Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

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

Recommended Posts

If the police came to my house to confiscate my printing press I would tell them to take me to court and politely shut the door, because I didn't sign an agreement giving them permission to remove my printing press for arbitrary reasons. On the other hand, if I'm driving my truck on a public road and then I'm detained, I would comply because I agreed to comply by contract when I got my driver's license.

 

If someone wants pistols a printing press in NY State without going through a permitting office, then do the work to change the law first, rather than taking the easy way out and signing on the dotted line then complaining about it later.

 

Ah, you finally hit the nail on the head without even realizing it.

 

So do you believe it is even correct to have to license the printing press in the first place??? What if you woke up one morning and the CO legislature rammed, crammed and jammed a bill through in the wee hours of the morning (they do that you know - often with very little public discussion allowed) that banned printing presses and people using printing presses without being licensed first? What would you do? Would you comply with the licensed printing press law while you tried to change the law? What if you couldn't get licensed for a printing press or it was revoked for an arbitrary reason. Then what?

 

Let's go even one step forward and discuss modern times. What if you had to be licensed to use the computer you are reading this post on right now - since this computer is a "printing press" and the internet is your distribution network to publish your diatribes. You are certainly engaging in "press" activities when you type and hit the "post" button. If that were to be licensed, would you comply with the law quietly while trying to get it changed?

 

Please think about that one carefully before you answer. This is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY has the "gift of easy permitting" huh? :lol:

Absolutely!

 

Compared to the work necessary to start petitions, gather support, hire legal support to get a proposal written, get it on the ballot, petition some more, gather financial support through the campaign and win an amendment? Yup, going through NY State's pistol permitting process is fairly simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he already addressed that, jeff. though knowing mikey, he'll gladly expound. :D

he's right here, imo.

 

here is a question for you (one i've asked before), should the powers that be knock on your door asking for all your guns, what would you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If the police came to my house to confiscate my printing press I would tell them to take me to court and politely shut the door, because I didn't sign an agreement giving them permission to remove my printing press for arbitrary reasons. On the other hand, if I'm driving my truck on a public road and then I'm detained, I would comply because I agreed to comply by contract when I got my driver's license.

 

If someone wants pistols a printing press in NY State without going through a permitting office, then do the work to change the law first, rather than taking the easy way out and signing on the dotted line then complaining about it later.

Ah, you finally hit the nail on the head without even realizing it.

 

So do you believe it is even correct to have to license the printing press in the first place??? What if you woke up one morning and the CO legislature rammed, crammed and jammed a bill through in the wee hours of the morning (they do that you know - often with very little public discussion allowed) that banned printing presses and people using printing presses without being licensed first? What would you do? Would you comply with the licensed printing press law while you tried to change the law? What if you couldn't get licensed for a printing press or it was revoked for an arbitrary reason. Then what?

 

Let's go even one step forward and discuss modern times. What if you had to be licensed to use the computer you are reading this post on right now - since this computer is a "printing press" and the internet is your distribution network to publish your diatribes. You are certainly engaging in "press" activities when you type and hit the "post" button. If that were to be licensed, would you comply with the law quietly while trying to get it changed?

 

Please think about that one carefully before you answer. This is important.

I don't have to think about it carefully.

 

If my state enacted an unconstitutional act then it would be inoperable. As per the Supreme Court ...

 

 

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885)

 

 

If that guy feels that NY State enacted an Unconstitutional law then he should ignore it. He should NOT agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the law by signing compliance. Then he would have to deal with the inevitable fallout in Court, and perhaps accept a fate he didn't want.

 

When someone signs away their Constitutional rights and don't want to do it, they should sign their name followed by the words "under duress." But that wouldn't work in that case.

 

What would I do if printing presses suddenly required license? I would probably operate the press in Open and Notorious noncompliance and then argue the case when it goes to court. Would I suffer in doing so? Undoubtedly. That's the price of freedom though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If the police came to my house to confiscate my printing press I would tell them to take me to court and politely shut the door, because I didn't sign an agreement giving them permission to remove my printing press for arbitrary reasons. On the other hand, if I'm driving my truck on a public road and then I'm detained, I would comply because I agreed to comply by contract when I got my driver's license.

 

If someone wants pistols a printing press in NY State without going through a permitting office, then do the work to change the law first, rather than taking the easy way out and signing on the dotted line then complaining about it later.

Ah, you finally hit the nail on the head without even realizing it.

 

So do you believe it is even correct to have to license the printing press in the first place??? What if you woke up one morning and the CO legislature rammed, crammed and jammed a bill through in the wee hours of the morning (they do that you know - often with very little public discussion allowed) that banned printing presses and people using printing presses without being licensed first? What would you do? Would you comply with the licensed printing press law while you tried to change the law? What if you couldn't get licensed for a printing press or it was revoked for an arbitrary reason. Then what?

 

Let's go even one step forward and discuss modern times. What if you had to be licensed to use the computer you are reading this post on right now - since this computer is a "printing press" and the internet is your distribution network to publish your diatribes. You are certainly engaging in "press" activities when you type and hit the "post" button. If that were to be licensed, would you comply with the law quietly while trying to get it changed?

 

Please think about that one carefully before you answer. This is important.

I don't have to think about it carefully.

 

If my state enacted an unconstitutional act then it would be inoperable. As per the Supreme Court ...

 

 

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885)

 

 

If that guy feels that NY State enacted an Unconstitutional law then he should ignore it. He should NOT agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the law by signing compliance.

 

When someone signs away their Constitutional rights and don't want to do it, they should sign their name followed by the words "under duress." But that wouldn't work in that case.

 

OK, fair enough. So just to be clear - you're advocating that he knowingly break the law (as it exists) and put the constitutionality to the test if he gets caught? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - just trying to nail down where you're going with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

here is a question for you (one i've asked before), should the powers that be knock on your door asking for all your guns, what would you do?

 

 

"Guns??? What guns? I have no idea what you're talking about, officer. And yes if you want to search my house, I would appreciate it if you left and got a warrant. Thank you, have a nice evening".

 

And for that exact reason, registries cannot and should not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, he already addressed that...and that was not what he said. mike clearly stated by signing the permit, he agreed to abide that law and that the time to disagree would have been before signing to abide it. why you gotta be so obtuse?? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

here is a question for you (one i've asked before), should the powers that be knock on your door asking for all your guns, what would you do?

 

"Guns??? What guns? I have no idea what you're talking about, officer. And yes if you want to search my house, I would appreciate it if you left and got a warrant. Thank you, have a nice evening".

 

And for that exact reason, registries cannot and should not exist.

at least i have to credit you for not changing the answer....

i don't know mike but i would be willing to bet his answer is different.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, fair enough. So just to be clear - you're advocating that he knowingly break the law (as it exists) and put the constitutionality to the test if he gets caught? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you - just trying to nail down where you're going with this.

I'm not advocating that. In his position I wouldn't violate that law because I'm not convinced of its clear unconstitutionality. He might be, but I'm not. I would suggest that he not violate the law by sticking to rifles only and put all available time into changing the law. Either that or just sign and deal with the inevitable fallout when it comes. I guess he chose the latter.

 

But if my state suddenly required licensing of printing presses then I would probably be openly noncompliant with it, since I am solidly committed and convinced of the Constitutionality of owning and operating a printing press without registry.

 

Please understand Jeff, I did used to enjoy shooting as a young man, but it just doesn't interest me much anymore compared to things like boats and motorcycles. The main reason I still have guns is the same reason I wish more people would post openly on the Internet and use laser printers to print underground publications and flyers ... because a right that is not exercised is in danger of being lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, he already addressed that...and that was not what he said. mike clearly stated by signing the permit, he agreed to abide that law and that the time to disagree would have been before signing to abide it. why you gotta be so obtuse?? :D

 

Honestly not being obtuse. The point being that mike seems to think its so easy to just not sign. The point is that pistol permit law didn't just happen overnight. It might have been in place before the guy even lived in NY state. Yes, I know its easy to say "well then don't move there" but its rarely that simple or B&W. The state shouldn't not have been able to require that in the 1st place, but it does. YES the guy should have not signed on the dotted line but he did. It was either that or lose the right altogether. Yes the best way to have taken care of it is to fight the law - but not everyone has the time or the resources for that kind of effort. Some people have to actually work to put food on the table. So its really hard to fault the guy by signing up for a permit, because few of us ever imagine the gubmint is going to show up at the door demanding to take away our constitutional rights. Most of us actually trust the gubmint to a degree......

 

As for fighting unconstitutional laws like this.... this is precisely why we have the SAF and the NRA going around and challenging laws like in Heller and McDonald. Because striking down those laws help all of us retain our rights so we don't have to quit our jobs to challenges BS ones like NY. But sometimes its better to bite the bullet and sign on to the BS permit than to potentially go for years or never before you get to exercise your right.

 

Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Good things are coming soon in NY that will hopefully help out the rest of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

again, he already addressed that...and that was not what he said. mike clearly stated by signing the permit, he agreed to abide that law and that the time to disagree would have been before signing to abide it. why you gotta be so obtuse?? :D

 

Honestly not being obtuse. The point being that mike seems to think its so easy to just not sign. The point is that pistol permit law didn't just happen overnight. It might have been in place before the guy even lived in NY state. Yes, I know its easy to say "well then don't move there" but its rarely that simple or B&W. The state shouldn't not have been able to require that in the 1st place, but it does. YES the guy should have not signed on the dotted line but he did. It was either that or lose the right altogether. Yes the best way to have taken care of it is to fight the law - but not everyone has the time or the resources for that kind of effort. Some people have to actually work to put food on the table. So its really hard to fault the guy by signing up for a permit, because few of us ever imagine the gubmint is going to show up at the door demanding to take away our constitutional rights. Most of us actually trust the gubmint to a degree......

 

As for fighting unconstitutional laws like this.... this is precisely why we have the SAF and the NRA going around and challenging laws like in Heller and McDonald. Because striking down those laws help all of us retain our rights so we don't have to quit our jobs to challenges BS ones like NY. But sometimes its better to bite the bullet and sign on to the BS permit than to potentially go for years or never before you get to exercise your right.

 

Make sense?

 

sorry jeff....he specifically said the "easy" thing was to sign. stop being so obtuse and address what he said not what you wanted him to say for the sake of argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Honestly not being obtuse. The point being that mike seems to think its so easy to just not sign. The point is that pistol permit law didn't just happen overnight. It might have been in place before the guy even lived in NY state. Yes, I know its easy to say "well then don't move there" but its rarely that simple or B&W. The state shouldn't not have been able to require that in the 1st place, but it does. YES the guy should have not signed on the dotted line but he did. It was either that or lose the right altogether. Yes the best way to have taken care of it is to fight the law - but not everyone has the time or the resources for that kind of effort. Some people have to actually work to put food on the table. So its really hard to fault the guy by signing up for a permit, because few of us ever imagine the gubmint is going to show up at the door demanding to take away our constitutional rights. Most of us actually trust the gubmint to a degree......

 

As for fighting unconstitutional laws like this.... this is precisely why we have the SAF and the NRA going around and challenging laws like in Heller and McDonald. Because striking down those laws help all of us retain our rights so we don't have to quit our jobs to challenges BS ones like NY. But sometimes its better to bite the bullet and sign on to the BS permit than to potentially go for years or never before you get to exercise your right.

 

Make sense?

 

sorry jeff....he specifically said the "easy" thing was to sign. stop being so obtuse and address what he said not what you wanted him to say for the sake of argument.

 

Fuck elle..... you're glomming onto ONE word in my entire post. Talk about obtuse, or maybe in your case - pedantic.

 

Yes I get the "easy" way out is to go along and get the permit. I'm simply saying its not as easy as mike attempts to paint it to resist the law or take up the activist cause. Some people don't have the will, time or resources to "fight the man".

 

On a related topic - Mark K continually makes the point that the 2nd Am Foundation (SAF) going after state and urban city gun laws and getting them overturned is analogous to the slave traders hunting down runaway Negros in the North and causing a backlash from Northerners against the Confederacy. There's a couple of areas in which that analogy quickly breaks down..... 1) Slavery was pretty damn evil to start with and 2) Gun ownership and possession is a Constitutionally protected right. Its overturning laws like this one in NY where the SAF and NRA earn their keep. The police should NOT be able to show up at someone's door based on the flimsiest of evidence hearsay and strip you of your constitutional protected rights without due process.

 

If this can happen to our guns with this kind of lack of probable cause or due process.... it can certainly happen to your speech, press, privacy and all your other liberties. Without the SAF kicking over these anthills and uncovering the unconstitutionality of most of these laws..... we would have a LOT more encroachment on all of our rights. Not just guns.

 

Mark - If its unconstitutional to ban me from having a gun in rural Montana, then its JUST as unconstitutional in downtown Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when your "one word" completely changes someone's argument, yes, of course, it completely negates your post, jeff.

Edit to add

if someone does not have the will, or the time, and whatever the other excuse was, to flight the man then perhaps they don't care enough about their rights, or are too lazy, to have them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if someone does not have the will, or the time, and whatever the other excuse was, to flight the man then perhaps they don't care enough about their rights, or are too lazy, to have them...

 

 

BS elle. Did you picket the WH or congress when they rammed through the Patriot act? Or were you too lazy to care about your right to privacy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

if someone does not have the will, or the time, and whatever the other excuse was, to flight the man then perhaps they don't care enough about their rights, or are too lazy, to have them...

 

BS elle. Did you picket the WH or congress when they rammed through the Patriot act? Or were you too lazy to care about your right to privacy?

i am more of a letter writer and boycotterand signer of petions, though i have picketed on occassion. what is your means of protest and activism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most powerful act of protest in our country is our vote on Jury and Grand Jury.

 

Regardless what the law or judge says, regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, we can vote "not guilty" if we perceive the law in question as Unconstitutional.

 

 

The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided. - Harlan Stone

 

No American should retreat an inch on the right of jurors to acquit if they perceive the law or its administration to be unjust. - Charley Reese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most powerful act of protest in our country is our vote on Jury and Grand Jury.

 

Regardless what the law says we can say "not guilty" if we perceive the law as Unconstitutional.

Also true if we perceive the law as just plain wrong, even if constitutional. Jurors can judge facts and law and nothing a judge will tell you in jury instructions to the contrary is true.

 

http://notesfromasolipsist.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/on-trial-by-jury-and-jury-nullification/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting survey of over 14,000 law enforcement officers:

 

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

 

I apologize if it has been posted before. This is the first time I've seen this.

 

 

PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and
March 13, 2013. More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted
by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law
enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel
were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distribut
-
ed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at
large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the
majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the
survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were
former/retired law enforcement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

THAT is fascinating. The data can be further parsed (wish I had access to it) using their web tools. Having done similar surveys in financial services going out to 47k people these surveys are a lot of work the insights are priceless.

 

I'm waiting for the thug enablers to diss the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A very interesting survey of over 14,000 law enforcement officers:

 

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

 

I apologize if it has been posted before. This is the first time I've seen this.

 

 

PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and
March 13, 2013. More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted
by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law
enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel
were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distribut
-
ed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at
large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the
majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the
survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were
former/retired law enforcement

I considered posting it a day or two ago, but did not because it's pretty common knowledge that cops are not generally opposed to armed citizens.. We occasionally see police chiefs advocating more gun control, but that's a bit like relying on the Joint Chiefs of Staff to find out what soldiers think. The higher ups are political, which is how they got there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lifted it from the Illinois Carry website. I check that site from time to time to see if I'll ever have CPL reciprocity when I drive through there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lifted it from the Illinois Carry website. I check that site from time to time to see if I'll ever have CPL reciprocity when I drive through there.

No, you won't, at least not for several years. They're still being forced to recognize that the second amendment extends all the way into porches and garages, not just inside the home itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I lifted it from the Illinois Carry website. I check that site from time to time to see if I'll ever have CPL reciprocity when I drive through there.

No, you won't, at least not for several years. They're still being forced to recognize that the second amendment extends all the way into porches and garages, not just inside the home itself.

Hmm. Aren't the forced by law to craft CPL legislation by June or something like that? I won't be surprised if they deny reciprocity, but I can always hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another gun maker who does not think badges are all that special...

 

 

York Arms Cancels All Orders From NY Govt Agencies

 

Good on them. It seems that Remington is not so good. Of course that could all change as soon as they have new owners. Their corporate overlords are pretty clearly not big supporters of the 2a.

 

http://www.wham1180.com/pages/localnews.html?feed=122742&article=11042313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five
Oops! New York State Police Admit to Major Mistake in Gun Confiscation Case

By Mike Opelka | The Blaze – 4 hrs ago

 

 

In a surprising turnaround, New York State Police have admitted that they made a mistake when they confiscated the guns and suspended the permit of an Erie County resident on the grounds of mental health.

 

Late Wednesday, Erie County, NY, released a statement (posted below) blaming the New York State Police for giving them bad information regarding the suspension of a pistol permit and demand to surrender firearms sent to Amherst resident David Lewis.

(Mr. Lewis was not identified in our original story, his name has since been released in conjunction with court documents filed by his attorney, Jim Tresmond.)

 

"Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs said that late today he received a call from the New York State Police informing him that they had provided information on the wrong person when they notified his office of someone whose permit should be suspended because of the new mental health provisions in New York's SAFE Act," the release begins.

 

"When the State Police called to tell us they made a mistake and had the wrong person ... it become clear that the state did not do their job here and now we all look foolish," the release went on to say in a quote from Clerk Jacobs.

 

Jacobs appeared on WBEN radio in Buffalo on Thursday morning and explained the details of this administrative debacle. Mr. Jacobs also delivered some pointed comments about how the law was written so badly that mistakes like this were bound to happen. He closed with some fairly damning statements and also asked the state to consider scrapping the bill and re-writing it.

"When you write a piece of legislation in a vacuum, without having hearings, without talking to people about how it's going to implemented in the real world -- without jeopardizing people's rights, and putting an individual like this through a nightmarish experience, and infringe on their rights, you have to go back to the drawing board," he said. "And I encourage the legislative leadership here and mostly our governor to take a step back and say 'we didn't get it right' and let's change this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Honestly not being obtuse. The point being that mike seems to think its so easy to just not sign. The point is that pistol permit law didn't just happen overnight. It might have been in place before the guy even lived in NY state. Yes, I know its easy to say "well then don't move there" but its rarely that simple or B&W. The state shouldn't not have been able to require that in the 1st place, but it does. YES the guy should have not signed on the dotted line but he did. It was either that or lose the right altogether. Yes the best way to have taken care of it is to fight the law - but not everyone has the time or the resources for that kind of effort. Some people have to actually work to put food on the table. So its really hard to fault the guy by signing up for a permit, because few of us ever imagine the gubmint is going to show up at the door demanding to take away our constitutional rights. Most of us actually trust the gubmint to a degree......

 

As for fighting unconstitutional laws like this.... this is precisely why we have the SAF and the NRA going around and challenging laws like in Heller and McDonald. Because striking down those laws help all of us retain our rights so we don't have to quit our jobs to challenges BS ones like NY. But sometimes its better to bite the bullet and sign on to the BS permit than to potentially go for years or never before you get to exercise your right.

 

Make sense?

 

sorry jeff....he specifically said the "easy" thing was to sign. stop being so obtuse and address what he said not what you wanted him to say for the sake of argument.

 

Fuck elle..... you're glomming onto ONE word in my entire post. Talk about obtuse, or maybe in your case - pedantic.

 

Yes I get the "easy" way out is to go along and get the permit. I'm simply saying its not as easy as mike attempts to paint it to resist the law or take up the activist cause. Some people don't have the will, time or resources to "fight the man".

 

On a related topic - Mark K continually makes the point that the 2nd Am Foundation (SAF) going after state and urban city gun laws and getting them overturned is analogous to the slave traders hunting down runaway Negros in the North and causing a backlash from Northerners against the Confederacy. There's a couple of areas in which that analogy quickly breaks down..... 1) Slavery was pretty damn evil to start with and 2) Gun ownership and possession is a Constitutionally protected right. Its overturning laws like this one in NY where the SAF and NRA earn their keep. The police should NOT be able to show up at someone's door based on the flimsiest of evidence hearsay and strip you of your constitutional protected rights without due process.

 

If this can happen to our guns with this kind of lack of probable cause or due process.... it can certainly happen to your speech, press, privacy and all your other liberties. Without the SAF kicking over these anthills and uncovering the unconstitutionality of most of these laws..... we would have a LOT more encroachment on all of our rights. Not just guns.

 

Mark - If its unconstitutional to ban me from having a gun in rural Montana, then its JUST as unconstitutional in downtown Chicago.

 

It rhymes, is all. You missed the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got a call from the Gifford's fundraising machine, asking for $300 to help make sure that gun control is passed into law. I am not sure what they are planning on using the money for, cash in paper bags for republican senators and house members, or maybe more inane offensive television commercials that insult my intelligence, my choices, and my affiliations. In any case, I declined but only after taking the time to explain what I had contributed in dollars, time, and effort to get Democrats elected over the past 8 years, and then explain how the both the rhetoric and the end goals of the gun control crowd have refocused those same dollars and that same time and effort into defeating those same people I helped to get elected. I explained to him how I was far from the only person like that. In PA alone, there are 1.3 million hunters and 4 million firearm owners. Many of those folks belong to the NRA, and yet still voted for Obama. I explained how none of them, myself included, like being called racists or being told we belong to a racist organization. The young buck was so full of energy and confidence when he first called, and sounded so deflated and defeated when he hung up. I almost felt bad for him.... almost.

 

Maybe I should work up a special lesson for the illegal mayors against guns callers that are sure to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh. From the Tresmond Law Facebook page:

 

 

(Buffalo, New York) For the record, it is our position that the New York State Police targeted our client, Mr. Lewis, from the outset of their request that his pistol license be suspended. New York State Police officials provided Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs with our client's name, address, pistol license number, number of handguns owned by Mr. Lewis, and other identifying information that made it clear they were looking for our client. Our client was contacted by the New York State Police. This is not a simple case of mistaken identity. Mr. Lewis's medical privacy was invaded and he was publicly defamed and humiliated by New York State officials. We will file suit shortly.

 

As many are well aware, our client Mr. Lewis had his pistol license suspended by a New York State Supreme Court Justice at the request of a New York State Police Sergeant. The NYSP official requested the suspension pursuant to the mental health provision of the NY SAFE Act of 2013. Upon our investigation, we determined that Mr. Lewis’s medical records had been examined without a valid search warrant, in clear violation of federal and state privacy laws in addition to the New York State Criminal Procedure Law. On Thursday, April 11th, 2013, New York State Supreme Court Justice M. William Boller reinstated Mr. Lewis’s firearms license. New York State police officials claim they “had the wrong guy”. The evidence tells another story. Mr. Lewis was directly targeted by Sgt. Jackson of the New York State Police and further investigation reveals systemic fourth amendment violations within the New York State government.

 

Confidential informants from within the New York State government have since come forth with information regarding the creation a clandestine “HIPAA” unit comprised of approximately seven members within the Division for Criminal Justice Services , charged with examining New York residents’ medical records without warrant

 

We will be relentless in our pursuit of the truth and justice in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the people involved with this need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent

 


Confidential informants from within the New York State government have since come forth with information regarding the creation a clandestine “HIPAA” unit comprised of approximately seven members within the Division for Criminal Justice Services , charged with examining New York residents’ medical records without warrant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uh oh. From the Tresmond Law Facebook page:

 

 

(Buffalo, New York) For the record, it is our position that the New York State Police targeted our client, Mr. Lewis, from the outset of their request that his pistol license be suspended. New York State Police officials provided Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs with our client's name, address, pistol license number, number of handguns owned by Mr. Lewis, and other identifying information that made it clear they were looking for our client. Our client was contacted by the New York State Police. This is not a simple case of mistaken identity. Mr. Lewis's medical privacy was invaded and he was publicly defamed and humiliated by New York State officials. We will file suit shortly.

 

As many are well aware, our client Mr. Lewis had his pistol license suspended by a New York State Supreme Court Justice at the request of a New York State Police Sergeant. The NYSP official requested the suspension pursuant to the mental health provision of the NY SAFE Act of 2013. Upon our investigation, we determined that Mr. Lewis’s medical records had been examined without a valid search warrant, in clear violation of federal and state privacy laws in addition to the New York State Criminal Procedure Law. On Thursday, April 11th, 2013, New York State Supreme Court Justice M. William Boller reinstated Mr. Lewis’s firearms license. New York State police officials claim they “had the wrong guy”. The evidence tells another story. Mr. Lewis was directly targeted by Sgt. Jackson of the New York State Police and further investigation reveals systemic fourth amendment violations within the New York State government.

 

Confidential informants from within the New York State government have since come forth with information regarding the creation a clandestine “HIPAA” unit comprised of approximately seven members within the Division for Criminal Justice Services , charged with examining New York residents’ medical records without warrant

 

We will be relentless in our pursuit of the truth and justice in this case.

 

 

LOVE IT!!! I pray they don't settle and force this to go through the courts to make a point.

 

But I would think that invasion of privacy, warrantless searches and confiscation of constitutionally protected rights are worth it if it saves just one child....... Isn't that the point of all this gun control fervor is to save the children???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the people involved with this need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent

 

 

Confidential informants from within the New York State government have since come forth with information regarding the creation a clandestine “HIPAA” unit comprised of approximately seven members within the Division for Criminal Justice Services , charged with examining New York residents’ medical records without warrant

 

Gov andy cuntmo is going down faster than a $2 whore.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

(Mr. Lewis was not identified in our original story, his name has since been released in conjunction with court documents filed by his attorney, Jim Tresmond.)

 

"Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs said that late today he received a call from the New York State Police informing him that they had provided information on the wrong person when they notified his office of someone whose permit should be suspended because of the new mental health provisions in New York's SAFE Act," the release begins.

 

"When the State Police called to tell us they made a mistake and had the wrong person ... it become clear that the state did not do their job here and now we all look foolish," the release went on to say in a quote from Clerk Jacobs.

...

 

 

 

Not really foolish so much as criminal.

 

the people involved with this need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent

 

 

Confidential informants from within the New York State government have since come forth with information regarding the creation a clandestine “HIPAA” unit comprised of approximately seven members within the Division for Criminal Justice Services , charged with examining New York residents’ medical records without warrant

I agree. They did not accidentally misidentify a person, they engaged in a criminal conspiracy to violate health privacy laws and targeted a person whose identity they knew.

 

Who here supports opening all medical records to the police when someone wants to exercise his right to buy a gun?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who here supports opening all medical records to the police when someone wants to exercise his right to buy a gun?

 

And cue spatial troll in 5....4....3.....2.....1...... He will surely say that if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?

 

Furthermore, all those folks who have no interest in ever buying a gun will think nothing of it. Until the slope gets slippery-ier and suddenly their medical records are looked at when they want to buy a house or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who here supports opening all medical records to the police when someone wants to exercise his right to buy a gun?

 

And cue spatial troll in 5....4....3.....2.....1...... He will surely say that if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?

 

Furthermore, all those folks who have no interest in ever buying a gun will think nothing of it. Until the slope gets slippery-ier and suddenly their medical records are looked at when they want to buy a house or anything like that.

This is a tough issue. The current mechanism relies on medical professionals to make the call when they need to notify the authorities. State laws regulating this vary from none to "shall" notify. The code of ethics for clinical social workers, psychologists, and others in mental health already dictates that they notify authorities if someone is an imminent threat to themselves or others.

 

We've already see when authorities fail to act when medical professionals inform them of dangerous individuals. Would we gain anything by federally mandating they release this information? The same goes with opening private medical records. Will this end up like the background check system where much is gathered and little is done?

 

The current situation in NY where it appears there is action by the gov't to search medical records without cause is highly disturbing. It will be interesting to see how this develops and how much more intrusion we are willing to bear in an attempt to curb violent behaviors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence of the HIPAA's has been rumored for some time. Their HIPAA training assures absolute silence about what they see in the records, and their NINJA training allows them to get in to gun owners homes themselves and take action on what they see. Bred from cloned material from the worlds best safe-crackers, the gun safes are no barrier. I thought they a had been bred with hard shells to protect them from the occasional mess-up in gun owners homes, and they should still be only teenagers though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Jim Tresmond's a great guy. There is more to follow folks. Cuomo's done us all a favor without even knowing it, what an ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want crazy people voting. Maybe applying for voter registration should open up your medical records?

 

 

Sadly, I actually agree with that. I think a crazy voter is FAR more dangerous than a crazy with a gun. I'm serious, no sarcasm there. A single voter could put someone in the WH who invades other countries, kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs the economy trillions of $$.

 

Isn't that FAR more terrifying than the loss of 20 small school children? So when do we start universal voter background checks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, I actually agree with that. I think a crazy voter is FAR more dangerous than a crazy with a gun. I'm serious, no sarcasm there. A single voter could put someone in the WH who invades other countries, kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs the economy trillions of $$.

You are an idiot if you think a single voter can put someone in the WH. But a single crazy with an AR15 can kill 20 6 year olds and 6 teachers in 5 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't want crazy people voting. Maybe applying for voter registration should open up your medical records?

 

Sadly, I actually agree with that. I think a crazy voter is FAR more dangerous than a crazy with a gun. I'm serious, no sarcasm there. A single voter could put someone in the WH who invades other countries, kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs the economy trillions of $$.

 

Isn't that FAR more terrifying than the loss of 20 small school children? So when do we

start universal voter background checks?

your post right here is scarey, jeff....especially that you qualified it as serious, not sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't want crazy people voting. Maybe applying for voter registration should open up your medical records?

 

Sadly, I actually agree with that. I think a crazy voter is FAR more dangerous than a crazy with a gun. I'm serious, no sarcasm there. A single voter could put someone in the WH who invades other countries, kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs the economy trillions of $$.

 

Isn't that FAR more terrifying than the loss of 20 small school children? So when do we

start universal voter background checks?

your post right here is scarey, jeff....especially that you qualified it as serious, not sarcasm.

Since Jeff thinks a single person can put a man in the WH, and he voted for GWB, that his crazy vote is far more dangerous than a crazy with an AR15. Somebody needs to keep Jeff from voting. He's clearly not responsible enough to handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And remember, Jeff was fantasying about shooting all of congress. I guess he thinks his vote doesn't count there, but his gun does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't want crazy people voting. Maybe applying for voter registration should open up your medical records?

 

Sadly, I actually agree with that. I think a crazy voter is FAR more dangerous than a crazy with a gun. I'm serious, no sarcasm there. A single voter could put someone in the WH who invades other countries, kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs the economy trillions of $$.

 

Isn't that FAR more terrifying than the loss of 20 small school children? So when do we

start universal voter background checks?

your post right here is scarey, jeff....especially that you qualified it as serious, not sarcasm.

I'm being absolutely serious. Poor voting choices have killed FAR FAR more people than AR-15s. Hell more than all the guns in America combined if you want to get right down to it. Voting for JFK cost us at least 58,000 American dead. GWB 4000+.

 

Voting is a far more serious endeavor with far more reaching consequences than owning a gun. Wouldn't you agree? The entire fate of the country hangs on the wisdom of the voters. Why wouldn't we put some limits and constraints on who should be able to exercise that kind of power?? Someone here once said elections have consequences. I think a background check and medical records search of voters would be a prudent move if we are serious about saving children's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff is saying that every vote for GWB was made by a crazy person. You know Jeff, sometimes its hard to disagree with you, real hard. But I'm trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't want crazy people voting. Maybe applying for voter registration should open up your medical records?

 

Sadly, I actually agree with that. I think a crazy voter is FAR more dangerous than a crazy with a gun. I'm serious, no sarcasm there. A single voter could put someone in the WH who invades other countries, kills hundreds of thousands of people and costs the economy trillions of $$.

 

Isn't that FAR more terrifying than the loss of 20 small school children? So when do we

start universal voter background checks?

 

 

your post right here is scarey, jeff....especially that you qualified it as serious, not sarcasm.

 

 

I'm being absolutely serious. Poor voting choices have killed FAR FAR more people than AR-15s. Hell more than all the guns in America combined if you want to get right down to it. Voting for JFK cost us at least 58,000 American dead. GWB 4000+.

 

Voting is a far more serious endeavor with far more reaching consequences than owning a gun. Wouldn't you agree? The entire fate of the country hangs on the wisdom of the voters. Why wouldn't we put some limits and constraints on who should be able to exercise that kind of power?? Someone here once said elections have consequences. I think a background check and medical records search of voters would be a prudent move if we are serious about saving children's lives.

 

 

Since I've got Jeff on a roll, I'm also of the opinion that we should not have crazy people writing or enforcing laws. Let's poke around in the records on politicians and their bureaucratic minions. We should start with the ATF in an emergency action, then do the rest in a more orderly fashion. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:17 PM
Subject: Albany Police Demand Repeal of Safe Act






QUOTE: Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, “We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.”



FROM: Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, Council 82, AFSCME, AFI-CIO, P.O BOX 6567, ALBANY, NEW YORK 12206 (518) 438-9422



To: Andrew M. Cuomo / Dean G. Skelos / Neil D. Breslin / John T- McDonald III / Phil Steck / Sheldon Silver / Jeffrey D. Klein / Cecilia Tkaczyk / Patricia Fahy

Note; see the formal list of people this letter went to at the bottom.



April 15,2013



Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:



The Albany Police Officers Union condemns and opposes the New York

Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (the SAFE Act)

Substantively, we believe that it violates fundamental constitutional rights, that it

is unduly and purposely burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and" that it will not

deter criminals or menially ill individuals from plotting and carrying out bloodshed

and violence. Procedurally, we believe that the way in which the bill was rammed

into law via an unjustified and expedient "message of necessity", which

circumvents the right and the ability of the citizens of this State to voice their

concerns about the bill and have them addressed, is an outrage. This flawed law'

and the w ay in which it was rushed and passed., shows the apparent contempt that

those who govern have for the governed, and. calls into question whether we truly

have a representational government. Morally, we believe that this law is about

ideology and politics and not about making anyone any safer. We respectfully

demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.



First, while we applaud and support your overall concern for public safety

and your desire to improve it. The SAFE Act will not improve public safety.

Criminals and the mentally ill will not abide by it, and it is either foolish or dishonest to think or suggest otherwise. While law-abiding citizens will abide by

the law and not load a ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds, do you

really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence not load

ten rounds into a ten-round magazine? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the

law that previously legal thirty-round magazines must be sold within one-year to an

out-of-state resident or turn in to local authorities, do you really expect a criminal

or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to sell or turn in his thirty-round

magazines? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law requiring that they

register weapons which they already do and which have been deemed "assault

weapons", do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing

violence to do so? Do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent

on doing violence to be concerned about any increase in penalties for shooting first

responders? Do you really expect that a mentally ill individual who owns firearms

and who is intent on doing violence will voice his intentions to his or her mental

health professional and thus put into motion the confiscation of his or her firearms?

Do you-really expect that a mentally ill individual will "safely store" his firearms?

Of course you don’t. Again, only law-abiding citizens, who are not intent on doing

violence, will abide the NY SAFE Act criminals and the mentally ill who are intent

on doing violence will not do so. The public will not be any safer under this 1aw.

What then, have you accomplished?



Second., the SAFE Act carries with it unfair burdens on law abiding citizen. What is the point of making law-abiding citizens register their previously lawfully owned and lawfully used firearms which are now deemed to be "assault weapons"? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens who affirmatively "opt into" protection from public identification that they hold permits or own firearms? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens renew their pistol permits or "assault weapon" registrations every five years? Why are you preemptively punishing those who have done nothing wrong?



Third, -we fully believe that the SAFE ACT broad prohibitions against will

not. withstand constitutional challenge and scrutiny. The Second Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution provides and U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right

of individuals to possess and carry firearms and to use them for lawful purposes.

The SAFE Act, however, infringes on that right as it bans the possession and use of

certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and" used lawfully for the defense of

life, liberty, and property, and as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms

that were heretofore possessed and used lawfully for safe use of firearms

recreation, hunting, and shooting.



We as police officers are on the front lines of public safety. Respectfully, none

of you are. We see, feel, work, and live with the effects of gun violence in ways that

you cannot. We believe that you see gun violence as a means to move your agenda

and your ambitions forward. You know that the SAFE Act will not work in the way

that you pretend it will. You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology

and politics and not about making anyone safer.



Regarding the reduction in violent crime this new legislation is proposed to have, in 2011 the most current year for which FBI crime statistics are available, New York State had 77l homicides, 445 were committed with a firearm, 394 of that 445 were committed with a handgun, 5 were committed with a rifle, 16 were committed with a shotgun, in 30 the firearm type was unknown, 160 were committed with a cutting instrument, 143 were committed with another type of weapon, and 26 were committed with bare hands. We believe based on these statistics, that the SAFE Act will do nothing to reduce violent crime as the primary target of the legislation is the "assault rifle" which would be included statistically with standard rifles and used in less than 1% of New York homicides in 2011.These so called "Assault Weapons" were not used in the commission of one reported crime in Albany County in 2011.



For the reasons set forth above, the Albany Police Union believes that the SAFE Act is wrong - substantively, procedurally, and morally. The SAFE Act infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will burden and negatively impact firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens and will not affect the willingness of criminals or those who are mentally ill from perpetrating violence. Again, we respectfully demand that each and all of you do the right thing and repeal the law.

Very truly yours,



Thomas Mahar:

President

Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841

Council 82, AFSCME, AFI-CIO





The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo

Governor of New York State

New, York State Capitol

Albany, New York 12224



The Honorable Dean G. Skelos

Temporary President

New York State Senate

Legislative Office Building, Room 909

Albany, ,New York 12247



The Honorable Neil D. Breslin

New York State Senator

172 State Street Room 414, Capitol

Albany, New York 12247



The Honorable John T- McDonald III

New York State Assemblyman

Legislative Office Building, Room 913

Albany, New York 12248



The Honorable Phil Steck

New York State Assemblyman

Legislative Office Building, Room 819

Albany, New York 12248





The Honorable Sheldon Silver

Speaker, New York State Assembly

Legislative Office Building. Boom 913

Albany, New York 12248



The Honorable Jeffrey D. Klein

Temporary President

New York State Senate

Legislative Office Building, Room 913

Albany, New York 12247



The Honorable Cecilia Tkaczyk

New York State Senator

Legislative Office Building, Room 311

Albany, New York 12247



The Honorable Patricia Fahy

New York State Assemblywoman

Legislative Office Building, Room 458

Albany, New York 12248

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

This is too funny:

 

May 1, 2013
Film Studios Say New York Gun Law May Ban Props

 

By THOMAS KAPLAN

 

 

ALBANY — The sweeping gun control measure signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and hailed by Democratic leaders has a surprising critic: Hollywood.

 

Officials in the movie and television industry say the new laws could prevent them from using the lifelike assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that they have employed in shows like “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and films like “The Dark Knight Rises.”

 

Twenty-seven film and television projects, including programs like “Blue Bloods” and “Person of Interest,” are now in production in New York State using assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Industry workers say that they need to use real weapons for verisimilitude, that it would be impractical to try to manufacture fake weapons that could fire blanks, and that the entertainment industry should not be penalized accidentally by a law intended as a response to mass shootings.

 

“Weapons are part of our history as a culture as humans,” said Ryder Washburn, vice president of the Specialists Ltd., a leading supplier of firearms for productions that is based in Manhattan. “To tell stories, you need them.”

 

Mr. Cuomo has gone out of his way to promote the industry’s success; on Monday, he issued one news release to say the state was on track to break its record for the number of television pilots shot in a year, and another to say that “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” would begin production this week in Rochester. The governor has also enjoyed political support from Hollywood: his sole out-of-state fund-raiser as governor was held at the Los Angeles home of an HBO executive.

 

Industry officials, though, say the state’s hastily developed gun control measures pose an unexpected challenge to their growing production business in New York — the possibility that fake police officers on television could be treated as real-life criminals. “Without clarification that the use of prop guns is still permitted on sets, many of the dozens of productions currently shooting in New York could be forced to go elsewhere,” said Vans Stevenson, the senior vice president for state government affairs at the motion picture group, which is the powerful trade association of the movie business.

 

But some lawmakers, feeling stung by conservative and upstate voters over the gun control law, do not wish to vote on it again, even to make what the industry describes as a technical correction. Gun rights activists, who are challenging the new firearm restrictions in court, have mocked the idea of a so-called Hollywood exception.

 

“They’re saying, ‘Why are we being held to this standard when Hollywood is getting a pass, and they’re the ones who are promoting the violence?’ ” said Thomas H. King, the president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

The new laws expand New York’s ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and beginning next January, they will prohibit the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Movie industry lawyers who have reviewed the measure say they are concerned that the ban could apply to the magazines used in prop guns on dozens of productions in the state.

 

Firearms on film and television sets are modified to shoot blanks; in some cases, the barrels are blocked off. But the guns, in many cases, feature magazines with a capacity above 10 rounds, and industry officials worry that uncertainty over potential legal liability could be enough to drive studios to move their productions to other states.

 

Asked in February about the industry’s concerns, Mr. Cuomo expressed support for revising the law. “There’s no reason not to make a change like that to give an industry comfort,” he said at the time. But since then, as it has become clear that any changes to the gun law will be difficult to get through the Legislature, administration officials have begun arguing that the law will not affect film productions, and say they are no longer pursuing an amendment.

 

The New York Police Department already grants permits to allow the use of firearms in productions, and California offers an entertainment firearms permit. Mr. Stevenson, the motion picture association official, said he believed Mr. Cuomo and lawmakers could agree on a fix, “as their intention with this law was never to impact the use of props on set.”

 

But Republicans, in particular, are not eager to revisit the issue. The Republican leader in the State Senate, Dean G. Skelos of Long Island, said recently that he would oppose an exemption for movie productions. “I don’t believe they should be treated any differently,” Mr. Skelos said in an interview with The Buffalo News.

 

Entertainment is big business in New York, and both Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an independent, and Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, have courted and celebrated the film and television production industry. Film production in New York was responsible for more than 46,000 jobs in 2011, according to a study prepared for the motion picture association. The budget that the Legislature approved in late March included a provision to extend the industry’s tax credit, which was set to expire at the end of 2014, for another five years.

 

“You’d hate to lose a $100 million picture because there was a scene in it that required automatic weapons and we were unable to accommodate them,” said John Ford, the president of Local 52 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

Mr. Ford knows the issue firsthand — he once handled firearms on the set of “Goodfellas.”

 

“Say what you want about violence and guns and whatnot in the movies, but the fact of the matter is we don’t get to decide the content of the movies,” he said. “If there’s not a little wiggle room in there for us, then they’ll make the movies somewhere else. It’ll just cost us jobs.”

 

Some New Yorkers whose livelihoods depend on the film industry are worried that lawmakers are not taking the issue seriously enough, and are not comforted by general reassurances from politicians. Bohdan Bushell, a special effects coordinator at J & M Special Effects in Brooklyn, which supplies firearms for independent films and Broadway shows like “The Phantom of the Opera” and “Jersey Boys,” said any uncertainty could drive studios to move out of state.

 

“If a producer has to jump through more flaming hoops than they already do to shoot in this crazy city of ours, they’re going to go: ‘When is too many hoops? Is this the last one? Am I done now?’ ” Mr. Bushell said.

 

“California is hungry for our work,” he added. “The Southern states with huge tax incentives — Louisiana springs to mind — have very little problem with whatever form of firearm you’d like to carry around with you.”

 

Industry officials said they tried to warn Mr. Cuomo’s office, as it was drafting a gun control bill, that the legislation could affect the film and television production. They were joined by Mr. Bloomberg’s office, which says it told the governor’s office, before the gun measure was passed, that the movie and television industry was concerned.

 

Mr. Bloomberg has been a vocal critic of assault weapons, but was willing to accommodate the film industry because “almost all theatrical guns are inoperable and their display is limited to production sets,” according to a spokesman, Mark Botnick. “We are concerned with real guns that can be used to kill innocent people, not equipment used on production sets by actors,” he said.

 

The bill was passed rapidly: Mr. Cuomo, a longtime gun control supporter, was eager to move when public outrage was high, because, he said, that was the only way to get the Legislature to act on the issue. The Legislature moved so fast — the Senate approved the measure on its first day in session, and the Assembly on its second — that few lawmakers, and almost no one in the public, had time to read, digest or debate the details.

 

“There was no chance for anybody to weigh in — like, ‘Hey, you forgot to take this into account,’ ” said Tom J. O’Donnell, the president of the Theatrical Teamsters Local 817, which represents transportation workers, casting directors and commercial location managers.

 

Now industry workers are pleading for elected officials to take a second look. Mr. Washburn, the theatrical armorer, said he had already made two trips to Albany and had spoken to at least 20 lawmakers as well as aides to the governor.

Mr. Washburn, who recently finished filming “A Walk Among the Tombstones,” a movie starring Liam Neeson, at Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, said Albany lawmakers should not underestimate how quickly one of the state’s most prosperous industries could shrink.

 

“Our generators are on wheels, our carts are on wheels, our trucks are on wheels,” he said. “Everything is on wheels, and it goes where it’s wanted.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is too funny:

 

May 1, 2013
Film Studios Say New York Gun Law May Ban Props

 

By THOMAS KAPLAN

 

 

ALBANY — The sweeping gun control measure signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and hailed by Democratic leaders has a surprising critic: Hollywood.

 

Officials in the movie and television industry say the new laws could prevent them from using the lifelike assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that they have employed in shows like “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and films like “The Dark Knight Rises.”

 

Twenty-seven film and television projects, including programs like “Blue Bloods” and “Person of Interest,” are now in production in New York State using assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Industry workers say that they need to use real weapons for verisimilitude, that it would be impractical to try to manufacture fake weapons that could fire blanks, and that the entertainment industry should not be penalized accidentally by a law intended as a response to mass shootings.

 

“Weapons are part of our history as a culture as humans,” said Ryder Washburn, vice president of the Specialists Ltd., a leading supplier of firearms for productions that is based in Manhattan. “To tell stories, you need them.”

 

Mr. Cuomo has gone out of his way to promote the industry’s success; on Monday, he issued one news release to say the state was on track to break its record for the number of television pilots shot in a year, and another to say that “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” would begin production this week in Rochester. The governor has also enjoyed political support from Hollywood: his sole out-of-state fund-raiser as governor was held at the Los Angeles home of an HBO executive.

 

Industry officials, though, say the state’s hastily developed gun control measures pose an unexpected challenge to their growing production business in New York — the possibility that fake police officers on television could be treated as real-life criminals. “Without clarification that the use of prop guns is still permitted on sets, many of the dozens of productions currently shooting in New York could be forced to go elsewhere,” said Vans Stevenson, the senior vice president for state government affairs at the motion picture group, which is the powerful trade association of the movie business.

 

But some lawmakers, feeling stung by conservative and upstate voters over the gun control law, do not wish to vote on it again, even to make what the industry describes as a technical correction. Gun rights activists, who are challenging the new firearm restrictions in court, have mocked the idea of a so-called Hollywood exception.

 

“They’re saying, ‘Why are we being held to this standard when Hollywood is getting a pass, and they’re the ones who are promoting the violence?’ ” said Thomas H. King, the president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

The new laws expand New York’s ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and beginning next January, they will prohibit the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Movie industry lawyers who have reviewed the measure say they are concerned that the ban could apply to the magazines used in prop guns on dozens of productions in the state.

 

Firearms on film and television sets are modified to shoot blanks; in some cases, the barrels are blocked off. But the guns, in many cases, feature magazines with a capacity above 10 rounds, and industry officials worry that uncertainty over potential legal liability could be enough to drive studios to move their productions to other states.

 

Asked in February about the industry’s concerns, Mr. Cuomo expressed support for revising the law. “There’s no reason not to make a change like that to give an industry comfort,” he said at the time. But since then, as it has become clear that any changes to the gun law will be difficult to get through the Legislature, administration officials have begun arguing that the law will not affect film productions, and say they are no longer pursuing an amendment.

 

The New York Police Department already grants permits to allow the use of firearms in productions, and California offers an entertainment firearms permit. Mr. Stevenson, the motion picture association official, said he believed Mr. Cuomo and lawmakers could agree on a fix, “as their intention with this law was never to impact the use of props on set.”

 

But Republicans, in particular, are not eager to revisit the issue. The Republican leader in the State Senate, Dean G. Skelos of Long Island, said recently that he would oppose an exemption for movie productions. “I don’t believe they should be treated any differently,” Mr. Skelos said in an interview with The Buffalo News.

 

Entertainment is big business in New York, and both Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an independent, and Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, have courted and celebrated the film and television production industry. Film production in New York was responsible for more than 46,000 jobs in 2011, according to a study prepared for the motion picture association. The budget that the Legislature approved in late March included a provision to extend the industry’s tax credit, which was set to expire at the end of 2014, for another five years.

 

“You’d hate to lose a $100 million picture because there was a scene in it that required automatic weapons and we were unable to accommodate them,” said John Ford, the president of Local 52 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

Mr. Ford knows the issue firsthand — he once handled firearms on the set of “Goodfellas.”

 

“Say what you want about violence and guns and whatnot in the movies, but the fact of the matter is we don’t get to decide the content of the movies,” he said. “If there’s not a little wiggle room in there for us, then they’ll make the movies somewhere else. It’ll just cost us jobs.”

 

Some New Yorkers whose livelihoods depend on the film industry are worried that lawmakers are not taking the issue seriously enough, and are not comforted by general reassurances from politicians. Bohdan Bushell, a special effects coordinator at J & M Special Effects in Brooklyn, which supplies firearms for independent films and Broadway shows like “The Phantom of the Opera” and “Jersey Boys,” said any uncertainty could drive studios to move out of state.

 

“If a producer has to jump through more flaming hoops than they already do to shoot in this crazy city of ours, they’re going to go: ‘When is too many hoops? Is this the last one? Am I done now?’ ” Mr. Bushell said.

 

“California is hungry for our work,” he added. “The Southern states with huge tax incentives — Louisiana springs to mind — have very little problem with whatever form of firearm you’d like to carry around with you.”

 

Industry officials said they tried to warn Mr. Cuomo’s office, as it was drafting a gun control bill, that the legislation could affect the film and television production. They were joined by Mr. Bloomberg’s office, which says it told the governor’s office, before the gun measure was passed, that the movie and television industry was concerned.

 

Mr. Bloomberg has been a vocal critic of assault weapons, but was willing to accommodate the film industry because “almost all theatrical guns are inoperable and their display is limited to production sets,” according to a spokesman, Mark Botnick. “We are concerned with real guns that can be used to kill innocent people, not equipment used on production sets by actors,” he said.

 

The bill was passed rapidly: Mr. Cuomo, a longtime gun control supporter, was eager to move when public outrage was high, because, he said, that was the only way to get the Legislature to act on the issue. The Legislature moved so fast — the Senate approved the measure on its first day in session, and the Assembly on its second — that few lawmakers, and almost no one in the public, had time to read, digest or debate the details.

 

“There was no chance for anybody to weigh in — like, ‘Hey, you forgot to take this into account,’ ” said Tom J. O’Donnell, the president of the Theatrical Teamsters Local 817, which represents transportation workers, casting directors and commercial location managers.

 

Now industry workers are pleading for elected officials to take a second look. Mr. Washburn, the theatrical armorer, said he had already made two trips to Albany and had spoken to at least 20 lawmakers as well as aides to the governor.

Mr. Washburn, who recently finished filming “A Walk Among the Tombstones,” a movie starring Liam Neeson, at Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, said Albany lawmakers should not underestimate how quickly one of the state’s most prosperous industries could shrink.

 

“Our generators are on wheels, our carts are on wheels, our trucks are on wheels,” he said. “Everything is on wheels, and it goes where it’s wanted.”

 

GOOD! I hope every film and TV production pulls chocks and leaves. Fuck NY! I find it incredibly two-faced and hypocritical by mayor dumb-berg that on one hand he laments the ownership of assault weapons while on the other gleefully and actively promiting the very shows that glorify the violence that shows those weapons being used for evil.

 

Fuck him and limo he rode into town on. I hope the legislature blocks any amendment to change those rules to allow an exception for movies and TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case there is any question about just how extreme Bloomberg is, and what he would eventually like to see the whole country look like:

The owner of a Midtown tourist shop is firing back at Mayor Bloomberg’s crusade against toy guns, filing papers to block a $60,000 fine from the city for selling lighters shaped like small pistols.
“We don’t have the money,” said Fred Shayes, 49, who owns US Camera & Computer Inc. near Penn Station. “I would have to take a loan out from the bank to pay that.”
Shayes filed a petition in Manhattan Supreme Court to vacate the fine. At issue is a bronze-and-silver colored 3-inch butane lighter shaped like a gun with a black handle and a red tip that was selling for $10 until investigators slapped the store with a fine and yanked it off their shelves.
02.1n010.ToyGuns--300x300.jpg


Under city law, toy guns can’t be sold in the city unless they are bright green, blue, red or a neon color.
Toy guns are also supposed to have a legible stamp identifying the manufacturer or trade name.
Although the gun-shaped lighter can fit in the palm of a smoker’s hand, inspectors for the city’s Department of Consumer Affairs said in 2011 that the lighters could reasonably be confused with a real firearm, and hit Shayes with the fine.
“The day the inspector came, he said, ‘This is illegal,’ ” Shayes said. “I took it off the shelf right away. I sent it back, and I showed them the invoice that proved I returned it.”
He lost in a hearing at the Department of Consumer Affairs’ appeals board, and went to court.
Over the past seven years, city officials have seized more than 7,200 illegal toy guns from stores and levied $2.4 million in fines, officials said.
Retailer Party City paid a record $500,000 in fines for 800 violations of the city’s toy-gun law.
“Imitation guns that are not easily distinguishable from real weapons pose a real and significant danger to public safety,” a spokeswoman for the city’s law department said.
“Merchants who trade in this illegal merchandise must be held accountable.”
Shayes said the fine could put him out of business. He was fined $5,000 for each of the 12 lighters.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/smoking_gun_nets_fine_mULOkpw09uyrCdvzFwsFqL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Jeff echoes my sentiments to Mr. "Toughest gun laws in the country - I wanna be Prezzident" Cuomo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

oh looky,, his own people are leaving.

 

 

Gov staffers elect to quit

By FREDRIC U. DICKER

Last Updated: 4:04 AM, May 13, 2013

Posted: 1:26 AM, May 13, 2013

Disenchanted members of Gov. Cuomo’s administration, embarrassed by the worsening government scandals and convinced that Cuomo won’t be president, will soon leave their jobs — just as the governor is stepping up plans to run for re-election next year.

 

Several “significant departures’’ are expected in the coming months, sources told The Post.

 

“A lot of people are looking to get out. They’re tired and, frankly, it’s not the best place to work,’’ said a source with first-hand knowledge of the situation. “There’s a lot of abuse that’s involved in working for the governor, and more and more people are saying, ‘What do we need this for?’ ’’ the source continued.

 

An exodus, of sorts, has already begun.

 

Late last month, state Correctional Services Commissioner Brian Fischer, who oversees the prison system, quietly announced his plans to retire.

 

Earlier this month, Ellen Biben, executive director of the badly troubled, Cuomo-created Joint Commission on Public Ethics, surprised many by saying she would step down within weeks.

 

Governors traditionally tell their senior staffers after the end of their third legislative session to either move on or make a commitment to remain in their posts through a re-election campaign.

 

Three additional factors contributing to the planned departures are the stunning round of political scandals now unfolding involving nearly a dozen Democrats in the Legislature; Hilary Rodham Clinton’s emergence as the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016; and Cuomo’s failure to win pay raises for state commissioners and his senior staffers, many of whom are being paid at a rate set in 1999.

 

“The scandals have made it an embarrassment to work in Albany for many people working for the governor. Hillary’s status as the overwhelming favorite means Andrew won’t be taking anybody to Washington, and people are angry that the governor said they’re paid too little and didn’t do anything to change the situation,’’ according to one of the sources.

 

Cuomo’s increased use of public and Democratic State Committee funds on a media campaign promoting his agenda, his recent focus on “women’s rights’’ issues and his continuing delay in making a decision on hydrofracking for natural gas are widely seen in political circles as the early stages of his re-election campaign.

*

Key state Democrats are finding it hard to believe the breathtaking claim by disgraced former Sen. Shirley Huntley’s lawyer that Huntley provided federal investigators with information on supposed corruption involving Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who once served with Huntley in the Senate.

 

It’s not that they can’t imagine Schneiderman getting caught in a corruption scandal. It’s that they don’t believe Huntley would have that kind of knowledge about her onetime Senate colleague.

 

From the time Huntley became a senator in 2007 “she was looked at with suspicion, since she was so clearly a ‘transactional’ person looking to cash in,’’ said a source who has been close to Schneiderman and Huntley.

 

“She wasn’t the kind of person Eric [schneiderman] would have had anything to do with — and when Schneiderman became attorney general [in 2011], one of the first things he started doing was investigating Huntley,’’ the source said.

fredric.dicker@nypost.com



Read more: Gov. Cuomo facing a staff exodus as his presidential hopes fade and scandals hit - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gov_staffers_elect_to_quit_JqCtr1SYVYiGEFeOvz2ShN#ixzz2TC8oxyfz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

yea saw that couple days ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun nutter loads ten rounds into his magazine! The horror.


A Town of Lockport man who was a passenger during a traffic stop was charged when he turned over a loaded semiautomatic handgun in a holster from the glove compartment to an officer on Saturday. The gun was legal, but police say the 10 rounds of 9 mm ammunition found in the magazine were not, because they violated the state law that states it is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a magazine with more than seven rounds. Exemptions are authorized only for firing ranges or Olympic, collegiate or other sanctioned shooting competitions. Active-duty police officers are also exempt.

 

Paul A. Wojdan, 26, of Parkwood Drive, was charged with unlawful possession of an ammunition-feeding device and posted $250 bail. An arraignment is scheduled for today in City Court.

 

Lockport Police Chief Lawrence M. Eggert said this is the first time city police have made an arrest involving the New York SAFE Act and admitted they were getting compared to Nazis on social media.

 

“One of the comments said, ‘When are you going to start loading people into cattle cars?’ ” said Eggert.

 

But he said the department’s role is to enforce the law, whether it is popular or not.

 

“It’s on the books, and if we see it, we have to do something about it,” Eggert said.

 

That's not true. Police see people committing minor crimes and ignore it or issue a warning all the time.

 

The article doesn't say exactly how the officer came to learn of the naughty extra rounds, but it does say this:


New York State Police released a field guide for troopers in September regarding the law, which includes sections on magazines and definitions of an assault weapon.

 

The guide informs troopers they must have probable cause of criminal activity to inspect magazines: “If an officer has probable cause to believe that a particular magazine is unlawful, he or she may seize and inspect it. If there is founded suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may ask for consent to check the magazine. However, the mere existence of a magazine, which may or may not be legal, does not provide probable cause to believe that any law is being broken.”

 

In the State Police manual, it says that if a person produces a permit and there is no indication of unlawful conduct, an inspection is unnecessary, and troopers are told to secure the weapon temporarily for the duration of the stop and return it to the motorist at the conclusion of the encounter.

 

I wonder how that's supposed to work? "Secure the weapon" if it is a semiauto handgun means release the magazine and then cycle the gun to clear any round from the chamber. Unless you release the magazine onto the ground, which might piss off the gun nutter, you release it into your hand. If a magazine is in your hand, you might look and see how many rounds are in it. That's a search. Probable cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just a GD piece of paper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Well more good news is coming. Patience is a virtue etc. the "progressives" really fucked up in New York, they're about to 'ruin it' for the rest of the 'commies' errr country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well more good news is coming. Patience is a virtue etc. the "progressives" really fucked up in New York, they're about to 'ruin it' for the rest of the 'commies' errr country.

 

 

Oh? Do tell.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

You guys will find out in the middle of January. Fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 round magazines struck down on 2A grounds, most of the rest of the SAFE act survives in court.



[T]his Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. But, the seven-round limit fails the relevant test because the purported link between the ban and the State’s interest is tenuous, strained, and unsupported in the record.

Further, three aspects of the law — the “and if” clause of N.Y. Penal Law § 265.36, the references to muzzle “breaks” in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22)(a)(vi), and the regulation with respect to pistols that are “versions” of automatic weapons in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22)©(viii) — must be stricken because they do not adequately inform an ordinary person as to what conduct is prohibited.

Finally, because the SAFE Act’s requirement that all ammunition sales be conducted in-person does not unduly burden interstate commerce, it does not violate the Commerce Clause.

 

I have a feeling more people would see the problems with that last bit if someone tried to prohibit interstate sales of, say, printer ink.

 

"Whaddaya mean I can't order printer cartridges on Amazon any more???"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 round magazines struck down on 2A grounds, most of the rest of the SAFE act survives in court.

 

 

 

 

[T]his Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. But, the seven-round limit fails the relevant test because the purported link between the ban and the State’s interest is tenuous, strained, and unsupported in the record.

 

Further, three aspects of the law — the “and if” clause of N.Y. Penal Law § 265.36, the references to muzzle “breaks” in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22)(a)(vi), and the regulation with respect to pistols that are “versions” of automatic weapons in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22)©(viii) — must be stricken because they do not adequately inform an ordinary person as to what conduct is prohibited.

 

Finally, because the SAFE Act’s requirement that all ammunition sales be conducted in-person does not unduly burden interstate commerce, it does not violate the Commerce Clause.

 

I have a feeling more people would see the problems with that last bit if someone tried to prohibit interstate sales of, say, printer ink.

 

"Whaddaya mean I can't order printer cartridges on Amazon any more???"

 

Well, printer cartridges are protected by the 1st Am, so its ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We buy all our ammo online.

 

So I guess the NSA knows about it. :ph34r:

 

Maybe I should go the NY way and pay cash at local businesses. But I don't want to be forced to do it. Protecting in-state businesses from competition in other states is exactly the kind of thing the commerce clause was designed to prevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We buy all our ammo online.

 

So I guess the NSA knows about it. :ph34r:

 

Maybe I should go the NY way and pay cash at local businesses. But I don't want to be forced to do it. Protecting in-state businesses from competition in other states is exactly the kind of thing the commerce clause was designed to prevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We buy all our ammo online.

 

So I guess the NSA knows about it. :ph34r:

 

Maybe I should go the NY way and pay cash at local businesses. But I don't want to be forced to do it. Protecting in-state businesses from competition in other states is exactly the kind of thing the commerce clause was designed to prevent.

 

I would actually prefer to buy local. But too often, what I want, in the quantities I want/need them are not available locally or the price difference is exorbitant. So online is my only recourse. Next these states will make sure that local shops will be very limited in what they can sell. A defacto backdoor ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We buy all our ammo online.

 

So I guess the NSA knows about it. :ph34r:

 

Maybe I should go the NY way and pay cash at local businesses. But I don't want to be forced to do it. Protecting in-state businesses from competition in other states is exactly the kind of thing the commerce clause was designed to prevent.

 

I would actually prefer to buy local. But too often, what I want, in the quantities I want/need them are not available locally or the price difference is exorbitant. So online is my only recourse. Next these states will make sure that local shops will be very limited in what they can sell. A defacto backdoor ban.

 

or where they can sell it through zoning restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

You guys need to read the ruling by the judge. It reads like some of the moronic shit posted here. The clerk who wrote it quoted Mother Jones for Pete's sake. The Federal judge who ruled has also been nominated for a promotion to the Appeals court by Schumer and Cuomo. There's a lot going on there too.

 

Yes the ammo provision is an across-the-board back door ban - 10 dollars for a BGC for a 20 round box of .22? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys need to read the ruling by the judge. It reads like some of the moronic shit posted here. The clerk who wrote it quoted Mother Jones for Pete's sake. The Federal judge who ruled has also been nominated for a promotion to the Appeals court by Schumer and Cuomo. There's a lot going on there too.

 

Yes the ammo provision is an across-the-board back door ban - 10 dollars for a BGC for a 20 round box of .22? I don't think so.

 

Is there anything in the law regarding reloading? Just curious, as that would at least provide a way around the nonsense while this winds it's way through court. Of course, that won't help with .22, but for anything centerfire it could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Nothing - they're not that smart. They accepted that standard capacity magazines are common use items as well as assault rifles but they used intermediate scrutiny. They're supposed to follow the Supreme Court but didn't - this was a clerk's writing - some "smart" law student who sounded more like a Valley Girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the ammo provision is an across-the-board back door ban - 10 dollars for a BGC for a 20 round box of .22? I don't think so.

 

You have to pay for a background check everytime you want to go buy a box of ammo??? WTF?

 

I wonder how many of our liberal shit turds would be ok if the gov't mandated that you have to re-register for every county, state and national election and then charged money for each time you registered and voted so they could properly vet you to see if you're eligible to step in a voting booth each time?

 

Something tells me Andy Cuntmo & Chucky Schumer would have a coronary if anyone suggested that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes the ammo provision is an across-the-board back door ban - 10 dollars for a BGC for a 20 round box of .22? I don't think so.

You have to pay for a background check everytime you want to go buy a box of ammo??? WTF?

 

I wonder how many of our liberal shit turds would be ok if the gov't mandated that you have to re-register for every county, state and national election and then charged money for each time you registered and voted so they could properly vet you to see if you're eligible to step in a voting booth each time?

 

Something tells me Andy Cuntmo & Chucky Schumer would have a coronary if anyone suggested that.

 

Looks like it:

Ammunition dealers are required to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup. Ammunition background checks will begin January 15, 2014.

 

link

 

That is pretty insane, and seems would put a whole lot of people out of business, result in very few people actually selling ammunition, needlessly overwhelm the nics system, huge invasion of privacy, etc. etc.

 

It also seems like this would do approximately nothing to stop crime. The vast majority of ammo bought by individuals is bought by target shooters. Criminals and crazies don't buy ammo in any significantly different quantity which could be caught or flagged with a system like this.

 

I am really surprised that this was not the first thing tossed out by the courts. kmccabe, I hope you have a reloading setup going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also seems like this would do approximately nothing to stop crime. The vast majority of ammo bought by individuals is bought by target shooters. Criminals and crazies don't buy ammo in any significantly different quantity which could be caught or flagged with a system like this.

 

I am really surprised that this was not the first thing tossed out by the courts. kmccabe, I hope you have a reloading setup going.

 

Its shocking to me the libtard gun-grabbers don't get this. I don't think a gangbanger/drug dealer in NY is going to need a whole lot of ammo. Its not like they are going to the range to practice their drive-by shooting skills and on the occasion they do need to kill a rival gang member, a couple to the head usually suffice.

 

Even more incredible is this will do absolutely ZERO to stop the next sandy hook. ALL of the recent mass murderers who flipped out one day and went psycho legally purchased their guns and ammo. But I guess the politicians at least felt like they "did something".

 

And we wonder why the NRA political wing is so strident in their opposition to these types of "laws". I didn't support them (NRA-ILA)much before...... but I'm beginning to understand the logic now. I think a lifetime membership may be my new years resolution.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It also seems like this would do approximately nothing to stop crime. The vast majority of ammo bought by individuals is bought by target shooters. Criminals and crazies don't buy ammo in any significantly different quantity which could be caught or flagged with a system like this.

 

I am really surprised that this was not the first thing tossed out by the courts. kmccabe, I hope you have a reloading setup going.

 

Its shocking to me the libtard gun-grabbers don't get this. I don't think a gangbanger/drug dealer in NY is going to need a whole lot of ammo. Its not like they are going to the range to practice their drive-by shooting skills and on the occasion they do need to kill a rival gang member, a couple to the head usually suffice.

 

Even more incredible is this will do absolutely ZERO to stop the next sandy hook. ALL of the recent mass murderers who flipped out one day and went psycho legally purchased their guns and ammo. But I guess the politicians at least felt like they "did something".

 

And we wonder why the NRA political wing is so strident in their opposition to these types of "laws". I didn't support them (NRA-ILA)much before...... but I'm beginning to understand the logic now. I think a lifetime membership may be my new years resolution.....

 

That is how I came to the conclusion that the only thing to do is oppose every single thing that is proposed. If they happen to stumble onto a good idea and you agree with them, it is seen as a sign of weakness and the definition of reasonable quickly expands to include random rectal exams.

 

I am going to be taking the next few months to stock up on components, just in case. I have about a years supply on most items right now, but seeing as .22 ammo is still impossible to find in any quantity and has been for a year, and you can't find .30-30 projectiles anywhere right now and haven't been able to for 4 months, it might make sense to look at keeping 3 years of components on hand. It isn't like this stuff gets any cheaper anyway. I can reload .223 now for less per round than what it would cost me to buy .22LR.

 

One thing these ridiculous laws have accomplished is to make me far more cynical and distrustful of our politicians and the govt, which is really a shame. There are some important things that the govt can and should be doing, but I get the sense that it is hopeless to expect the bunch of dummies we keep electing to actually do the right thing. So in the absence of them being able to do the right thing, my preference is to have them do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It also seems like this would do approximately nothing to stop crime. The vast majority of ammo bought by individuals is bought by target shooters. Criminals and crazies don't buy ammo in any significantly different quantity which could be caught or flagged with a system like this.

 

I am really surprised that this was not the first thing tossed out by the courts. kmccabe, I hope you have a reloading setup going.

 

Its shocking to me the libtard gun-grabbers don't get this. I don't think a gangbanger/drug dealer in NY is going to need a whole lot of ammo. Its not like they are going to the range to practice their drive-by shooting skills and on the occasion they do need to kill a rival gang member, a couple to the head usually suffice.

 

Even more incredible is this will do absolutely ZERO to stop the next sandy hook. ALL of the recent mass murderers who flipped out one day and went psycho legally purchased their guns and ammo. But I guess the politicians at least felt like they "did something".

 

And we wonder why the NRA political wing is so strident in their opposition to these types of "laws". I didn't support them (NRA-ILA)much before...... but I'm beginning to understand the logic now. I think a lifetime membership may be my new years resolution.....

 

That is how I came to the conclusion that the only thing to do is oppose every single thing that is proposed. If they happen to stumble onto a good idea and you agree with them, it is seen as a sign of weakness and the definition of reasonable quickly expands to include random rectal exams.

 

I am going to be taking the next few months to stock up on components, just in case. I have about a years supply on most items right now, but seeing as .22 ammo is still impossible to find in any quantity and has been for a year, and you can't find .30-30 projectiles anywhere right now and haven't been able to for 4 months, it might make sense to look at keeping 3 years of components on hand. It isn't like this stuff gets any cheaper anyway. I can reload .223 now for less per round than what it would cost me to buy .22LR.

 

One thing these ridiculous laws have accomplished is to make me far more cynical and distrustful of our politicians and the govt, which is really a shame. There are some important things that the govt can and should be doing, but I get the sense that it is hopeless to expect the bunch of dummies we keep electing to actually do the right thing. So in the absence of them being able to do the right thing, my preference is to have them do nothing.

 

Yep..... I've been stocking up myself on components. I've probably got about 10K worth of "stuff" for most everything for my rifles, significantly less so for my handguns. I think I'm going to shoot for about 5x that if this silliness continues. I think the one thing I'm lacking the most is brass. I've got lots of bullets, powder, primers, etc but I need to factor in that if brass ever becomes scarce - I will need a lot more stockpiled. I don't keep a lot of brass on hand - because we reuse it. But it will become the limiting factor if the supply ever dries up. I probably have 200-300 pieces of .308 brass that I cycle through. Probably 500-700 of .223. I'm not currently reloading pistol, but that will likely change soon. I need to start picking up all the brass at the range I can get my hands on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yep..... I've been stocking up myself on components. I've probably got about 10K worth of "stuff" for most everything for my rifles, significantly less so for my handguns. I think I'm going to shoot for about 5x that if this silliness continues. I think the one thing I'm lacking the most is brass. I've got lots of bullets, powder, primers, etc but I need to factor in that if brass ever becomes scarce - I will need a lot more stockpiled. I don't keep a lot of brass on hand - because we reuse it. But it will become the limiting factor if the supply ever dries up. I probably have 200-300 pieces of .308 brass that I cycle through. Probably 500-700 of .223. I'm not currently reloading pistol, but that will likely change soon. I need to start picking up all the brass at the range I can get my hands on.

 

I have a couple thousand pieces of brass for each of .223, 9mm, .40, and .45 Plus around 500 or so of .243, .300wm, .30-30, 7mm Mag, 44 mag, 44 special, 38 special, .357, .222, and .30-06. Where I am short is the .50 Beowulf and the .338 RCM, where I only have a 100-200. There are no good sources for used brass in those calibers and I just need to suck it up and pay retail for new brass. I figure with those numbers, I can reload the same brass for the next couple decades before I have exceeded the life expectancy of all the brass. Still, when I can pick up some used brass cheap, I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Was wrong about the price of a background check - it's $20 at whatever price the dealer wishes to sell it to you.

 

Cuomo just fucked up royally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It also seems like this would do approximately nothing to stop crime. The vast majority of ammo bought by individuals is bought by target shooters. Criminals and crazies don't buy ammo in any significantly different quantity which could be caught or flagged with a system like this.

 

I am really surprised that this was not the first thing tossed out by the courts. kmccabe, I hope you have a reloading setup going.

 

Its shocking to me the libtard gun-grabbers don't get this. I don't think a gangbanger/drug dealer in NY is going to need a whole lot of ammo. Its not like they are going to the range to practice their drive-by shooting skills and on the occasion they do need to kill a rival gang member, a couple to the head usually suffice.

 

Even more incredible is this will do absolutely ZERO to stop the next sandy hook. ALL of the recent mass murderers who flipped out one day and went psycho legally purchased their guns and ammo. But I guess the politicians at least felt like they "did something".

 

And we wonder why the NRA political wing is so strident in their opposition to these types of "laws". I didn't support them (NRA-ILA)much before...... but I'm beginning to understand the logic now. I think a lifetime membership may be my new years resolution.....

 

That is how I came to the conclusion that the only thing to do is oppose every single thing that is proposed. If they happen to stumble onto a good idea and you agree with them, it is seen as a sign of weakness and the definition of reasonable quickly expands to include random rectal exams.

 

I am going to be taking the next few months to stock up on components, just in case. I have about a years supply on most items right now, but seeing as .22 ammo is still impossible to find in any quantity and has been for a year, and you can't find .30-30 projectiles anywhere right now and haven't been able to for 4 months, it might make sense to look at keeping 3 years of components on hand. It isn't like this stuff gets any cheaper anyway. I can reload .223 now for less per round than what it would cost me to buy .22LR.

 

One thing these ridiculous laws have accomplished is to make me far more cynical and distrustful of our politicians and the govt, which is really a shame. There are some important things that the govt can and should be doing, but I get the sense that it is hopeless to expect the bunch of dummies we keep electing to actually do the right thing. So in the absence of them being able to do the right thing, my preference is to have them do nothing.

 

Slight hijack - why do you think that .22 is in such short supply? Is it hoarders, manufacturers cutting back production, ?????? I can find .45, and shotshells a plenty (and plenty pricey) - but, no .22, and just don't understand why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Hoarders and people grabbing it when they can find it. Most of the fun stuff to shoot have the .22 conversion kits - so when their normal ammo gets pricey, they substitute. I know I have for the 5.56 and 7.62.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight hijack - why do you think that .22 is in such short supply? Is it hoarders, manufacturers cutting back production, ?????? I can find .45, and shotshells a plenty (and plenty pricey) - but, no .22, and just don't understand why.

 

There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there, but I think the answer is really a simple combination of circumstances. The ammo manufacturers, as well as everyone else in the firearms industry, were already running pretty much at capacity. If you are in a business with a regulatory environment that may wreck your market at any time, you aren't going to leave a lot of excess capacity for future growth, as all the money invested could be lost to the Feinteins and Cuomos of the world. Then the big push for more GC came along. Lots of people who had only occassionally considered buying a gun, suddenly thought they may not have a chance if they did not act right away. So a lot of people become new gun owners. I know one local business near me which sold more guns in 6 weeks than they had in the previous 18 months. A lot of those new guns were .22s, and the people who now have them want to shoot them. Add to that the general concern about shortages, or laws like what you see in NY spreading, and people also try to keep more on hand. I used to think having a year supply of components on hand was excessive, but now I am thinking it would be nice to have three times that on hand. That way I am