New York & gun control

[donnelly317]

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013


Most of its BS.. BUT for us with "assault weapons" once registered nothing says how many attachments u can have.. previous law said more than two attachments makes it illegal. So we can trick out our guns now.. but still invading our 2nd amendment. I will go to any big protest

 

[ZackDaniels]

And don't kid yourselves into thinking this will be isolated to NY....not a chance!

Oh I'm not. No doubt there will be something new in the fed world as a result of all this stuff. I just wanted to point out that so far the only thing official from the fed level is reassurance that there's no interest in taking everybody's guns. With a nod to a past record to show there hasn't ever been any interest and that's not about to change.

All Obama has said in a very blunt statement is that good suggestions from the task force that has been collecting views and ideas on this as to how to prevent future school shootings will be considered. There's no interest from his administration in gun laws for the sake of limiting gun use and ownership. He also sounds a bit annoyed that simply having a conversation on the subject in direct response to recent tragic events brings about such fierce and paranoid opposition before anything has even been formally suggested or proposed.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013


Most of its BS.. BUT for us with "assault weapons" once registered nothing says how many attachments u can have.. previous law said more than two attachments makes it illegal. So we can trick out our guns now.. but still invading our 2nd amendment. I will go to any big protest

Thanks for that. Reading it over when I have time.

 

[85 MAX-fan]

Oh I'm not. No doubt there will be something new in the fed world as a result of all this stuff. I just wanted to point out that so far the only thing official from the fed level is reassurance that there's no interest in taking everybody's guns. With a nod to a past record to show there hasn't ever been any interest and that's not about to change.

All Obama has said in a very blunt statement is that good suggestions from the task force that has been collecting views and ideas on this as to how to prevent future school shootings will be considered.
RRRiiigghht. I have some swamp land adjacent to the Cal-Sag channel I can sell you cheap if you believe this is anything other than a political dog and pony show. Do you need to "collect views" in response to the actions of a homicidal maniac that murdered children? Puleeze...

There's no interest from his administration in gun laws for the sake of limiting gun use and ownership. He also sounds a bit annoyed that simply having a conversation on the subject in direct response to recent tragic events brings about such fierce and paranoid opposition before anything has even been formally suggested or proposed.

Perhaps another BS display of emotion to deflect the fact that voters already know where he stands. He has a record of gun control support.



Thanks for that. Reading it over when I have time.

The only thing you need to notice is that all of the measures thrown out by the liberal (notice I didn't say republican or democrat) politicos would not have done a thing to prevent the last tragedy.

 

[85 MAX-fan]

Guns have absolutely nothing to do with the drive to commit these awful crimes, they're simply tools to accomplish them. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that ALL guns are removed....it's ridiculous, but assume it anyway. Has total removal of the guns done one single thing to change the mind set of one of the 'crazies?' Does he suddenly see everything in a nice soft blue light? Fuck no! He still wants to fulfill his mental mission.....so what are his choices? Well, there's a gas station right down the street, there's some nice stuff available there, he's got his Dad's pick-up truck he could take for a cruise thru the bus loading area when school lets out...........there's no end to the resources available to the motivated individual!

Right on the money once again Danny.

 

[ZackDaniels]

He has a record of gun control support.

That's just it. He doesn't have a history of gun control at all. I know everybody says he does, and blames his administration for whatever, but in his entire first term he and his administration did exactly 2 things related at all to guns.

He signed a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in national parks.
He invoked executive privilege to put a gag on the fast and furious scandal. Which is only loosely related to gun control if you follow a few conspiracy theories closely.

He's never shown interest in gun control, and he's made a statement that he's not about to change that. This is the same administration that didn't lift a finger to keep the assault weapons ban from expiring in the first place.

 

[srk468]

That's just it. He doesn't have a history of gun control at all. I know everybody says he does, and blames his administration for whatever, but in his entire first term he and his administration did exactly 2 things related at all to guns.

He signed a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in national parks.
He invoked executive privilege to put a gag on the fast and furious scandal. Which is only loosely related to gun control if you follow a few conspiracy theories closely.

He's never shown interest in gun control, and he's made a statement that he's not about to change that. This is the same administration that didn't lift a finger to keep the assault weapons ban from expiring in the first place.

Wrong on a couple things... He has a very antigun record as a senator from IL... He also wasn't in office when the original ban expired in 2004...

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[srk468]

I usually pretty much side with you Zack but if you can't see what's going on here then you really need to pay attention.. Obama is bringing a bunch of school kids on tv tomorrow when he announces his agenda for gun control, I wonder if he can choke up a few more fake tears from the outer edges of his eyes....

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[dannymax]

I usually pretty much side with you Zack but if you can't see what's going on here then you really need to pay attention.. Obama is bringing a bunch of school kids on tv tomorrow when he announces his agenda for gun control, I wonder if he can choke up a few more fake tears from the outer edges of his eyes....

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Oh man! The guy has no shame! Got lots of drama, lots of emotion, good opportunity to get a bunch of unpopular shit rammed thru....let that guy in NY get the ball rolling then strongarm the other states into following suit.....WHAT, there's people in the NJ, NY area that are still homeless from Hurricane Sandy???? Well, you knew I was just kidding about that cutting thru the red tape thing.....didn't you? :ummm:

 

[ZackDaniels]

I don't think any sweeping fed regs are going to result from this. No sense arguing about it now though. We'll see soon enough.

No offense but I hope you guys are wrong.

He also wasn't in office when the original ban expired in 2004...

You're right. Wasn't there a big debate on it while he was in office or am I just flat remembering it wrong? I thought there was a big todo about it in recent years... Was there a renewal proposed recently?

 

[85 MAX-fan]

That's just it. He doesn't have a history of gun control at all. I know everybody says he does, and blames his administration for whatever, but in his entire first term he and his administration did exactly 2 things related at all to guns.


He's never shown interest in gun control, and he's made a statement that he's not about to change that. This is the same administration that didn't lift a finger to keep the assault weapons ban from expiring in the first place.

? FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban ​

? Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, ?No, my writing wasn?t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.?
? Actually, Obama?s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
? 35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
? Obama?s campaign said, ?Sen. Obama didn?t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn?t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn?t reflect his views.?

? Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008 ​

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban ​

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that?s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let?s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004 ​

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions ​

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:

• Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
• Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
• Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

 

[98Redlne]

Obama is not going to announce any sweeping gun control changes tomorrow for a couple of reasons.

1) He does not have the support in congress for it. If he tried to suggest or get a bill passed and it gets massively shot down in congress then he loses face and the country sees him as not as not having the power he wants us to believe he has.

2) He will let the states and their legislators take the lead on this. Let those states like NY, IL, and CA be the high water mark for what they can get to fly. Other states can then be pressured to adopt similar statutes. Additionally if the federal government passes sweeping firearms legislation, the states can simply bypass it.....another loss for team Obama.

3) He would never come directly at the gun lobby, even throgh EO. He knows full well he does not have enough of the country supporting this agenda and does not want to encounter both the political backlash and potential civil unrest/disobedience of the general populous. For gun owners to willingly not comply with federal mandate or EO would show in bright neon letters that he does not have the power to take on this nation head on. This weakens his position and places him on very shaky political ground.

What we are likely to see is things that will be much more insidious and back handed.

1) He will tie mental health in with firearms ownership. While this sounds like a great idea, especially when you talk about keeping firearms out of the hands of the "crazies", it has some very unsavory but less talked about repercussions. Mental health evaluations are subjective at best. They are heavily biased on who is administering the test and what they "want" the outcome to be. Here is an example. You end up getting divorced or suffer the losss of a parent, child, close friend, etc... In an effort to deal with the grief, you enlist the help of a mental health professional or doctor. With these new EOs and the mental health industry tied to firearms, they are by law required to notify the sherrif that you have been seeking counseling or mental health assistance. That in turn triggers an immediate search of your premises and seizure of ALL of your firearms. BTW, your CCW permit also gets pulled. Getting your stuff back will require the signoff of a state approved or state employed psychologist. Oops, you failed again...sorry try back in another year. Sorry failed again.. the state now considers you too dangerous to own firearms.

2) Things like online sales of ammunition and weapons are likely to be outlawed. This makes it more difficult and expensive to "feed" your firearm.

3) Taxes on ammunition and firearms to help pay for these programs.

4) A new national background check system. Oh BTW, there will be a $50 per firearm fee, paid to the fed, to perform this check....oh yeah, one more thing, every firearm transfer....every single one now needs to be run through the system.

It is not going to be an outright attack. It will be an erosion of our rights, a little at a time. They move the line a little farther to the left each time. Once we get used to it's position they move it a little farther left. Pretty soon he has essentially nullified the Second Amendment by limiting what firearms the public can have to such an extent that those firearms are not a threat. Once the Second Amendment is gone, the rest will fall as well.

These are all things he can do without ever taking away anyones firearms or outlawing a particular weapon.

 

[dannymax]

I don't think any sweeping fed regs are going to result from this. No sense arguing about it now though. We'll see soon enough.

No offense but I hope you guys are wrong

I hope we're wrong too Zack. unk:

I don't see a ton of fed regs coming down....not as long as there's thirsty, hungry pols like our guv, willing to take point! But, yup....we're gonna find out pretty quickly.

 

[98Redlne]

Here is the first of it coming out of NYS:

...The proposed measures would extend Kendra's Law through 2017, expand outpatient treatment from six months to a year and require reviews before such treatment is allowed to expire.

New York's mental health professionals would also be governed by a new set of rules that would require them to report their patients to the state should the patients exhibit behavior suggesting they could be harmful to themselves or others.

"We're opening up an unprecedented window into what goes on in the therapy room," said Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum, director of the Division of Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.

 

[ouchez]

Obama is not going to announce any sweeping gun control changes tomorrow for a couple of reasons.

1) He does not have the support in congress for it. If he tried to suggest or get a bill passed and it gets massively shot down in congress then he loses face and the country sees him as not as not having the power he wants us to believe he has.

2) He will let the states and their legislators take the lead on this. Let those states like NY, IL, and CA be the high water mark for what they can get to fly. Other states can then be pressured to adopt similar statutes. Additionally if the federal government passes sweeping firearms legislation, the states can simply bypass it.....another loss for team Obama.

3) He would never come directly at the gun lobby, even throgh EO. He knows full well he does not have enough of the country supporting this agenda and does not want to encounter both the political backlash and potential civil unrest/disobedience of the general populous. For gun owners to willingly not comply with federal mandate or EO would show in bright neon letters that he does not have the power to take on this nation head on. This weakens his position and places him on very shaky political ground.

What we are likely to see is things that will be much more insidious and back handed.

1) He will tie mental health in with firearms ownership. While this sounds like a great idea, especially when you talk about keeping firearms out of the hands of the "crazies", it has some very unsavory but less talked about repercussions. Mental health evaluations are subjective at best. They are heavily biased on who is administering the test and what they "want" the outcome to be. Here is an example. You end up getting divorced or suffer the losss of a parent, child, close friend, etc... In an effort to deal with the grief, you enlist the help of a mental health professional or doctor. With these new EOs and the mental health industry tied to firearms, they are by law required to notify the sherrif that you have been seeking counseling or mental health assistance. That in turn triggers an immediate search of your premises and seizure of ALL of your firearms. BTW, your CCW permit also gets pulled. Getting your stuff back will require the signoff of a state approved or state employed psychologist. Oops, you failed again...sorry try back in another year. Sorry failed again.. the state now considers you too dangerous to own firearms.

2) Things like online sales of ammunition and weapons are likely to be outlawed. This makes it more difficult and expensive to "feed" your firearm.

3) Taxes on ammunition and firearms to help pay for these programs.

4) A new national background check system. Oh BTW, there will be a $50 per firearm fee, paid to the fed, to perform this check....oh yeah, one more thing, every firearm transfer....every single one now needs to be run through the system.

It is not going to be an outright attack. It will be an erosion of our rights, a little at a time. They move the line a little farther to the left each time. Once we get used to it's position they move it a little farther left. Pretty soon he has essentially nullified the Second Amendment by limiting what firearms the public can have to such an extent that those firearms are not a threat. Once the Second Amendment is gone, the rest will fall as well.

These are all things he can do without ever taking away anyones firearms or outlawing a particular weapon.

A tax when exercising your Rights to own a firearm,,,I don't think so, that would be the same as a poll tax, violates the Bill Of Rights.

O

 

[dannymax]

It is not going to be an outright attack. It will be an erosion of our rights, a little at a time. They move the line a little farther to the left each time. Once we get used to it's position they move it a little farther left. Pretty soon he has essentially nullified the Second Amendment by limiting what firearms the public can have to such an extent that those firearms are not a threat. Once the Second Amendment is gone, the rest will fall as well.

These are all things he can do without ever taking away anyones firearms or outlawing a particular weapon.

+1 This is exactly how it will be done!

 

[cgswss]

I'm guessing there will be some law suits re the 7 round limit. The phrase in the recent ruling "firearms commonly used for self defense..." Well most of those firearms come with Magazines that hold more then 7 rounds. (OK there are a lot of use that carry .45s and are OK with 7 rounds, but most of the plastic guns hold a whole lot more then that) On top of that , you can't get a Magazine for say a Glock 17 that holds 7 rounds.

Its to bad that the people that make the guns can't get together and simply refuse to sell to the state of New York. And refuse to service State owned guns. From the sound bits I heard on TV they are trying to drive the gun makers out of business, so why not fight back. Won't happen, but thats what they SHOULD do.

 

[Rollie]

Bo will bring out the children for his " victum disarmament program " today. Thanks N.Y. , for running interference for him.

 

[dannymax]

Bo will bring out the children for his " victum disarmament program " today. Thanks N.Y. , for running interference for him.

Yup, that's just exactly what he did....had 4 of them sitting there right next to him, talked a little about each one and quoted their letters to him.....kinda odd tho....he left out the black kids letter....maybe just an oversight but I bet it didn't make the kid fell very good. :ummm:

 

[ZackDaniels]

Yup, that's just exactly what he did....had 4 of them sitting there right next to him, talked a little about each one and quoted their letters to him.....kinda odd tho....he left out the black kids letter....maybe just an oversight but I bet it didn't make the kid fell very good. :ummm:

Obama is a racist. :rofl_200:

Now that the official Obama stuff is coming out I'm taking that and going to this thread with it. Leaving you New York bros to discuss your own legislation problems.

On the subject of New York's legislation I still think it's nuts to work around the cases where it's impossible to limit mags to 7 rounds by making it illegal to put an 8th round in it. I don't look forward at all to the first story that ends up with somebody in a bad situation, and facing fines/jailtime for firing an 8th shot that "should not have been loaded."

Seriously stupid shit from clueless legislators that are paid to know better.

 

[Rollie]

Bo is advancing his " class warfare " program on the country again by limiting the plain people / working class / middle class to how many rounds ( 10 ) , he thinks we need to protect our kids , while his kids , politicians kids and the hollywood elitist class kids will be protected by the professionals , private security companys , / military / secret service . I'm sure he will force them to only use 10 round mags like the rest of us.
That's what they do. It's in the liberals , socialists , marxists , communists playbook .