• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New York Gun Control

Checkmite said:
The permanent confiscation of someone's guns for medical or psychological reasons should involve a hearing of some type, yes. However, I would have no problem with the police securing the weapons pending the outcome of the hearing. I don't like to imply that a law-abiding citizen would do something like hide his guns or otherwise refuse to surrender them should a court rule against him; but it would be stupid to ignore the likely possibility of that happening.
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea that just any police officer could seize someone's property, especially one that the BoR says they can have, without a court order. It's not difficult once they receive the report from the mental health professional to immediately contact a judge, explain the circumstances, and get a signed order from a judge. 3-4 hours seems reasonable.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I think that the Californian decision makes it pretty clear.

"when a doctor determines, or should determine that a warning is essential to avert danger"

If the Doctor determines that there is a danger and a warning can avert it, he is legally bound to give that warning.
Click to expand...

Good, I'm glad that it cannot be just on the "gut feeling" or someone. We can agree on that.

PhantomWolf said:
^This. Would you consider it unconstitutional for the police to remove weapons from someone arrested for a violent crime?
Click to expand...

No, as they're arrested and have shown their willingness to commit a crime of violence. Usually this is a reason for denying someone access to firearms under current law. Since there is a good case of probable cause, and usually some evidence to go along with it, I don't think it would be anywhere close to unconstitutional.
 
lionking said:
As I've said before, the tide is turning. One day the US will be worthy of a place in the civilised world.
Click to expand...

Someday, the "civilized" world will generate a society worthy of emulating and joining,...oh, wait, according to immigration requests it has, the US.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Actually it's easy. Issue a licence to all gun holders, part of which is a background check, then only allow sales to those with licences. Set up a website where people can search to check valid licences (for example you have to put in both the number and the name on the licence and it returns basic information that should be on the licence like a name and photo and a valid until date.) This way you can check a person's licence almost instantly anywhere you are if you have a smartphone. Licence holders have an automatic background check every five years to retain their licence.

Then come down really, really heavily on people who fail to get one. See this is the thing about registration and licencing. If you have a gun and are in the system then the authorities know you are good and can safety ignore you. If you have one and aren't in the system, then they can crack down on you because you're likely to be the exact sort of person everyone should be worried about have guns.
Click to expand...

Like I said, over the top, unenforceable and something that the vast majority of Americans both those who own guns and those who don't would likely oppose and make difficult to pass in a nation where such unpopular legislative attempts have consequences.
 
Trakar said:
Someday, the "civilized" world will generate a society worthy of emulating and joining,...oh, wait, according to immigration requests it has, the US.
Click to expand...

The pattern I've noticed with lionking's posts is that the USA sucks and it should be more like Australia.

As for the law, leaving aside its merits (I think it's a POS, personally), there's something basically wrong when a law is passed before it's even available to the public to read over.
 
Polaris said:
The pattern I've noticed with lionking's posts is that the USA sucks and it should be more like Australia.

As for the law, leaving aside its merits (I think it's a POS, personally), there's something basically wrong when a law is passed before it's even available to the public to read over.
Click to expand...
Knee-jerk reaction laws are rarely going to be good ones.
 
WildCat said:
Knee-jerk reaction laws are rarely going to be good ones.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This goes beyond the issue, but about protocol. Politicians that don't allow the public to see the laws they'll have to abide by before they're passed have no business holding office in a representative democracy. They should be escorted out of their offices and thankful they're not given a swift kick down the steps outside.
 
Polaris said:
The pattern I've noticed with lionking's posts is that the USA sucks and it should be more like Australia.
Click to expand...

An especially bizarre dysfunction, given a comparison to Australia. Norway, Sweden, Holland, perhaps even Liechtenstein or Switzerland,...but Australia!? That's irony at best, and a close brush with oxymoronic at worst.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Actually it's easy. Issue a licence to all gun holders, part of which is a background check, then only allow sales to those with licences. Set up a website where people can search to check valid licences (for example you have to put in both the number and the name on the licence and it returns basic information that should be on the licence like a name and photo and a valid until date.) This way you can check a person's licence almost instantly anywhere you are if you have a smartphone. Licence holders have an automatic background check every five years to retain their licence.
Click to expand...
Better watch out, PW, you're in danger of being labeled as another crazy gun nut.
The crazy evil guys at he NRA have been trying to get somewhat similar laws ( not exact, but similar) passed through Congress for years, although they have not taken issue with sales, which already require a Form 4473.
The House finally passed HR 822 in 2012 and it is now headed to the Senate.
This is the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, which allows persons with valid Concealed Weapons Permits to use those permits in other states, much like a drivers license is now. Permit holders are already required to be fingerprinted, and pass a background check. A re-validation is periodically required. Excluded persons are not issued permits, and the record for permit holders is excellent.They are, on average, the most law abiding citizens in the country.
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/crim...n-law-abiding-americans-criminology-essay.php
Expansion to a card reader system for instant, real, time validation is both technically feasible, and economical.
Traditionally the NRA have voiced no objections (they backed HR822) as long as it isn't tied to firearms registration.
The people that have voiced the loudest objection, to this, and any similar legislation, have been liberals.
HuffingtonPost remarked,"According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the measure would allow states with tough requirements, such as New York and California, "to allow in concealed carry gun-toting people from states, such as Florida, which repeatedly have given dangerous people licenses to carry."

This overlooks that HR822 specifically requires foreign permit holders to comply with local laws, and makes the very misleading statement that Florida "repeatedly" issued "dangerous people" carry permits.
Florida, BTW, has issued over 1,800,000 permits with a overall revocation rate of .3%. Revocation is mandatory upon conviction of any violent crime and many non-violent ones ( including DUI, with a firearm in possession).
The Daily KOS recently entitled it as " U.S. open carry bill, HR 822, more of the same insane gun legislation"
They apparently object to the most law abiding class of people in the US, those most unlikely to abuse the right, to carrying firearms.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-822-more-of-the-same-insane-gun-legislation#
http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/concealed-weapons-guns/2011/04/26/id/394163
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...'re looking in the right direction, though.:)
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
Better watch out, PW, you're in danger of being labeled as another crazy gun nut.
Click to expand...

I'm not really pro, or anti-gun. I'm more anti-"nuts and idiots having guns", and I think that when by definition half the population are below average intelligence, having an near open slather policy on who can own weapons is generally a bad idea.

To me there is no issue with genuinely responsible people owning firearms, though I do think that there are some firearms that have little function in a civilised society beyond their military one, and as such there shouldn't be available to the general public. I can understand that some people may want them for collector's items, but they can always be deactivated for that purpose.

So the real issues for me are the illegal gun owners who need to be cleaned up and dealt with to the extent of the law, and those legal owners that are stupid and shouldn't be let near a sling-shot let alone a firearm.

Deal with those two groups by giving LEO's the tools to determine them from the good gun owners, and pushing LE to act on the laws to get the weapons off those two groups, and you'll probably find that not so many of the first group would feel the need to be carrying theirs around everywhere they go.
 
As one living in NY and a gun owner...I'm mostly pissed.

The mag rule does not exempt handguns. Of course, the law says that you can keep your 10rd mag, but you may not own or possess any mag that can potentially hold more than 10rds.

Congrats! You've just bricked nearly every Glock in NY...they all have mags that hold more than 10. A previously legal, common handgun in NY is now junk because you are not allowed to possess the standard magazine.

Now, there are parts I like:
- NICS check on all sales.
- Mental health reporting.
- Increased penalties for gun crime.
- Safe storage requirements.

But here's what kills me. The ammunition reporting. Per the Governor, this portion doesn't even take effect until 1/15/2014 because there's no system to regulate it as of yet. So between now and then, people are going to stockpile the living crap out of ammo. I understand why they want this, but it's still largely ineffective.

They want folks to register their "assault weapons". However, if you change the cosmetic properties that give it the dreaded AW designation, you do not have to register. That's just silly, as it's basically an admission that it's just how a gun looks and not how it operates.

Anyway, here's the FAQ that NY put on their website.
 
Last edited:
I hear about the Canadaian registration all the time and that it was a failure, but why? All vehicles in the US are registered, and its not a disaster. it cant be any more difficult for guns can it? it seems like vehicle laws are more strict than gun laws. You cant just start driving a car you need a certain amount of on the road experience first, you also have to learn the driving laws, get a physical including a vision test. to buy a gun you need a background check, NO proof of knowledge of laws, NO experience in use (like at a shooting range), NO vision test (or am i wrong, are there more requirements than a background check). A friend of mine used to own a '9mm carbine' (not sure what kind thats just what he called it). Hes legally blind, he can see but he has a large blind spot directly in front of him. When we play poker he has to hold his cards to the side of his face to see them. He listens to books on tape and uses a zoom program on his computer to magnify text because reading is so difficult. He cannot ever get a drivers licence but he can buy a gun. even if gun crime was one tenth what it is today and a mass shooting never happened, there should still be better requirements to own a gun.

Also what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon isnt always a cosmetic property, the ability to fire rifle grenades, or attach a silencer/flash supressor are more than cosmetic. Pistol grips and folding stocks i guess are cosmetic for the most part and seems to be a silly reason to classify something as an assualt weapon.

Anyway i found this link. its the NY sheriffs reaction to the law, they like certain parts and dont like certain parts and explain why.

files.thebatavian.com/pdfs/sheriffsSAFEact.pdf
 
SChrist82 said:
I hear about the Canadaian registration all the time and that it was a failure, but why? All vehicles in the US are registered, and its not a disaster. it cant be any more difficult for guns can it? it seems like vehicle laws are more strict than gun laws. You cant just start driving a car you need a certain amount of on the road experience first, you also have to learn the driving laws, get a physical including a vision test. to buy a gun you need a background check, NO proof of knowledge of laws, NO experience in use (like at a shooting range), NO vision test (or am i wrong, are there more requirements than a background check). A friend of mine used to own a '9mm carbine' (not sure what kind thats just what he called it). Hes legally blind, he can see but he has a large blind spot directly in front of him. When we play poker he has to hold his cards to the side of his face to see them. He listens to books on tape and uses a zoom program on his computer to magnify text because reading is so difficult. He cannot ever get a drivers licence but he can buy a gun. even if gun crime was one tenth what it is today and a mass shooting never happened, there should still be better requirements to own a gun.

Also what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon isnt always a cosmetic property, the ability to fire rifle grenades, or attach a silencer/flash supressor are more than cosmetic. Pistol grips and folding stocks i guess are cosmetic for the most part and seems to be a silly reason to classify something as an assualt weapon.

Anyway i found this link. its the NY sheriffs reaction to the law, they like certain parts and dont like certain parts and explain why.

files.thebatavian.com/pdfs/sheriffsSAFEact.pdf
Click to expand...

I don't know about other states, but here in NY, as part of getting a handgun permit, you must attend a safety and proficiency class. It doesn't apply to long guns, but if you are a hunter (which is why most folks here are going to have a long gun), you must attend a hunter safety course which covers safe handling, transport, and storage.

I don't have any issue with testing or classes to ensure gun owners are aware of safety. Heck, I'll even do you one better and say that gun owners should take periodic refresher classes. So I agree with what you're getting at.
 
Don't know if it's been posted here yet, but recently the Sheriffs of New York drafted what amounts to an RFC against the New York "SAFE" Act.

I'm not well versed in New York State politics, but this kind of action strikes me as... unusual.

A couple of the money quotes:

New York Sheriffs said:
Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.

[...]

The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.
Click to expand...

Personally I predict it will take the courts to un-cluster this bit of legislation, but one never knows.
 
It's not unheard of. Is there a reason you linked to Cattarauggus County? Just curious, but I know more than a bit about politics there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom