low, it has to be cultural and should be something that is explored in the search of a less violent future for America.

 

If you look only at the rural areas of states that do have big cities, they start to look a lot more like Vermont.

 

True, except ~2/3 of Vermonters live in what the FBI defines under metropolitan regions + cities outside metro. If anyone would like to do the work i wouldn't mind seeing how states who have either instituted new or eased old gun laws have had their crime rates trend in the last 10 years or so. The table i am looking at is on the FBI webpage here only goes back 2 years and i am feeling lazy.

 

Alaska is a strange example, while the state is absolutely massive, the vast majority all live in the Anchorage bowl-Wassilla-Palmer. Every other "city" would be referred to as a hamlet/town/village most other places. I lived in Anchorage for about a year then in the "City" of Seward with 3K year round residents. Population density for the state overall is the lowest in the US by ALOT! That said my perspective on crime there is biased, based on having worked in corrections.

 

Analyzing this type of thing really has to be done on specific locations over time, i'll admit State vs. State really isn't worth much beyond getting people worked up. Both sides use research that seems anecdotal at best, independent research would be money well spent on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a note, rural Texas has a crime rate that is nearly double that of rural Vermont. ~98 vs ~184 Fun with numbers!

 

Rural NY with ~986,000 residents had a rate of 107, Rural Arizona ....wait for it...............~244!!

 

For Tom, Rural Florida ~354 with 934,000 residents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a note, rural Texas has a crime rate that is nearly double that of rural Vermont. ~98 vs ~184 Fun with numbers!

 

Rural NY with ~986,000 residents had a rate of 107, Rural Arizona ....wait for it...............~244!!

 

For Tom, Rural Florida ~354 with 934,000 residents.

 

You might see some correlation with illegal immigration and drug smuggling if you want to use those three as the baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dirt poor Rural Maine ~86.4 and on the same line of latitude Rural Montana ~189.4

 

Well sure, no drugs are smuggled/grown in rural NY or enter through Canada. I'm just stating facts per this chart, debunking common perceptions, nothing more.

 

As it stands rural NY is statistically safer than most gun friendly rural areas, how it will or will not change in comparison after the SAFE act won't be apparent for some time.

 

Would the cessation of the War on Drugs greater affect rates of violent crimes than gun bans?

 

I absolutely believe it would do so for the better and also that it would save money rather than cost liberty. Win/Win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... If anyone would like to do the work i wouldn't mind seeing how states who have either instituted new or eased old gun laws have had their crime rates trend in the last 10 years or so....

 

I'm not feeling up to new research as yet this morning, but I do have an image on my server that I grabbed when jocal posted an article in GA in which the "reporter" was expressing dismay at how much the Florida murder rate has risen since 1999.

 

Nothing of note happened in 1999, other than Floridians killing each other less than usual. The last major change in gun laws during the period covered by this table was the passage of our concealed weapons permit law in 1987. The murder rate has been cut in half, but states that did not pass such laws saw similar declines in the same period, so the correlation does not indicate causation to me. The percent using handguns (the only kind that are legally carried concealed) hasn't changed a lot since 1977.

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... If anyone would like to do the work i wouldn't mind seeing how states who have either instituted new or eased old gun laws have had their crime rates trend in the last 10 years or so....

 

I'm not feeling up to new research as yet this morning, but I do have an image on my server that I grabbed when jocal posted an article in GA in which the "reporter" was expressing dismay at how much the Florida murder rate has risen since 1999.

 

Nothing of note happened in 1999, other than Floridians killing each other less than usual. The last major change in gun laws during the period covered by this table was the passage of our concealed weapons permit law in 1987. The murder rate has been cut in half, but states that did not pass such laws saw similar declines in the same period, so the correlation does not indicate causation to me. The percent using handguns (the only kind that are legally carried concealed) hasn't changed a lot since 1977.

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

that's just weather, not climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically what it has done so far is make it imposable to buy handgun ammo due to hoarding wiping out the supply and more or less doubled the price of target practice with any type of ammo

 

The supply may get stable in late march ?

 

Other than that the crime stuff is pretty much the same :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the cessation of the War on Drugs greater affect rates of violent crimes than gun bans?

 

I absolutely believe it would do so for the better and also that it would save money rather than cost liberty. Win/Win?

 

Agree also. I would much rather keep my assault rifles than worry what someone is shooting into their arm or smoking. As long as they are a consenting adult, take whatever drugs you want. In fact, take LOTS at once and we won't have to worry about feeding you anymore. Problem SOLved.

 

I agree it would do a lot to reduce crime, but since most drug arrests are for marijuana I doubt it will result in drug users dying. Most don't kill themselves even with far more dangerous drugs. The black market provides a tempting alternative to working at MegaLoMart and since participants can't rely on the justice system they create their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just agreeing with you that NY police forces aren't likely to care about Olympic's boycott. That factory makes AR's.

 

They are also so swamped with business they aren't accepting new dealers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically what it has done so far is make it imposable to buy handgun ammo due to hoarding wiping out the supply and more or less doubled the price of target practice with any type of ammo

 

The supply may get stable in late march ?

 

Other than that the crime stuff is pretty much the same :)

 

You aren't kidding. Between Dick's, Walmart and Gander Mountain (Syracuse area) i didn't see a single case of 22lr, .223 or 7.62. I didn't notice price gouging at any of those places though, unless MSRP qualifies.

 

Plenty of shot shells and a reasonable amount of 30 06 and similar hunting calibers and even some .17hmr. I think i saw some 9mm as well but that may well have been some odd ball variant.

 

Leads one to believe that folks with NATO calibers are indeed hoarding the hell out of them, except of course the .22lr which is what i wanted to do some target plinking. DAMN YOU PREPERS!!!

 

The staff at both Dick's and Gander Mountain were quite vocal with their frustration mostly with the confusion and lack of warning. I mostly just listened which is something i think those that supported this bill should have done. For example, my assemblyman. All of the staff and customers were calm, seemingly responsible people.

 

The morning after the ban was passed the Sheriff (the elected one) as well as a few deputies visited Gander Mountain as they opened at that location and sat with the gun counter staff cooperatively working through the provisions. Some of which are still unclear.

 

Needless to say; the only remaining pistol grips were on pistols, extra magazines were out of stock and there was mention of a department having already met the yearly sales goal. That short term profit locally comes to a searching halt Apr. 30th when the magazine ban goes into effect. For the rest of the nation, weapons manufacturers will profit massively as the federal ban fails. The NRA will claim a victory that came directly from the actions of their opponents. Nothing could have done so much for arms dealers and manufacturers as these two bills. Both parties should know this by now, Obama is calling for a vote, he knows it will fail and also knows that the longer it floats above water in Congress the better it will be used for profit by his opposition.

 

If there is anything these past 2 sessions of congress has shown its ability to do well, it is dragging ass. WLP wants to play it out and will say whatever it takes to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia: Gun Control Headed Back to Supreme Court

 

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he's taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. "She dropped that doe with one shot," he said during an event that featured questions from NPR's court reporter Nina Totenberg.

 

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy's rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

 

Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

 

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

In addition to ruling on the types of weapons that are protected under the second amendment, I think they are likely to rule on whether a citizen must prove a need before getting permission to keep and bear a weapon and whether the second amendment applies outside the home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely, Missouri's newest proposals go much further than New York or New Jersey and propose confiscation of mean looking guns.

 

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

 

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

 

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

 

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

 

 

If they really don't want to take r gunz, I wish elected officials would quit talking about it and proposing it in legislation. That kind of thing just makes the NRA sound believable.

 

Minnesota too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia: Gun Control Headed Back to Supreme Court

 

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he's taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. "She dropped that doe with one shot," he said during an event that featured questions from NPR's court reporter Nina Totenberg.

 

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy's rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

 

Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

 

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

In addition to ruling on the types of weapons that are protected under the second amendment, I think they are likely to rule on whether a citizen must prove a need before getting permission to keep and bear a weapon and whether the second amendment applies outside the home.

 

which is why i wish you'd stop trying to pull the "self defense" card. a citizen need not give a justification for exercising a right. in this way you aren't helping. as i said before...there are a number of reasons a citizen might own a gun....those reasons are no business of the government unless and/or until they are used criminally or dangerously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia: Gun Control Headed Back to Supreme Court

 

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he's taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. "She dropped that doe with one shot," he said during an event that featured questions from NPR's court reporter Nina Totenberg.

 

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy's rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

 

Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

 

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

In addition to ruling on the types of weapons that are protected under the second amendment, I think they are likely to rule on whether a citizen must prove a need before getting permission to keep and bear a weapon and whether the second amendment applies outside the home.

 

which is why i wish you'd stop trying to pull the "self defense" card. a citizen need not give a justification for exercising a right. in this way you aren't helping. as i said before...there are a number of reasons a citizen might own a gun....those reasons are no business of the government unless and/or until they are used criminally or dangerously.

 

If the Supreme Court takes up the question of whether or not justification is needed, they will consider it in light of the core purpose of the right. Kagan might also consider her new hobby, which would be nice. She probably used a hollow point on that deer.

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

Should I post the pic of the dead pig again? We still haven't finished eating him.

 

Yesterday morning, I was wearing a gun around for a while. One of my dogs had a raccoon up a tree and it was a big one. If it was stupid enough to come down, I wanted to be prepared to end the fight quickly. After a while, it took a nap up there! The dog got bored and distracted and the coon departed unharmed.

 

I might do some target practice today, but probably not inside the home.

 

Better? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

 

Fuck, I hope not. How is that murder rate in AUS these days?

better question, is the 2nd amendment about militias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

 

Fuck, I hope not. How is that murder rate in AUS these days?

 

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scalia: Gun Control Headed Back to Supreme Court

 

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he's taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. "She dropped that doe with one shot," he said during an event that featured questions from NPR's court reporter Nina Totenberg.

 

Scalia detailed his life-long experience with guns and said it started while in high school when he was on a military academy's rifle team. Scalia said he would bring his gun to school on the subway in New York and often competed with West Point cadets.

 

Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

 

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

 

In addition to ruling on the types of weapons that are protected under the second amendment, I think they are likely to rule on whether a citizen must prove a need before getting permission to keep and bear a weapon and whether the second amendment applies outside the home.

 

which is why i wish you'd stop trying to pull the "self defense" card. a citizen need not give a justification for exercising a right. in this way you aren't helping. as i said before...there are a number of reasons a citizen might own a gun....those reasons are no business of the government unless and/or until they are used criminally or dangerously.

 

If the Supreme Court takes up the question of whether or not justification is needed, they will consider it in light of the core purpose of the right. Kagan might also consider her new hobby, which would be nice. She probably used a hollow point on that deer.

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

Should I post the pic of the dead pig again? We still haven't finished eating him.

 

Yesterday morning, I was wearing a gun around for a while. One of my dogs had a raccoon up a tree and it was a big one. If it was stupid enough to come down, I wanted to be prepared to end the fight quickly. After a while, it took a nap up there! The dog got bored and distracted and the coon departed unharmed.

 

I might do some target practice today, but probably not inside the home.

 

Better? ;)

 

didn't you leave most of the meat to spoil

 

troubling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wascawy wabbit was yummy two nights ago.

 

wabbit-dinnew.jpg

 

That is a crappy looking range you need to sell some guns and upgrade your kitchen. Also the sauce looks fatty you need better mushrooms and learn how to incorporate wine and a rue in your sauce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, Washington State legislators say: we did not mean to put that in there...

 

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

 

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

 

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they plan to emulate the Aussie model?

 

Fuck, I hope not. How is that murder rate in AUS these days?

 

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

And gun crime has risen exponentially. Nary a day goes buy without a shooting at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles shows that if one sorts by unemployment, and you'll see a remarkable consistency across a wide spectrum of society in crime stats. Ongoing major gang wars and retirement homes aside, of course...

 

 

http://www.amazon.co...0/dp/0307453421

 

Good point, Mark - I'd think most folks w/a job are too busy being productive to engage in the negative behaviors we'd like to eliminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, Washington State legislators say: we did not mean to put that in there...

 

 

He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

I have been blasting the NRAfor its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

NRA responds.

http://youtu.be/6gI2qb0MS50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wascawy wabbit was yummy two nights ago.

 

wabbit-dinnew.jpg

 

That is a crappy looking range you need to sell some guns and upgrade your kitchen. Also the sauce looks fatty you need better mushrooms and learn how to incorporate wine and a rue in your sauce

 

For someone who claims to be french and is criticizing someones cooking, you have a funny way of spelling roux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

And gun crime has risen exponentially. Nary a day goes buy without a shooting at present.

 

but..... but....... but..... I thought guns were not allowed there. How does this happen?????

 

No, if you jump through all the hoops you can have one.

 

If you don't want to jump through the hoops you can have anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a per capita basis virtually unchanged since the gun laws.

 

Exactly! Thank you.

 

And gun crime has risen exponentially. Nary a day goes buy without a shooting at present.

 

but..... but....... but..... I thought guns were not allowed there. How does this happen?????

 

No, if you jump through all the hoops you can have one.

 

If