Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

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

Recommended Posts

Hey, baby steps here. Jeff didn't call Gabby Giffords a cunt for her testimony to congress today. I won't try to read his mind so I won't say he was thinking about it.

In fact, I think Fienstien even escaped his cunt label. I'm the only cunt here. I guess someone needs to take the bullet. You bitches sleep well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

elle you should really learn to read the whole post before you chime in with your nonsense.

oh please, jackass.....get a grip on yourself.

he is not wrong....some of you aren't doing anyone any favors....least of all 2 amendment and gun ownership advocates.

 

Elle, If you include me in the "some of you" category. Then you obviously didn't read what I wrote above. But humor me anyway.... what have I advocated re gun control that isn't doing myself or the gun advocate position any favors. Me, not anyone else......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, baby steps here. Jeff didn't call Gabby Giffords a cunt for her testimony to congress today. I won't try to read his mind so I won't say he was thinking about it.

In fact, I think Fienstien even escaped his cunt label. I'm the only cunt here. I guess someone needs to take the bullet. You bitches sleep well.

 

No, I've called feinstein and cuomo a cunt repeatedly. Pay attention!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God you're an ass.

 

Yeah, I read that twice and am still not sure what point he was trying to make. I can't tell if he agrees or disagree with the Sheriff's statement on gun control.

 

Maybe he was neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but filling in some background as to what exactly a New York State Sheriff is, and how that might inform the position their association takes? Seems like upstate, sheriffs are cops and more like what most people think of when they think "sheriff"; downstate, they're process-servers; very different situation; very different risk; very different population they're dealing with, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the site:

 

http://www.nysheriff...t-professionals

 

Two articles? That's it? One being a whine about somebody taking r gunz with no authors name?

 

Why is the Executive Director an "honorary member" and not listed with the "Leadership" or as being part of the Executive Committee? He's the only guy on there who was never a cop too.

 

Generally, in a membership organization, "Executive Director" is a staff person, and thersfore would not be a member. The Executive Director is hired help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, aside from Mark's miserable failure to attempt a messenger attack, anyone here have any comments on the substance of the message? Shirley you gun-grabbers have something to say to refute these LE professionals and explain to us why they are wrong headed.

 

I have no idea if they're wrong-headed or right-headed; you can always dredge up law enforcement groups on either side of any gun rights debate; The leadership of these organizations have their own obvious and less obvious onstituencies and allies to answer to; I suspect the position of any such group has a lot more to do with electoral politics than it does with any sort of analysis of the impact of one policy or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

they're ok with that. This is the same crowd that doesn't mind doubling the price of gasoline to prevent people from using their cars.

 

I want to be in a position of not caring whether or not you drive your car: your decision to drive or not to drive should be absolutely neutral to me. As it is, though, when you drive your car you impose costs that I must bear; the taxes you pay on the gasoline you use do not fully offset those costs. As a believer in free market solutions, I would be all in favor of reducing the income tax (since why should we be taxing something that we want to encourage everyone to do) and increasing gasoline taxes to the point that driving is no longer net subsidized, with the overall result being revenue neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, baby steps here. Jeff didn't call Gabby Giffords a cunt for her testimony to congress today. I won't try to read his mind so I won't say he was thinking about it.

In fact, I think Fienstien even escaped his cunt label. I'm the only cunt here. I guess someone needs to take the bullet. You bitches sleep well.

 

No, I've called feinstein and cuomo a cunt repeatedly. Pay attention!

What am I, chopped liver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, baby steps here. Jeff didn't call Gabby Giffords a cunt for her testimony to congress today. I won't try to read his mind so I won't say he was thinking about it.

In fact, I think Fienstien even escaped his cunt label. I'm the only cunt here. I guess someone needs to take the bullet. You bitches sleep well.

 

No, I've called feinstein and cuomo a cunt repeatedly. Pay attention!

What am I, chopped liver?

What do you know about cunts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the site:

 

http://www.nysheriff...t-professionals

 

Two articles? That's it? One being a whine about somebody taking r gunz with no authors name?

 

Why is the Executive Director an "honorary member" and not listed with the "Leadership" or as being part of the Executive Committee? He's the only guy on there who was never a cop too.

 

Generally, in a membership organization, "Executive Director" is a staff person, and thersfore would not be a member. The Executive Director is hired help.

 

Thanks. I suspect him as the author because of all the "constitutional" stuff. Cops aren't prone to use that kind of argument, as they run into this shit a lot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, baby steps here. Jeff didn't call Gabby Giffords a cunt for her testimony to congress today. I won't try to read his mind so I won't say he was thinking about it.

In fact, I think Fienstien even escaped his cunt label. I'm the only cunt here. I guess someone needs to take the bullet. You bitches sleep well.

 

No, I've called feinstein and cuomo a cunt repeatedly. Pay attention!

What am I, chopped liver?

What do you know about cunts?

 

Portnoy says that if you don't have one handy, chopped liver will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

New York Times article:

 

 

January 29, 2013

 

Gun Rights Backers, Stung by Cuomo’s Law, Push to Undo It

 

 

By THOMAS KAPLAN

 

ALBANY — More than 100,000 people have signed online petitions denouncing New York’s recently enacted gun laws. Gun owners are contemplating civil disobedience, vowing to ignore a requirement to register firearms they own that are now classified as assault weapons. And some are even calling for the impeachment of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.

 

 

Gun rights advocates, stunned and stung by the swift passage of some of the toughest gun laws in the country, are trying to channel their anger into action. Fueled by social media, and encouraged by gun owners in more conservative states, they are pushing for the repeal of New York’s law. And they are preparing to go to court; the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed a notice on Tuesday that it planned to ask a judge to overturn the law on constitutional grounds.

 

They face long odds in a state where the public and elected officials seem to have reached a consensus in favor of more restrictive gun laws. But just as Mr. Cuomo vowed that New York would provide a model for other states in response to the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., gun owners were promising to set an example in fighting back.

 

“The more people see about this, the angrier they are getting,” said Jacob J. Rieper, the vice president of legislative and political affairs for the Rifle and Pistol Association. He recounted sympathetic phone calls from as far away as Nebraska, where a man pledged to collect donations at his gun club to support a legal challenge to the law, and angry messages from New York gun owners who were eager to campaign against the legislators who voted for the measure.

 

“The bottom line is none of these people thought this through, and it’s starting to stink,” Mr. Rieper said.

 

A petition circulated by State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione, a Republican from Saratoga County, that condemns the new gun laws has more than 118,000 signatures. Ms. Marchione, a member of the National Rifle Association, has proposed the repeal of many provisions in the bill, but her effort is mostly symbolic.

 

“The reality is that the Assembly would never pass it,” said Dean G. Skelos of Long Island, the Senate Republican leader, “the governor would never pass it, so I think we move on now to other issues.”

 

Thousands of gun owners gathered for a rally at the Capitol the weekend after the bill was enacted, on Jan. 15, while others assembled in Buffalo, where the Republican nominee for governor in 2010, Carl P. Paladino, denounced Mr. Cuomo and the “gutless, cowardly legislators” who supported his legislation.

 

And thousands of people have signed petitions seeking the impeachment of Mr. Cuomo — again, not a likely outcome, given that he enjoys broad legislative support.

 

Frank Riess, a real estate appraiser and firearms dealer from the Hudson Valley, was so upset that he bought the domain name ImpeachAndrewCuomo.com the morning after the State Senate approved the laws. Mr. Riess acknowledged that Mr. Cuomo had not done anything that would provide a legal rationale for impeachment, but said he still hoped the governor would take notice of his petition, which now has more than 19,000 signatures.

 

“We were just trying to make a statement, to show other firearm enthusiasts that you’re not alone in your frustration,” he said.

Mr. Cuomo and his allies are not looking back. More than 7 in 10 voters across the state supported an expanded ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in a Siena College poll conducted after the governor proposed the measures.

 

“It’s very important not to mistake the noise that the other side is good at creating for expressing the sentiment of the people,” said Richard M. Aborn, the president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. “It does not. It does not even express the sentiment of gun owners. It’s noise based on fear, and I think the governor was quite right to say we’re going to do this. He got it done with lightning speed and crystal clarity, and now we move on.”

 

Still, Mr. Cuomo was concerned enough about the outcry that his office urged gun control groups to rally their supporters on his behalf. One group, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, started a counter-petition so residents could thank the governor and lawmakers for their action, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence e-mailed its supporters to praise the new law and also sent a letter of commendation to legislative leaders.

 

Many gun rights organizations believe their best chance at overturning all or part of the new law is through litigation.

 

“Much of what the governor has gotten in New York is liable to fall because of court challenges and the like because much of it’s unconstitutional,” the N.R.A. president, David Keene, said in a recent interview on an Albany radio station.

 

James D. Tresmond, a lawyer in western New York who spends most of his time handling criminal defense cases, filed a lawsuit challenging the law on Tuesday on behalf of two local gun owners in State Supreme Court in Buffalo. He said he hoped it would become a class-action lawsuit: with the publicity the suit has generated on Facebook, he said, he has been contacted by more than 14,000 potential plaintiffs in the past two weeks.

 

“They want to contribute money,” Mr. Tresmond said. “They want to get rid of this governor. They want to get rid of the legislators that voted for it.”

 

“I think this legislation,” he added, “just falls off the edge of the earth with regard to the constitutional rights of the people that are involved.”

 

Supporters of the gun law are also facing criticism from some law enforcement officials. While district attorneys and police chiefs have praised the measure, the New York State Sheriffs’ Association has criticized a number of provisions in the law and also objected to what it described as the Legislature’s “steamroller approach to important legislation.”

 

In Schuyler County, the sheriff, William E. Yessman Jr., posted on Facebook to reassure residents that no one from his office “will be coming to take your firearms from you.” In Chemung County, the sheriff, Christopher J. Moss, who said his office had received hundreds of phone calls from worried gun owners, scheduled two information sessions this week about the new law.

“I’m sure it will be a venting process as well because people are very upset,” he said.

 

One issue that law enforcement officials are preparing to confront is possible civil disobedience. The gun control bill requires people who currently own assault weapons to register them with the state by April 15, 2014.

 

“I don’t think I’ve talked to a person yet who’s said they’re registering,” said George W. Rogero, a handgun safety instructor from Orange County who operates a Web site about gun rights. Mr. Rogero said he believed the registration provision for assault weapons would be followed by an effort by the state to confiscate guns.

 

“They’re not going to stop until we don’t have any right to have a firearm, and just to heck with the Second Amendment,” Mr. Rogero said. “It doesn’t mean anything to them. They don’t like it, they don’t want it and they just want to ignore it.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/nyregion/activists-seek-repeal-of-new-yorks-gun-control-laws.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Good then I will be very pleased to see it go and make damn sure Cuomo is never elected to any post of authority, whether in public life or private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good then I will be very pleased to see it go and make damn sure Cuomo is never elected to any post of authority, whether in public life or private.

How do you plan to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda want Pataki back, Spitzer was Ok, Patterson was worse than Andrew...Pataki had a spending problem, but he was well into moderate territory on everything else.

 

Nice responce from the Sherrifs, very good arguements that encompass what this debate should involve. NY is a bit of a mess at the state level, has always been. NYC and LI dominate the assembly and everywhere north comes from what might as well be another state entirely, which holds on to the Senate. With the death of those things referred to as moderate republicans, NY is slipping into Cali territory.

Rocky wasn't bad, just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I kinda want Pataki back, Spitzer was Ok, Patterson was worse than Andrew...Pataki had a spending problem, but he was well into moderate territory on everything else.

 

Nice responce from the Sherrifs, very good arguements that encompass what this debate should involve. NY is a bit of a mess at the state level, has always been. NYC and LI dominate the assembly and everywhere north comes from what might as well be another state entirely, which holds on to the Senate. With the death of those things referred to as moderate republicans, NY is slipping into Cali territory.

Rocky wasn't bad, just saying.

 

Pataki's another local from my neck of the woods. Not impressed but certainly better than Spitzer et al . I actually appreciated the candor of Spitzer's replacement at the beginning of the financial crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda want Pataki back, Spitzer was Ok, Patterson was worse than Andrew...Pataki had a spending problem, but he was well into moderate territory on everything else.

 

Nice responce from the Sherrifs, very good arguements that encompass what this debate should involve. NY is a bit of a mess at the state level, has always been. NYC and LI dominate the assembly and everywhere north comes from what might as well be another state entirely, which holds on to the Senate. With the death of those things referred to as moderate republicans, NY is slipping into Cali territory.

Rocky wasn't bad, just saying.

 

Pataki's another local from my neck of the woods. Not impressed but certainly better than Spitzer et al . I actually appreciated the candor of Spitzer's replacement at the beginning of the financial crisis.

 

Doesn't he live up near Harriman? I remember driving through there right after he was elected, every road was freshly paved.

 

He definitely had his oblivious charm, that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

I kinda want Pataki back, Spitzer was Ok, Patterson was worse than Andrew...Pataki had a spending problem, but he was well into moderate territory on everything else.

 

Nice responce from the Sherrifs, very good arguements that encompass what this debate should involve. NY is a bit of a mess at the state level, has always been. NYC and LI dominate the assembly and everywhere north comes from what might as well be another state entirely, which holds on to the Senate. With the death of those things referred to as moderate republicans, NY is slipping into Cali territory.

Rocky wasn't bad, just saying.

 

Pataki's another local from my neck of the woods. Not impressed but certainly better than Spitzer et al . I actually appreciated the candor of Spitzer's replacement at the beginning of the financial crisis.

 

Doesn't he live up near Harriman? I remember driving through there right after he was elected, every road was freshly paved.

 

He definitely had his oblivious charm, that guy.

 

No - lives across the Hudson in Garrison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No - lives across the Hudson in Garrison.

 

That's right up near Harriman right? Just over the Bear Mountain Bridge. You live up there? We could take the Metro North up there and go over the bridge to the park. Later in we stopped there in the boat on the way to Kingston.

 

It always blew me away that we could be 50 some miles out of NYC and get a reasonably remote experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

No - lives across the Hudson in Garrison.

 

That's right up near Harriman right? Just over the Bear Mountain Bridge. You live up there? We could take the Metro North up there and go over the bridge to the park. Later in we stopped there in the boat on the way to Kingston.

 

It always blew me away that we could be 50 some miles out of NYC and get a reasonably remote experience.

 

No - I sadly don't live along that fjord. It IS beautiful and her Bowness and I go there. I used to go up "Anthony's Nose" all the time - in the summer its a great hike to be cooled off by a swim in the pools at the base of Indian Falls - then some beer and food in Cold Spring. Lovely areas.

 

It's too far from the Sound and my family. I've parents well into their eighties and I'm not going very far away from them.

 

Pataki's family had a farm to the northeast of Peekskill. They had a vegetable stand on what is now the Bear Mountain parkway outside of the traffic circle going to Camp Smith. In his youth during the summers he worked in the post office in Peekskill. New York state was a very different place. My grandfather knew his father well. He went to law school, became Mayor etc. Roger Ailes is also there. Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

February 5, 2013

New York's 'SAFE' Act: The 'Rape' of the Second Amendment

 

 

By Michael Filozof

 

In January, the New York State Legislature passed the Orwellian-sounding "SAFE" (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act. The act was debated in closed session without committee hearings, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it into law within an hour of its passage -- after waiving the required three-day public comment period. Cuomo bragged that New York now has the "toughest assault weapons ban" in the country but claimed that the law respects the Second Amendment and preserves the rights of "hunters and sportsmen." The former is true; the latter is a bald-faced lie. Even if you do not live in New York, you should be very worried, because the SAFE Act is a harbinger of what Democrats in the federal government will do nationwide if they can.

 

The SAFE Act is far worse than you might imagine. Harold "Budd" Schroeder, member of the NRA Board of Directors from New York, described the law as "the rape of our gun rights." That is no exaggeration. The law is as harsh as (or harsher than) the gun laws of some European nations that do not have a Bill or Rights or a Second Amendment.

 

The most widely reported provision of the law is the total ban on the sale of military-style rifles classified as "assault weapons," effective Jan. 15. The provision forever prohibits anyone other than a law enforcement agency from acquiring such weapons, including the popular hunting and target variants of the AR-15 rifle. Current owners of such rifles must register them with the state by 2014, and the registration must be renewed every five years. This gives the state a list of persons from which to confiscate them in the future, and the five-year renewal provision gives the state an excuse to find ways to deny ownership once every five years. Current owners of such rifles may never sell them to another New York State resident in the future.

 

Shockingly enough, in many ways the "assault weapons ban" is actually one of the statute's lesser infringements on the Second Amendment. The statute criminalizes, potentially criminalizes, or places under state surveillance even the most innocuous, banal, and pedestrian forms of gun ownership, and it restricts the right of self-defense.

 

The new law prohibits the sale of any quantity of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed dealer and requires that such dealer perform a criminal background check on the purchaser and forward the purchaser's name, address, age, and occupation, and the quantity, caliber, and make of the ammunition, to a State Police database. Thus, the ammunition database creates a de facto universal long gun registry. A hunter who purchases a box of five 12-gauge deer slugs may think that his purchase is innocent enough; however, it will have the effect of informing the State Police that he owns a 12-gauge shotgun, enabling them to confiscate it in the future if they so choose.

 

The purchase of large quantities of ammunition will likely set off alarm bells at State Police headquarters. But what is truly sinister about the ammunition registry is that no one actually knows "how much" will be deemed "too much" -- because the law does not prohibit the purchase or ownership of any specific quantity of ammunition. Thus, one may become the target of a police investigation for engaging in a perfectly legal activity. Since many gun owners have vowed to defy the "assault weapons" registration, it is highly likely that the State Police will use the ammunition database as a means to discover and confiscate unregistered rifles.

 

The ammunition registration is crucial to the law's confiscation scheme. The law affirmatively requires that a person's firearms must be confiscated if any order of protection is filed against him -- no matter how bogus the complaint may be. It also requires that a "mental health professional" (including a physician) who believes that an individual is a danger to himself or others must report his diagnosis to the police for purposes of firearm confiscation. Such a diagnosis is highly subjective and could be easily politicized. (For instance, in the 1964 presidential campaign, a group of psychiatrists "diagnosed" conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater as insane.) 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 SAFE Act also severely infringes on the right of self-defense from criminal predation. Although Article 35 of New York Penal law allows the use of deadly force in the event of a home invasion, the SAFE Act restricts the ammunition capacity of all centerfire guns to seven rounds. If you possess a magazine loaded with more than seven rounds in your own home, you are guilty of a criminal offense.

 

So suppose a criminal with a stolen handgun and an illegal 15-round magazine invades your home. If you shoot at him with more than eight rounds (seven plus one in the chamber), you will be criminally charged, and your magazine (and possibly your firearm) will be confiscated and destroyed without compensation, because you have now used it in the commission of a crime. Beyond that, since a handgun permit in New York is not merely a permit to carry, but a permit topossess, after you have been charged with the crime of shooting at the home invader with a high-capacity magazine, your permit will be revoked, and all of your handguns will be confiscated.

 

The seven-round magazine limit effectively bans or severely restricts the use of perhaps 75% of the firearms designed in the past 100 years. Seven-round magazines simply do not exist for common firearms such as the 13-shot Browning Hi-Power pistol, first manufactured in 1935, or the 10-shot Ruger 10/22 rifle, five million of which have been manufactured since the 1960s. The M-1 "Garand" rifle, adopted by the U.S. Army in 1936, was designed exclusively to use an eight-round "clip," which will now be considered an illegal "high capacity ammunition feeding device." Although the Act "grandfathers" existing ten-round magazines, it forbids owners to put more than seven rounds in them, and it requires lawful owners of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds to sell them out of state, surrender them, or destroy them. This is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of private property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

 

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.

 

The New York SAFE Act is one of the most breathtakingly brazen assaults on the Constitution and on individual liberty in the history of the United States. Cuomo has gleefully thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010 affirming the right to keep and bear arms. The intent of the law is to suppress and criminalize the common use of firearms, including guns not defined as "assault weapons."

 

The SAFE Act must be resisted on all levels. I urge firearm manufacturers, like Remington and Kimber, to leave New York State as soon as possible and stop paying taxes to a government that seeks to suppress the right to own their products. Firearms wholesalers and police supply outfits should boycott New York State law enforcement agencies. Gun manufacturers should refuse sales and warranty service to police agencies in the state. I strongly counsel residents of other states who value liberty to avoid New York at all costs. Avoid tourist trips to New York City; the law has made a mockery of the Statue of "Liberty." Residents of other states should avoid moving to New York under all but the most dire circumstances, and New York residents should begin making plans to leave as soon as possible.

 

New York has the highest taxes in the nation. Twenty-five percent of the population is on Medicaid. It has the highest rate of union membership in the nation. It is ranked as the least "business-friendly" state in the country. There is nothing to be gained in New York (unless you are on welfare). Nothing.

 

Above all else, remember that even if you do not live in New York, you cannot be complacent. The gun-banners are coming after you next.

 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/02/new_yorks_safe_act_the_rape_of_the_second_amendment.html at February 09, 2013 - 04:48:05 PM CST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

February 5, 2013

New York's 'SAFE' Act: The 'Rape' of the Second Amendment

 

 

By Michael Filozof

 

In January, the New York State Legislature passed the Orwellian-sounding "SAFE" (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act. The act was debated in closed session without committee hearings, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it into law within an hour of its passage -- after waiving the required three-day public comment period. Cuomo bragged that New York now has the "toughest assault weapons ban" in the country but claimed that the law respects the Second Amendment and preserves the rights of "hunters and sportsmen." The former is true; the latter is a bald-faced lie. Even if you do not live in New York, you should be very worried, because the SAFE Act is a harbinger of what Democrats in the federal government will do nationwide if they can.

 

The SAFE Act is far worse than you might imagine. Harold "Budd" Schroeder, member of the NRA Board of Directors from New York, described the law as "the rape of our gun rights." That is no exaggeration. The law is as harsh as (or harsher than) the gun laws of some European nations that do not have a Bill or Rights or a Second Amendment.

 

The most widely reported provision of the law is the total ban on the sale of military-style rifles classified as "assault weapons," effective Jan. 15. The provision forever prohibits anyone other than a law enforcement agency from acquiring such weapons, including the popular hunting and target variants of the AR-15 rifle. Current owners of such rifles must register them with the state by 2014, and the registration must be renewed every five years. This gives the state a list of persons from which to confiscate them in the future, and the five-year renewal provision gives the state an excuse to find ways to deny ownership once every five years. Current owners of such rifles may never sell them to another New York State resident in the future.

 

Shockingly enough, in many ways the "assault weapons ban" is actually one of the statute's lesser infringements on the Second Amendment. The statute criminalizes, potentially criminalizes, or places under state surveillance even the most innocuous, banal, and pedestrian forms of gun ownership, and it restricts the right of self-defense.

 

The new law prohibits the sale of any quantity of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed dealer and requires that such dealer perform a criminal background check on the purchaser and forward the purchaser's name, address, age, and occupation, and the quantity, caliber, and make of the ammunition, to a State Police database. Thus, the ammunition database creates a de facto universal long gun registry. A hunter who purchases a box of five 12-gauge deer slugs may think that his purchase is innocent enough; however, it will have the effect of informing the State Police that he owns a 12-gauge shotgun, enabling them to confiscate it in the future if they so choose.

 

The purchase of large quantities of ammunition will likely set off alarm bells at State Police headquarters. But what is truly sinister about the ammunition registry is that no one actually knows "how much" will be deemed "too much" -- because the law does not prohibit the purchase or ownership of any specific quantity of ammunition. Thus, one may become the target of a police investigation for engaging in a perfectly legal activity. Since many gun owners have vowed to defy the "assault weapons" registration, it is highly likely that the State Police will use the ammunition database as a means to discover and confiscate unregistered rifles.

 

The ammunition registration is crucial to the law's confiscation scheme. The law affirmatively requires that a person's firearms must be confiscated if any order of protection is filed against him -- no matter how bogus the complaint may be. It also requires that a "mental health professional" (including a physician) who believes that an individual is a danger to himself or others must report his diagnosis to the police for purposes of firearm confiscation. Such a diagnosis is highly subjective and could be easily politicized. (For instance, in the 1964 presidential campaign, a group of psychiatrists "diagnosed" conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater as insane.) 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 SAFE Act also severely infringes on the right of self-defense from criminal predation. Although Article 35 of New York Penal law allows the use of deadly force in the event of a home invasion, the SAFE Act restricts the ammunition capacity of all centerfire guns to seven rounds. If you possess a magazine loaded with more than seven rounds in your own home, you are guilty of a criminal offense.

 

So suppose a criminal with a stolen handgun and an illegal 15-round magazine invades your home. If you shoot at him with more than eight rounds (seven plus one in the chamber), you will be criminally charged, and your magazine (and possibly your firearm) will be confiscated and destroyed without compensation, because you have now used it in the commission of a crime. Beyond that, since a handgun permit in New York is not merely a permit to carry, but a permit topossess, after you have been charged with the crime of shooting at the home invader with a high-capacity magazine, your permit will be revoked, and all of your handguns will be confiscated.

 

The seven-round magazine limit effectively bans or severely restricts the use of perhaps 75% of the firearms designed in the past 100 years. Seven-round magazines simply do not exist for common firearms such as the 13-shot Browning Hi-Power pistol, first manufactured in 1935, or the 10-shot Ruger 10/22 rifle, five million of which have been manufactured since the 1960s. The M-1 "Garand" rifle, adopted by the U.S. Army in 1936, was designed exclusively to use an eight-round "clip," which will now be considered an illegal "high capacity ammunition feeding device." Although the Act "grandfathers" existing ten-round magazines, it forbids owners to put more than seven rounds in them, and it requires lawful owners of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds to sell them out of state, surrender them, or destroy them. This is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of private property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

 

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.

 

The New York SAFE Act is one of the most breathtakingly brazen assaults on the Constitution and on individual liberty in the history of the United States. Cuomo has gleefully thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010 affirming the right to keep and bear arms. The intent of the law is to suppress and criminalize the common use of firearms, including guns not defined as "assault weapons."

 

The SAFE Act must be resisted on all levels. I urge firearm manufacturers, like Remington and Kimber, to leave New York State as soon as possible and stop paying taxes to a government that seeks to suppress the right to own their products. Firearms wholesalers and police supply outfits should boycott New York State law enforcement agencies. Gun manufacturers should refuse sales and warranty service to police agencies in the state. I strongly counsel residents of other states who value liberty to avoid New York at all costs. Avoid tourist trips to New York City; the law has made a mockery of the Statue of "Liberty." Residents of other states should avoid moving to New York under all but the most dire circumstances, and New York residents should begin making plans to leave as soon as possible.

 

New York has the highest taxes in the nation. Twenty-five percent of the population is on Medicaid. It has the highest rate of union membership in the nation. It is ranked as the least "business-friendly" state in the country. There is nothing to be gained in New York (unless you are on welfare). Nothing.

 

Above all else, remember that even if you do not live in New York, you cannot be complacent. The gun-banners are coming after you next.

 

 

Page Printed from: http://www.americant..._amendment.html at February 09, 2013 - 04:48:05 PM CST

 

The law is bad enough, embellishing it with imagined added parts can only serve to discredit the source. KMC, you do realize a good bit of what you just posted is false right?

 

As far as the last few paragraphs, the author can go fuck himself. Not that it matters, Americans don't get vacations, that is why we cater to the hoards of Germans, Japanese and other tourists.

Here is a wiki article, nice, simple, accurate summary, here

 

Just to be clear, i will consider the Safe act in all future votes on state representation and fully support the repeal of the vast majority of it. It has been legally challenged BTW, well worth following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

February 5, 2013

New York's 'SAFE' Act: The 'Rape' of the Second Amendment

 

 

By Michael Filozof

 

In January, the New York State Legislature passed the Orwellian-sounding "SAFE" (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act. The act was debated in closed session without committee hearings, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed it into law within an hour of its passage -- after waiving the required three-day public comment period. Cuomo bragged that New York now has the "toughest assault weapons ban" in the country but claimed that the law respects the Second Amendment and preserves the rights of "hunters and sportsmen." The former is true; the latter is a bald-faced lie. Even if you do not live in New York, you should be very worried, because the SAFE Act is a harbinger of what Democrats in the federal government will do nationwide if they can.

 

The SAFE Act is far worse than you might imagine. Harold "Budd" Schroeder, member of the NRA Board of Directors from New York, described the law as "the rape of our gun rights." That is no exaggeration. The law is as harsh as (or harsher than) the gun laws of some European nations that do not have a Bill or Rights or a Second Amendment.

 

The most widely reported provision of the law is the total ban on the sale of military-style rifles classified as "assault weapons," effective Jan. 15. The provision forever prohibits anyone other than a law enforcement agency from acquiring such weapons, including the popular hunting and target variants of the AR-15 rifle. Current owners of such rifles must register them with the state by 2014, and the registration must be renewed every five years. This gives the state a list of persons from which to confiscate them in the future, and the five-year renewal provision gives the state an excuse to find ways to deny ownership once every five years. Current owners of such rifles may never sell them to another New York State resident in the future.

 

Shockingly enough, in many ways the "assault weapons ban" is actually one of the statute's lesser infringements on the Second Amendment. The statute criminalizes, potentially criminalizes, or places under state surveillance even the most innocuous, banal, and pedestrian forms of gun ownership, and it restricts the right of self-defense.

 

The new law prohibits the sale of any quantity of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed dealer and requires that such dealer perform a criminal background check on the purchaser and forward the purchaser's name, address, age, and occupation, and the quantity, caliber, and make of the ammunition, to a State Police database. Thus, the ammunition database creates a de facto universal long gun registry. A hunter who purchases a box of five 12-gauge deer slugs may think that his purchase is innocent enough; however, it will have the effect of informing the State Police that he owns a 12-gauge shotgun, enabling them to confiscate it in the future if they so choose.

 

The purchase of large quantities of ammunition will likely set off alarm bells at State Police headquarters. But what is truly sinister about the ammunition registry is that no one actually knows "how much" will be deemed "too much" -- because the law does not prohibit the purchase or ownership of any specific quantity of ammunition. Thus, one may become the target of a police investigation for engaging in a perfectly legal activity. Since many gun owners have vowed to defy the "assault weapons" registration, it is highly likely that the State Police will use the ammunition database as a means to discover and confiscate unregistered rifles.

 

The ammunition registration is crucial to the law's confiscation scheme. The law affirmatively requires that a person's firearms must be confiscated if any order of protection is filed against him -- no matter how bogus the complaint may be. It also requires that a "mental health professional" (including a physician) who believes that an individual is a danger to himself or others must report his diagnosis to the police for purposes of firearm confiscation. Such a diagnosis is highly subjective and could be easily politicized. (For instance, in the 1964 presidential campaign, a group of psychiatrists "diagnosed" conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater as insane.) 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 SAFE Act also severely infringes on the right of self-defense from criminal predation. Although Article 35 of New York Penal law allows the use of deadly force in the event of a home invasion, the SAFE Act restricts the ammunition capacity of all centerfire guns to seven rounds. If you possess a magazine loaded with more than seven rounds in your own home, you are guilty of a criminal offense.

 

So suppose a criminal with a stolen handgun and an illegal 15-round magazine invades your home. If you shoot at him with more than eight rounds (seven plus one in the chamber), you will be criminally charged, and your magazine (and possibly your firearm) will be confiscated and destroyed without compensation, because you have now used it in the commission of a crime. Beyond that, since a handgun permit in New York is not merely a permit to carry, but a permit topossess, after you have been charged with the crime of shooting at the home invader with a high-capacity magazine, your permit will be revoked, and all of your handguns will be confiscated.

 

The seven-round magazine limit effectively bans or severely restricts the use of perhaps 75% of the firearms designed in the past 100 years. Seven-round magazines simply do not exist for common firearms such as the 13-shot Browning Hi-Power pistol, first manufactured in 1935, or the 10-shot Ruger 10/22 rifle, five million of which have been manufactured since the 1960s. The M-1 "Garand" rifle, adopted by the U.S. Army in 1936, was designed exclusively to use an eight-round "clip," which will now be considered an illegal "high capacity ammunition feeding device." Although the Act "grandfathers" existing ten-round magazines, it forbids owners to put more than seven rounds in them, and it requires lawful owners of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds to sell them out of state, surrender them, or destroy them. This is clearly an unconstitutional deprivation of private property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

 

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.

 

The New York SAFE Act is one of the most breathtakingly brazen assaults on the Constitution and on individual liberty in the history of the United States. Cuomo has gleefully thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010 affirming the right to keep and bear arms. The intent of the law is to suppress and criminalize the common use of firearms, including guns not defined as "assault weapons."

 

The SAFE Act must be resisted on all levels. I urge firearm manufacturers, like Remington and Kimber, to leave New York State as soon as possible and stop paying taxes to a government that seeks to suppress the right to own their products. Firearms wholesalers and police supply outfits should boycott New York State law enforcement agencies. Gun manufacturers should refuse sales and warranty service to police agencies in the state. I strongly counsel residents of other states who value liberty to avoid New York at all costs. Avoid tourist trips to New York City; the law has made a mockery of the Statue of "Liberty." Residents of other states should avoid moving to New York under all but the most dire circumstances, and New York residents should begin making plans to leave as soon as possible.

 

New York has the highest taxes in the nation. Twenty-five percent of the population is on Medicaid. It has the highest rate of union membership in the nation. It is ranked as the least "business-friendly" state in the country. There is nothing to be gained in New York (unless you are on welfare). Nothing.

 

Above all else, remember that even if you do not live in New York, you cannot be complacent. The gun-banners are coming after you next.

 

 

Page Printed from: http://www.americant..._amendment.html at February 09, 2013 - 04:48:05 PM CST

 

The law is bad enough, embellishing it with imagined added parts can only serve to discredit the source. KMC, you do realize a good bit of what you just posted is false right?

 

As far as the last few paragraphs, the author can go fuck himself. Not that it matters, Americans don't get vacations, that is why we cater to the hoards of Germans, Japanese and other tourists.

Here is a wiki article, nice, simple, accurate summary, here

 

Just to be clear, i will consider the Safe act in all future votes on state representation and fully support the repeal of the vast majority of it. It has been legally challenged BTW, well worth following.

 

What parts are out of line? Transfers? Ammunition disclosure?

 

I have spoken with the attorney in Buffalo and joined the class action on the day it was announced - so yes I am following.

 

Btw don't represent any elses's interest or opinions but your own. There's enough people on this board claiming to be pro gun who just give/concede our rights based upon what they "feel".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the transfer portion seems to be incorrect as the law states immediate family. So Brothers are fine, to go to a nephew if not through his mother/father first (which is permissible) would cost a maximum of $10 for a background check.

 

"Lost" ammunition reporting applies to dealers, not individuals.

 

Here is a good source of information from the primary anti-SAFE Act lobby in NY.

 

I'm not down with people boycotting NY, but most of those who would, likely already do.

 

Also i work for a NY manufacturer, not a weapons factory or anything close, but can safely say NY really isn't that bad with the current tax incentives for businesses and we are expanding rapidly. NAFTA and outsourcing fucking destroyed the local economy, the NY craftsmen need all the support they can get.

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.

 

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

 

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.....

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

Good on Oly Arms for doing this, although I doubt they probably have much LEO business in NY.

 

However, I would love to see a Ruger, Colt, LMT, FN, H&K Glock etc step up and do this as well. I would also like to see ammo manufacturers do it as well.

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

Looks like another elected official agrees with Governor Andrew "Confiscation Is An Option" Cuomo about the "real challenge" in gun control:

 

assault-weapons-confiscation.jpg

 

Nah, he doesn't want to take r gunz. No one is seriously advocating that. :rolleyes:

 

That's been their agenda all along. Feincunt and company have just been waiting for the right moment to dust off their legislation that has already been written years ago. They don't care about the children. They care about their agenda.

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

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.

 

Wow! :angry:

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

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.

 

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

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