NY Has Tentative Deal on Gun Control...

[BaiHu]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html

Snippet:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders have a tentative deal to enact the nation's first gun control measure following last month's Connecticut school shooting, according to people familiar with the negotiations, further tightening gun laws in a state that already has among the nation's strictest.

The tentative agreement would further restrict New York's ban on assault weapons and limit the size of magazines to seven bullets, rather than the current 10. Other elements, pushed by Republicans, would refine a mental health law to make it easier to confine people determined to be a threat to themselves or others.

Senate Republicans also have included a further crackdown on illegal gun trafficking into New York, the people said. Most New York City gun crimes involve weapons illegally brought into the state, state and city officials say.

[jon volk]

I just felt a little nauseous reading that. Too close for comfort being in CT as well.

[ford.304]

Glad to know that politicians of all parties can come together to stomp on our civil liberties. Make it easier to imprison the politically inconvenient and harder to defend yourself in one stroke!

[BaiHu]

Luckily, this criminal was smart enough to commit a crime with a 6 shooter, so he won't go to extra prison with a side order of mean jail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262210/Gunman-caught-camera-shot-Bronx-taxi-driver.html

[JeffJ]

Will the 7 round magazine restiriction apply to all of the illegally trafficked guns that are acualy used in crimes as well?

If it wasn't so pathetic, the disconnect would be funny -- Crimes are being performed with guns that are already here illegally, lets make more restictions of guns that are here legally and that will solve the problem.

Also, who wants to bet that some anti-gun legislator has one of the unobotanium NY carry permits and carries a commander sized 1911?

[TCinVA]

Seven rounds versus ten.

If there's a better illustration of just how completely divorced from anything approaching reality this business is, I don't know what it could be. The idea that three less bullets in a magazine makes even a tiny bloody iota of difference is too stupid for anyone to actually believe.

This is the new politics at its most bare: clueless politicians busy negotiating restrictions on your rights just because they can.

[Kyle Reese]

With the risk of sounding like I'm engaging in schadenfreude, I hope that this will wake up some of the hunters and shotgunners who previously thought that they would be spared from any odious legislation impacting their little slice of the shooting world.

[TGS]

If there's a better illustration of just how completely divorced from anything approaching reality this business is, I don't know what it could be.

I'm sitting here trying to pinch myself and wake up, and it's not working.

There really can't be any greater example of what the left actually wants through incremental measures played off as "reasonable" and "common sense."

[LOKNLOD]

I would be interested to hear what reason is given upon asking the question "Why 7 rounds?"

I wouldn't expect anything that made sense, I'd just really be interested to hear it.

[RoyGBiv]

I would be interested to hear what reason is given upon asking the question "Why 7 rounds?"

I wouldn't expect anything that made sense, I'd just really be interested to hear it.

I'm betting on Jeff being correct..


Also, who wants to bet that some anti-gun legislator has one of the unobotanium NY carry permits and carries a commander sized 1911?

[texasaggie2005]

"Why 7 rounds?"

To make 8rd 1911 mags illegal?

[Suvorov]

I would be interested to hear what reason is given upon asking the question "Why 7 rounds?"

I wouldn't expect anything that made sense, I'd just really be interested to hear it.

To make the greatest battle implement ever devised, the M1 Garand, illegal. The anti's pulled the DiFi technique and compiled a list of guns that scared them and that they didn't think citizens should have, and then figured out how to ban them.

And yes, this an excellent example of the slippery slope argument.

[Kyle Reese]

This would also ban lever action rifles with 8+ round tubes, no?

[G60]

I haven't read text of NY proposal, but CA magazine law exempts:

"(b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action
firearm."

[TGS]

I would be interested to hear what reason is given upon asking the question "Why 7 rounds?"

I wouldn't expect anything that made sense, I'd just really be interested to hear it.

Reason? Ha! No reason is needed when the psychological principles of contrast and association are combined in order to accomplish the left's ultimate goal.

Here's an example of association by negative connotation that I addressed with someone last week:

Anti: "There's no reason for people to own these rifles shooting high velocity bullets used to kill children."

Me: "Oh, here's the "war of the words" that AmidstheNoise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg) was talking about. Can you tell me why "high velocity" is so evil and unnecessary that you lumped it in there with killing children?"

The conversation went on to me explaining how math doesn't kill people, wound tracts do.....and that his use of "high velocity" to denote "more deader children" was completely uninformed and simply a way to create a negative connotation by associating it with killing children. The same principle of association is active in all walks of life, and decision makers know this. This is why you'll see a spike in revenue if you label something as being on sale, even though there's no actual price savings1. People will automatically associate the product on sale with "more good for me", without any actual supporting evidence of such. Ditto when you have a bunch of hot chicks act giddy with each other while marketing a product. (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?6237-Liquipel-Anyone-tried-it&p=108571&viewfull=1#post108571)

Now, we jump to the contrast principle and our human way of reasoning what is reasonable (oh, sound familiar?). I'm sure most every American, the contrast principle is most evident in gas prices. When gas is usually $3.73 per gallon (god help you Californians way over $4), and when we see gas at $3.51 a gallon we go nuts as a society. Suddenly everyone is backing up the lines, filling up spare gas cans, whatever they can to take advantage of the $3.51 gallon of gas as if god had intervened and showered us with the fruits and rewards of fervor and hard work. In reality, the whole thing is completely manufactured by a company. They only raised it to $3.73 just long enough to get you adjusted, so you would think $3.51 is awesome. Next time the regular price will be $3.81, and the cheap gas will come in around $3.60. A vicious cycle it is, the contrast principle. So, 30 round mags are unreasonable today, but 10 round mags are okay. Now, using the contrast principle of 7 rounds vs 10 vs 30, and associating anything over 7 round mags with killing children, people are led to believe that 7 round mags are "reasonable" and "common sense" measures.....because hey, common sense dictates that anything "high capacity" is for killing kids, and 7 is only 3 less than 10......so that's reasonable, right?

Unfortunately, so many people today are not able to recognize these biases and act on impulse. If we really wanted to succeed in education and cultivating a society that could overcome this hurdle (and ultimately be more free and able to secure liberty, as noted by our founders), we'd be teaching our kids to incorporate "circuit breakers" into their decision making process; the ability to deliberately interrupt automatic, tacit cognitive processes2. Basically, the mental judo version of Todd's "hard break" when coming off target, and using the scientific method within their decision making process. Ah, look at that! Who knew that Pistol-forum.com and taking firearms courses from Todd was also a brain workout that negates the need for luminosity.com?


1. Cialdini, Robert B. 2009. Influence: Science and Practice. 5th Ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. pp 163.

2. Bennett, Michael and Edward Waltz. 2007. Counterdeception: Principles and Applications for National Security. Norwood, MA: Artech House, Inc. pp 209.

[Dave J]

I haven't read text of NY proposal, but CA magazine law exempts:

"(b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action
firearm."

I'd wager that Feinstein considers those as "loopholes" to be addressed at the first possible opportunity.

[JHC]

I would be interested to hear what reason is given upon asking the question "Why 7 rounds?"

I wouldn't expect anything that made sense, I'd just really be interested to hear it.

Somebody wanted to "grandfather" the 1911? Unaware 8 rounders are almost standard.

[Zhurdan]

For Anti's to consider 7 dead vs. 10 dead vs. 30 dead is completely idiotic and shows a flaw in their argument. Why? Because of all the "if it saves just one child" bullcrap they're always using to the same effect. Next time someone says they are amenable to compromise for the "sake of the children", ask them where there compassion is and why they don't support an all out ban. Their only response can be "because the American people wouldn't support it". Therefore, you know they are not American and should be allowed to kick 'em in the sack.

The simple fact that "American's won't support it" is exactly why these so called compromises are ridiculous. It's also why I can't order 1k rounds for a class I wanted to take this summer. Grrr.

[Robert Mitchum]

..................................

[Spr1]

Why 7??
Simple. It is less than 10.
The 2A was intended to create parity with the government. All of these laws are intended to degrade parity.

[Kevin B.]

I guess it's good that:

a) I don't go to NY very often.
b) I still have the J-frame that is listed on my permit.

[JRCHolsters]

I guess I got out of that hell-hole just in time. :)

[G60]

More details here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120400946/Cuomo-gun-bill-fact-sheet


And it's passed the Senate, which has a Republican majority.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=8953877

[YVK]

By 2016 it will show to have absolutely no impact on firearms-involved violence in NYS. Combined with Cuomo's statement that he wouldn't exclude confiscation, this should be used to stop any presidential aspirations in their tracks.

[SeriousStudent]

I predict an increase in the number of U-haul trucks rented in New York, and dropped off in Texas.

"Give us your exasperated, your educated, your skilled workers, yearning to breath free...."

I should just post signs at the state line. Sigh.

[Shellback]

Video of the session


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzic0awEBfY&sns=em

Senator Ball at 45:20 speaks out against it and the lady following him is pro-2nd as well. I believe those are the only 2 who spoke out against this.

[fixer]

From the article:


"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. "And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.

Well then we have nothing to worry about.

[TCinVA]

...that someone can consider not having confiscation happen a victory is appalling...and is a pretty good example of why you don't negotiate with terrorists.

When someone starts from the premise that they get to kill you, it's bloody absurd to negotiate them down to cutting off your leg and calling that a win.

[SteveK]

Some Cuomo is gonna be the next Stalin. It hard to start somewhere.

[BaiHu]

Amusing sideshow to the Journal News map fiasco:

http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/video-jeanine-pirro-goes-nuclear-on-journal-news-cowards/

[TCinVA]

At least one industry type has announced that his company will no longer sell to any law enforcement in NY state.

I think it would be splendid if everyone else in the industry did the same. No more guns, parts, ammo, holsters, nothing for NY law enforcement.

It's either take some sort of stand now or wait around and watch politicians negotiate on whether the ban should hit only double barrels or include single shots, too.

At some point you have to draw a line. Politicians may not believe in the purpose of the second, but the folks in the industry sure as hell should and this is an ideal opportunity for them to play a little good for the goose, good for the gander to illustrate it.

[JV_]

At least one industry type has announced that his company will no longer sell to any law enforcement in NY state. Who?

[TCinVA]

Who?

Owner of oldgrouch.com.

[guymontag]

Video of the session

Senator Ball at 45:20 speaks out against it and the lady following him is pro-2nd as well. I believe those are the only 2 who spoke out against this.

Disarming and criminalizing their law abiding, tax paying citizens, after pledging allegiance in the presence of the cadet squadron of the color guard. How American.

I congratulate Senator Ball and Senator Marchione for speaking for their conscience or their constituency.



At some point you have to draw a line. Politicians may not believe in the purpose of the second, but the folks in the industry sure as hell should and this is an ideal opportunity for them to play a little good for the goose, good for the gander to illustrate it.

"We, must, indeed, all hang together..."

[YVK]

At least one industry type has announced that his company will no longer sell to any law enforcement in NY state.

I think it would be splendid if everyone else in the industry did the same. No more guns, parts, ammo, holsters, nothing for NY law enforcement.

It's either take some sort of stand now or wait around and watch politicians negotiate on whether the ban should hit only double barrels or include single shots, too.

At some point you have to draw a line. Politicians may not believe in the purpose of the second, but the folks in the industry sure as hell should and this is an ideal opportunity for them to play a little good for the goose, good for the gander to illustrate it.

They are all at SHOT now, what better opportunity to get together and take a unified stance.

[orionz06]

At least one industry type has announced that his company will no longer sell to any law enforcement in NY state.

I think it would be splendid if everyone else in the industry did the same. No more guns, parts, ammo, holsters, nothing for NY law enforcement.

It's either take some sort of stand now or wait around and watch politicians negotiate on whether the ban should hit only double barrels or include single shots, too.

At some point you have to draw a line. Politicians may not believe in the purpose of the second, but the folks in the industry sure as hell should and this is an ideal opportunity for them to play a little good for the goose, good for the gander to illustrate it.

If it were that simple I'd do it. For the small volume I do I am not sure how to restrict it, even at any volume.

[RoyGBiv]

If it were that simple I'd do it. For the small volume I do I am not sure how to restrict it, even at any volume.

Refuse shipment to any NY address ??

[MEH]

Refuse shipment to any NY address ??

That hits everyone in NY, not just law enforcement.

If it involves things like holsters that are not affected by this law why not sell?

If it involves restricted items then I agree. Refuse shipment to any NY address.

[RoyGBiv]

Why would you want to single out only LE?
"LEgislators", ok.. but why LE?
If NY legislators want a gun ban, let's give it to them.
Elections have consequences.

[MEH]

Why would you want to single out only LE?

Because TC's original statement singled out LE.

[joshs]

Why would you want to single out only LE?

Because exempting LE is how legislators are often able to garner LE support for such bans. If they are effectively not exempt, they will be less likely to support the ban.

[RoyGBiv]

Because TC's original statement singled out LE.

Yeah... My Constitution isn't right this morning... Sorry.

[G60]

Why would you want to single out only LE?
"LEgislators", ok.. but why LE?
If NY legislators want a gun ban, let's give it to them.
Elections have consequences.

"Elections have consequences."

Did you miss the part where this passed a Republican majority Senate who decided to sell us out?

Who were/are they supposed to elect?

LE unions are the reasons so many anti-gun laws pass in the first place.

[RoyGBiv]

"Elections have consequences."

Did you miss the part where this passed a Republican majority Senate who decided to sell us out?

Who were/are they supposed to elect?
Real Republicans? People with integrity?
Was that a rhetorical question?

I'm still looking for some comments (video or text) from NY Congressional Republicans that voted in favor of this legislation.
I'd like to know what justification they're giving.
Anyone got anything?

[TCinVA]

Because exempting LE is how legislators are often able to garner LE support for such bans. If they are effectively not exempt, they will be less likely to support the ban.

Bing-o.

Exceptions for privileged classes need to be done away with.

Cops need guns...no question. But so do the rest of us.

Companies who make a significant chunk (if not the majority) of their revenue from sales to civilians need to grasp the business case for not providing just to the anointed.

[TCinVA]

If it were that simple I'd do it. For the small volume I do I am not sure how to restrict it, even at any volume.

.gov purchases are typically required to happen via contract. Easier to control that way than by onesy-twosy orders by individuals.

[orionz06]

I don't suspect I will get a contract from NY for what I make but I have had contracts. Again, my low volume relative makes anything I do almost superficial. Still a risk in some ways.

[WobblyPossum]

Time to start looking for work in Texas. I think this camel's back just broke.

[Tamara]

Seven rounds versus ten.

If there's a better illustration of just how completely divorced from anything approaching reality this business is, I don't know what it could be. The idea that three less bullets in a magazine makes even a tiny bloody iota of difference is too stupid for anyone to actually believe.

Well, dude, they had a ten-round limit already and it wasn't working.

I mean, if you had a 25mph speed limit on your street, and high-school kids kept drag racing past your house at three AM, then the obvious solution would be to reduce the speed limit to 15mph and then set a cop out there at 6PM and catch anybody speeding home from work, right?

[LOKNLOD]

Well, dude, they had a ten-round limit already and it wasn't working.

I mean, if you had a 25mph speed limit on your street, and high-school kids kept drag racing past your house at three AM, then the obvious solution would be to reduce the speed limit to 15mph and then set a cop out there at 6PM and catch anybody speeding home from work, right?

Tam,
You win the internet today! I'd mail you a prize, but apparently everything of value is backordered. :p

[Kyle Reese]

Well, dude, they had a ten-round limit already and it wasn't working.

I mean, if you had a 25mph speed limit on your street, and high-school kids kept drag racing past your house at three AM, then the obvious solution would be to reduce the speed limit to 15mph and then set a cop out there at 6PM and catch anybody speeding home from work, right?

JV & I were listening to the Chris Plante show last Friday, and there was an anti-gun type on blathering about how we would reduce deaths on the road by lowering the speed limit. He was serious. :rolleyes:

[YVK]

Because exempting LE is how legislators are often able to garner LE support for such bans. If they are effectively not exempt, they will be less likely to support the ban.

Allegedly, during the broadcast from NYS Assembly debate it was revealed that adjustable stock and thumbhole stock restrictions were made upon recommendation from state police.
Yes, absolutely, NYS LE agencies should be subjected to the same restrictions.

[Shellback]

JV & I were listening to the Chris Plante show last Friday, and there was an anti-gun type on blathering about how we would reduce deaths on the road by lowering the speed limit. He was serious. :rolleyes:

Montana would prove otherwise (http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox). ;)

The study shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.

[Shellback]

Obama will surround himself with children (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2518621) for his announcements.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced this afternoon that President Obama will unveil a “concrete package” of gun control proposals including assault weapons bans, high capacity ammunition magazine bans, and closing loopholes on background checks.

Carney said that the president will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as children who wrote to the president after the Newtown shootings.



ETA - Video of remarks here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4302950

[orionz06]

JV & I were listening to the Chris Plante show last Friday, and there was an anti-gun type on blathering about how we would reduce deaths on the road by lowering the speed limit. He was serious. :rolleyes:

Ironically cyclists, generally liberals, propose education as they understand speed limits mean nothing. Unfortunately this moment of logic is brief.

[JPNIII]

I think we should ban cars and trucks. They kill more people each year than guns any way.;)

[tremiles]

This is how it's going to happen. State level anti-2A restrictions. Spread the resources of the pro-2A lobbying groups so thin that we just can't win. Think Texas, Florida, and other traditional 2A states are immune? Look at the voting map from the presidential election. Population centers (cities) control the state. Don't forget about your state representatives and Governor when writing your letters.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2

[Shellback]

Cuomo signed it into law. http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/01/15/new-york-assembly-passes-sweeping-gun-control-package/

[Cool Breeze]

I just moved to NY from Virginia...it is awful here. I can't do anything...now there is no hope.

[Shellback]

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

[RoyGBiv]

Owner of oldgrouch.com.

Adding to this list...

http://www.extremefirepower.com/policies.html

Government Sales

The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. Law-enforcement agencies are typically exempt from these restrictions. EFI, LLC does not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to local, state, and federal gun control laws. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction.

California
EFI, LLC has registered with the DoJ CFLC program and we will sell any product that we legally can to the public. We will not, under any circumstances, sell any of our products to law-enforcement or state agencies until the California legislature repeals the gun control laws that have been enacted, as these entities have lobbied in favor of statewide gun bans.

EFI, LLC will not sell anything to the following local government agencies until their gun bans have been repealed:
City of Chicago, Illinois
New York City
Washington, DC

All products that we manufacture are available to our military customers.

And... It'll be interesting to see if Barrett (http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=32172)extends their "no CA sale" policy to NY.

[JRL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rRSUEaLKvA&feature=youtu.be

The senator from New York doesn't seem too happy about it at least...

[Le Français]

I think it would be splendid if everyone else in the industry did the same. No more guns, parts, ammo, holsters, nothing for NY law enforcement.


The way I see it, this idea amounts to putting people's lives at risk to further a political agenda. Isn't that what we vilify the "other side" for doing?

[Chemsoldier]

Adding to this list...

http://www.extremefirepower.com/policies.html


And... It'll be interesting to see if Barrett (http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=32172)extends their "no CA sale" policy to NY.

This looks like an old policy, not selling to NYC. If it was new wouldn't it be the whole state?

[Cool Breeze]

Adding to this list...

http://www.extremefirepower.com/policies.html


And... It'll be interesting to see if Barrett (http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=32172)extends their "no CA sale" policy to NY.

this is awesome!

[TGS]

http://www.nysenate.gov/webform/stand-second-amendment-standing-new-york-state-senator-kathleen-marchione

Consider signing this Senator's petition. I'm not from NY but it accepted my submission, so I'm guessing we non-New Yorkers still count.

[SecondsCount]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rRSUEaLKvA&feature=youtu.be

The senator from New York doesn't seem too happy about it at least...

Well said.

[Cool Breeze]

http://www.nysenate.gov/webform/stand-second-amendment-standing-new-york-state-senator-kathleen-marchione

Consider signing this Senator's petition. I'm not from NY but it accepted my submission, so I'm guessing we non-New Yorkers still count.

Just did thanks!!!

[Slavex]

would be nice to see someone going around SHOT getting vendors to sign on to a self imposed ban on all sales to LE in NY.

[Tamara]

The way I see it, this idea amounts to putting people's lives at risk to further a political agenda. Isn't that what we vilify the "other side" for doing?

I don't see that defending an enumerated right in the Constitution is just another "political agenda". At this point, I'd no sooner sell a Bushmaster to a NY police department than I'd sell a Belgian Malinois to Bull Connor.

[Chemsoldier]

The way I see it, this idea amounts to putting people's lives at risk to further a political agenda. Isn't that what we vilify the "other side" for doing?

Its about making it uncomfortable for them.

Gun owners are upset because the NY law will impact them every day for some hypothetical risk.

I just want vendors to make frequent discomfort for people who are not impacted by the ban (LE for example).

In the end, there are enough LE only vendors that they will get their equipment. No one is hurting anything. But the LEAs should need to work new contacts and vendors and pay more money for gear.

I was talking with an Australian friend of mine, in some ways the NY ban is more stringent than the gun laws in Oz. At least they can have 10 rounders! No background check for ammo there either, you just show your firearms owner credentials and buy your ammo.

[JConn]

I see this as a ban on most firearms. Unless many other states impose 7 round bans, it will not make financial sense for companies like Glock, smith and Wesson, or h and k to make 7 round magazines. And since buying 10 rounders is illegal you can't buy them and modify them. So in essence they have just outlawed the vast majority of handguns, and rifles. Good job new York. Way to screw yourself. I hope its seen like this in court.

[Tamara]

I see this as a ban on most firearms. Unless many other states impose 7 round bans, it will not make financial sense for companies like Glock, smith and Wesson, or h and k to make 7 round magazines. And since buying 10 rounders is illegal you can't buy them and modify them.

Manufacturers aren't going to tool up to start date-coding 10-rounders just for the sake of NY sales, either, so this is going to be completely unenforceable. (Or spottily and arbitrarily enforced.)

[TCinVA]

(Or spottily and arbitrarily enforced.)

Now you're getting it.

David Gregory types won't be prosecuted because they know people.

Average Joe? Prosecutors who make deals with murderers and baby rapers will practically piss themselves with joy at the prospect of crucifying a dude who has a 10 round magazine.

NY's gun laws have always been about keeping guns out of the hands of the undesirables...with the undesirables being defined by the preferences of the anointed.

[Chuck Haggard]

The way I see it, this idea amounts to putting people's lives at risk to further a political agenda. Isn't that what we vilify the "other side" for doing?

This falls into the "You made your bed...." catagory in my book.

I was a cop in the days of six shot revolvers and four shot 870s, let them deal with that reality again.

[Kyle Reese]

Now you're getting it.

David Gregory types won't be prosecuted because they know people.

Average Joe? Prosecutors who make deals with murderers and baby rapers will practically piss themselves with joy at the prospect of crucifying a dude who has a 10 round magazine.

NY's gun laws have always been about keeping guns out of the hands of the undesirables...with the undesirables being defined by the preferences of the anointed.

See the Sullivan Act.....

[peterb]

I see this as a ban on most firearms. Unless many other states impose 7 round bans, it will not make financial sense for companies like Glock, smith and Wesson, or h and k to make 7 round magazines.

Depends how tightly it's defined. If you can satisfy the law with a different follower or floorplate, somebody's going to tool up and do it. If it takes a more permanent modification, somebody will figure that out too. It's a business opportunity.

[Tamara]

Now you're getting it.

David Gregory types won't be prosecuted because they know people.

Average Joe?

No, it's not even a David Gregory/Average Joe thing.

For example, automatic knives are currently illegal in Indiana. For anybody, cops included. (Urge your representatives to vote "Yes" on SB 181, fellow Hoosiers!)

No lawyer I know has seen a case where someone was prosecuted solely for having an automatic knife in their possession, and certainly not a sober white taxpayer with current plates and no priors. *wink,wink,nudge,nudge* Sullivan Act, indeed. All those minorities and undesirables can't be allowed to run around being all minority-ish and undesirable.

Laws like this become tools to pile on for prosecutors: That dirtbag may skate on the (dope/domestic assault/DUI/whatever), but he sure as hell had a ten round mag and can he prove he bought it before 1/13?

Similarly, I am not aware of anybody prosecuted between '94 and '04 solely for having a flash hider instead of a muzzle brake on their AR.

[JConn]

Depends how tightly it's defined. If you can satisfy the law with a different follower or floorplate, somebody's going to tool up and do it. If it takes a more permanent modification, somebody will figure that out too. It's a business opportunity.

But you can't buy the 10 rounders to begin with so you can have them converted.

[joshs]

But you can't buy the 10 rounders to begin with so you can have them converted.

New York cannot control what you do in the 49 other states. Just build the mags out of state, then bring the newly converted seven round mags into New York.

[JConn]

What if it follows the rule of automatic weapons. Once a ten round mag always a ten round mag. We wouldn't want anyone converting them back to dangerous 10 rounders now do we.

[BaiHu]

Having no engineering background, I have heard/seen issues with trying to turn a gun that was intended to have 10, 15, 17 rounds into a 7, 10, 12 rounder.

Am I mistaken??

I know there is the 'economic opportunity', but think about how much loss of productivity people, companies, law enforcement, etc will see due to such a poorly crafted piece of legislation. Obviously, they don't care, I'm just being rhetorical.

[Kyle Reese]

Obviously, they don't care, I'm just being rhetorical.

Hey! If it saves one life......:rolleyes:

[BaiHu]

Hey! If it saves one life......:rolleyes:

Oh god, I'm sorry, you're watching it too?

[BaiHu]

The breakdown in case you can't stomach watching him:

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-executive-actions-on-gun-control-2013-1

[Suvorov]

So if he wants to punish those people who buy guns with the express intention of turning around and selling them to criminal shouldn't he fire Holder?

[BaiHu]

So if he wants to punish those people who buy guns with the express intention of turning around and selling them to criminal shouldn't he fire Holder?

LMAO! Well played Suvorov!

[peterb]

Somebody's going to make/adapt NY-legal magazines, even if it's not the OEM. The potential market is too big to pass up.

I didn't see a caliber floor, so this applies to every .22 as well. Just think of all the 10/22(7/22?) magazines that will have to modified....

[MDS]

This falls into the "You made your bed...." catagory in my book.

I was a cop in the days of six shot revolvers and four shot 870s, let them deal with that reality again.

I'm no expert on these things, but it seems to me that if the State of NY believes that their restrictions reduce the proliferation of dangerous items without unduly limiting the citizenry's ability to defend themselves from criminals, then these restrictions shouldn't unduly limit LE's ability to defend themselves from these same criminals. So, yeah, hold the LEO's under the same restrictions.

Now if LEO's don't want to be under the same restrictions, that's a dangerous sort of hypocrisy. If these restrictions would make cops less safe in their cruisers, wouldn't they make me less safe in my home? And if the restrictions make us less safe, why are they in place? It's a catch-22 for the cops: if they implement gun control for me, I support gun control for them. I'd rather have no gun control for anyone, and we can all go our merry way...

[orionz06]

Can anything be held against the state for declaring certain magazines dangerous and then suggesting they be sold out of state?

[Tamara]

So if he wants to punish those people who buy guns with the express intention of turning around and selling them to criminal shouldn't he fire Holder?

...and that's the internet for today kids. Submissions are closed.

[rsa-otc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFC92PcHRxI

This shows the mentality of those who voted to pass the bill. First he repeatedly states that this is a Democratic bill (thanks now I know who to vote against at the next election). Then he goes on and states that while he will vote for the bill, the bill will not stop one crime. Oh wonderful another ineffective piece of "FEEL GOOD" legislation to clutter up the books. That’s just what your constituents voted you into office to do.:confused::mad:

[TGS]

Somebody's going to make/adapt NY-legal magazines, even if it's not the OEM. The potential market is too big to pass up.

I didn't see a caliber floor, so this applies to every .22 as well. Just think of all the 10/22(7/22?) magazines that will have to modified....

Thankfully it won't be much of an investment for many companies. Places like riflegear.com, exilemachine.net, and magazineblocks.com already cater to the ban state markets. Making a 7 round mag block requires that you make a 10 round just a couple milimeters higher.......and if you check out Magazine Block's (different from Mag Block, mind you!) products, you'll see that they make their blocks in a fashion that makes production efficient....i.e. a NJ 15 round mag block is just a broken off segment of a 10 round CA block. So, they only actually have to make 1 mag block to serve all the states. They'll probably just manufacture everything as a 7 round block now, and then just break off segments as needed to make it a 10 or 15 round block for CA and NJ.

[senorlechero]

I'm no expert on these things, but it seems to me that if the State of NY believes that their restrictions reduce the proliferation of dangerous items without unduly limiting the citizenry's ability to defend themselves from criminals, then these restrictions shouldn't unduly limit LE's ability to defend themselves from these same criminals. So, yeah, hold the LEO's under the same restrictions.

Now if LEO's don't want to be under the same restrictions, that's a dangerous sort of hypocrisy. If these restrictions would make cops less safe in their cruisers, wouldn't they make me less safe in my home? And if the restrictions make us less safe, why are they in place? It's a catch-22 for the cops: if they implement gun control for me, I support gun control for them. I'd rather have no gun control for anyone, and we can all go our merry way...

This is an excellent point, and I completely agree. It's very frustrating to see police in my state with full auto, short barreled, suppressed M4s with a Surefire 60 round mag.

[BaiHu]

Okay, but what is up with the engineering difficulty? Am I misunderstanding ToddG's problems with his 1911/9mm mags? Is there or is there not an engineering snafu for certain mags/followers/feed ramps etc when they were originally designed around a different number of rounds?

[BaiHu]

Perhaps we need to be more vocal this time:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/white-house-now-requires-we-the-people-petitions-to-have-100000-signatures-for-official-response/

[RoyGBiv]

Perhaps we need to be more vocal this time:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/white-house-now-requires-we-the-people-petitions-to-have-100000-signatures-for-official-response/

Was discussing this over on the local TX forum and the best reply in that thread was...


I guess the most divisive president in history is going to unite us more better by ignoring us a little harder.

[TGS]

Okay, but what is up with the engineering difficulty? Am I misunderstanding ToddG's problems with his 1911/9mm mags? Is there or is there not an engineering snafu for certain mags/followers/feed ramps etc when they were originally designed around a different number of rounds?

That's when increasing the mags capacity beyond what the design can handle, or changing calibers. If you load a 1911 using its regular Wilson 8 round magazine, and shoot 1 round, you now have 7 rounds. It's no more susceptible to stoppages just because it now only has 7 rounds in its mag.

A gun using a mag block for 7 rounds will feed no differently than normal, as if you only loaded 7 rounds to begin with.....or if you loaded it fully, shot a couple rounds, and happened to have 7 rounds left. It's just a block in-between the follower and baseplate that prevents the follower from going down farther than 7 rounds (or 10 rounds, or 15 rounds). The mag is otherwise exactly the same.

So if NJ SB2475 goes through and we suddenly find ourselves limited to 10 round mags instead of 15, you just buy some blocks and change it out. Your mag would be no less reliable than if it held 15 before.

[BaiHu]

Okay. It was my impression that there was a problem with springs being malformed due to having a block in there over a long period of time. Kind of like leaving your mags loaded to full capacity for too long and not rotating them out.

[TGS]

Okay. It was my impression that there was a problem with springs being malformed due to having a block in there over a long period of time. Kind of like leaving your mags loaded to full capacity for too long and not rotating them out.

Nah, the springs can be exactly the same as in the case of the Magazine Block's products since the block is just a thin plastic card that goes in the middle of the spring. With Riflegears, they place the spring on top of a really thick, big block, but it's cut to a proper, proportional length so it's not compressed any different. Plus, leaving mags loaded to capacity doesn't really effect modern mag springs. Some old ones, yes, but your AR15 or P30 no.

[BaiHu]

So I've got 'the old wives tale' version of the truth. I knew I should've gone to an engineering school :p

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[senorlechero]

Okay. It was my impression that there was a problem with springs being malformed due to having a block in there over a long period of time. Kind of like leaving your mags loaded to full capacity for too long and not rotating them out.

I think single stacks would be fine, the problem is with some double stack magazines. They were built with a spring designed for double stack, when they're altered to hold only 10 they're now essentially a single stack. Like the Glock mags, and these are what have problems. From my understanding. I personally havent had issues with them.

I think it was DocGKR who mentioned what you're talking about.

[TGS]

I think single stacks would be fine, the problem is with some double stack magazines. They were built with a spring designed for double stack, when they're altered to hold only 10 they're now essentially a single stack. Like the Glock mags, and these are what have problems. From my understanding. I personally havent had issues with them.

I think it was DocGKR who mentioned what you're talking about.

A neutered, 10 round doublestack mag is still a double-stack mag. It does not change to being a single-stack. You just can't put more than 10 rounds in it.

Here's a video showing how this mystical magic thing works:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LoZzg77rPSQ

[BaiHu]

I think I'd classify that as sorcery. But who am I to judge, I only knew of old wives tales before this video.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[orionz06]

The issue with *some* neutered mags is that they change the position of the spring. The Magpul child safety device appears to have no impact on the spring length empty or compressed meaning it works 100% as intended.

[TGS]

The issue with *some* neutered mags is that they change the position of the spring.

I guess that's it. During the AWB, HK made the locking plates on their 10 round mags out of a plastic that easily broke when dropped on concrete. Of course, that doesn't mean that all neutered 10 round double stack mags aren't durable.....it means that specific HK mag design had a problem.


The Magpul child safety device appears to have no impact on the spring length empty or compressed meaning it works 100% as intended.

Child safety device. That's good! That company makes the same thing for tons of mags....almost anything you can expect to own. Even 40 round HK33 mags.

[senorlechero]

TGS: to clarify, I was referring to pistol mags.

[TGS]

TGS: to clarify, I was referring to pistol mags.

Lol, dude, it doesn't make a difference either way. They had a video of the PMAG block at the top of the page, so I picked that one. Different mag block, same design concept, same execution.

Here's their XDM mag blocks (http://www.magazineblocks.com/magento/products/magblock-kits/pistols.html). Works the same way. A double stack mag can still be a double stack mag even if it's neutered. Being neutered does not mean a magazine must be changed to single stack and have feed problems. That includes pistols.

If one company made crappy 10 round mags that (for god knows why) changed a double stack into a single stack, well that's the company and that products problem. It is not representative of most neutered 10 round mags.

[LOKNLOD]

The 10-round Glock mags were pretty universally reviled, and they were not so simple as just using a mag block that limits the travel of the follower. The rounds single stack downward to the bottom of the magazine (look at the single stack of witness marks). At least on the G17 sized mags.

[Tamara]

Lol, dude, it doesn't make a difference either way. They had a video of the PMAG block at the top of the page, so I picked that one. Different mag block, same design concept, same execution.

Here's their XDM mag blocks (http://www.magazineblocks.com/magento/products/magblock-kits/pistols.html). Works the same way. A double stack mag can still be a double stack mag even if it's neutered. Being neutered does not mean a magazine must be changed to single stack and have feed problems. That includes pistols.

If one company made crappy 10 round mags that (for god knows why) changed a double stack into a single stack, well that's the company and that products problem. It is not representative of most neutered 10 round mags.

None of those mag blocks would have made it past the BATFEIEIO during the ban. To be compliant, the mag body itself needed to be physically constructed in such a fashion so that it could not be easily altered to accept more than ten rounds without destroying the magazine.

The neutered mags of '94-'04 were a disaster. Just because your state allows tricks like long followers or tall floorplates doesn't mean that the various 10-round Fed-compliant gelded mags weren't malfunction-prone balls of suck and fail.

[JConn]

None of those mag blocks would have made it past the BATFEIEIO during the ban. To be compliant, the mag body itself needed to be physically constructed in such a fashion so that it could not be easily altered to accept more than ten rounds without destroying the magazine.

The neutered mags of '94-'04 were a disaster. Just because your state allows tricks like long followers or tall floorplates doesn't mean that the various 10-round Fed-compliant gelded mags weren't malfunction-prone balls of suck and fail.

This is where the issue lies and what I was trying to say before. You couldn't just go buy a 17 round mag in Vermont and modify it to only fit 7. I don't think that would fly.

[Palmguy]

The way I see it, this idea amounts to putting people's lives at risk to further a political agenda. Isn't that what we vilify the "other side" for doing?

Isn't New York LE brass supporting these restrictions on the general public (in other words, putting people's lives at risk to further a political agenda)?

That aside, the state of New York has enacted legislation that will absolutely cost Glock, et al money. Why is it such a bad thing for a private company to make the decision to not do business with an entity sworn on doing it harm?

[TGS]

None of those mag blocks would have made it past the BATFEIEIO during the ban. To be compliant, the mag body itself needed to be physically constructed in such a fashion so that it could not be easily altered to accept more than ten rounds without destroying the magazine.

Yes, correct, those mags were made that way specifically because of the conditions to that AWB and the BATFE. As you noted, short of manufacturing your own parts, they had to be completely incapable of being turned into a "high capacity" mag.

So, what I'm saying is that just because a particular mag from a particular company was made during that ban that sucked, does not mean that NY citizens will have trouble procuring mags, or that double stack mags have to be turned into half-assed single stack mags in order to be neutered to 10 rounds. I then provided examples of this, and why NY citizens should not have trouble procuring 7 round mags or be relegated to mags which are terribly unreliable. I do not know why this is so confusing or controversial of me to state.

These mag blocks are not a "trick" specific to my state, either. All state bans can be satisfied with them. These companies wouldn't exist and be providing income to their employees if it was just a one-off "trick" for my state. They serve citizens of all ban states. This is how you satisfy a mag capacity ban today. That is not a trick.


This is where the issue lies and what I was trying to say before. You couldn't just go buy a 17 round mag in Vermont and modify it to only fit 7. I don't think that would fly.

Correct, according to the BATFE during the 1994 AWB.

AFAIK, that has no relevance on mags which citizens can have today. That was a 94 AWB thing, and is a non-issue for any American citizen today.

[Tamara]

These mag blocks are not a "trick" specific to my state, either. All state bans can be satisfied with them. These companies wouldn't exist and be providing income to their employees if it was just a one-off "trick" for my state. They serve citizens of all ban states.

I was using "your" in the generic sense. I am aware that they meet NJ law. I do not claim to speak to other state laws, and haven't really bothered researching them since I don't go to states with mag bans.

I do not know if a plugged mag meets the previous or current NY state law. Do you have a cite?

[orionz06]

The wife finally gets the whole anti-NY and CA thing. She had a clue before but now she gets it. Thanks Cuomo.

[TGS]

I do not know if a plugged mag meets the previous or current NY state law. Do you have a cite?

Not really a citation, because the law in NY, NJ, and MA are pretty vague. All require it to be "permanent" and/or "not readily convertible" to accept more than the capacity limit. Of course, what is "permanent" or "not readily convertible" is not actually delineated.

So, I can't really cite anything except the fact that people have been using mag blocks in all 3 states for a while. In the case of using a block, the "permanent/not readily convertible" part is usually met by cementing the spring to the locking plate, and cementing or pinning the locking plate and baseplate to the mag body. So, since people have been using them for some time now, and no one has ever been prosecuted for using such, and since the law is ambiguous unlike the BATFE decision on the 94 AWB....it's considered legal. Specific to NJ, a rule of thumb would be the fact that game wardens regularly inspect hunting shotguns out in the field to make sure they can't hold more than 3 rounds (cause a 5 round tube on a shotgun being used to hunt with is such a danger), and a pencil glued in the mag tube is considered acceptable; so I can't imagine a cemented and/or pinned base plate considered illegal.

[peterb]

a rule of thumb would be the fact that game wardens regularly inspect hunting shotguns out in the field to make sure they can't hold more than 3 rounds (cause a 5 round tube on a shotgun being used to hunt with is such a danger), and a pencil glued in the mag tube is considered acceptable; so I can't imagine a cemented and/or pinned base plate considered illegal.

That's a Federal law that applies to migratory game birds : "No person shall take migratory game birds: ...With a shotgun capable of holding more than three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler which is incapable of removal without disassembling the gun." http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/hunting/federal-hunting-regulations

[Tamara]

So, I can't really cite anything except the fact that people have been using mag blocks in all 3 states for a while. In the case of using a block, the "permanent/not readily convertible" part is usually met by cementing the spring to the locking plate, and cementing or pinning the locking plate and baseplate to the mag body. So, since people have been using them for some time now, and no one has ever been prosecuted for using such, and since the law is ambiguous unlike the BATFE decision on the 94 AWB....it's considered legal.

Didn't know. That's why I was asking.


game wardens regularly inspect hunting shotguns out in the field to make sure they can't hold more than 3 rounds (cause a 5 round tube on a shotgun being used to hunt with is such a danger), and a pencil glued in the mag tube is considered acceptable

As peterb pointed out, that's federal. Pretty much all shotguns ship with a dowel in the mag tube. Which is funny when it's a bayonet-lugged 590A1 that has less chance of seeing a duck blind than a Perazzi does of seeing a breaching load.

[TGS]

That's a Federal law that applies to migratory game birds : "No person shall take migratory game birds: ...With a shotgun capable of holding more than three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler which is incapable of removal without disassembling the gun." http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/hunting/federal-hunting-regulations

Yes, it is a federal law applying to migratory game birds.

Specific to NJ (there's a reason I wrote that), it also applies to other game. I think everything except bear (for good reason, I imagine!).

http://www.eregulations.com/newjersey/hunting/deer-hunting-regulations/

http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pdf/2012/dighnt56-69.pdf

Also, I don't think the federal law pertaining to migratory game birds require that the tube be permanently blocked, either. You just can't have more than 3 rounds according to the federal law, right?

[Tamara]

Also, I don't think the federal law pertaining to migratory game birds require that the tube be permanently blocked, either. You just can't have more than 3 rounds according to the federal law, right?

Right.

[peterb]

According to my local game warden, the field test is to try loading the gun with the shells the hunter is using. If he can stuff more in the tube than the Federal or state limit, you're out of luck.

As Tam said, you can make your own plug with a wooden dowel or plastic(doesn't retain moisture) equivalent.

[fuse]

Well, dude, they had a ten-round limit already and it wasn't working.

I mean, if you had a 25mph speed limit on your street, and high-school kids kept drag racing past your house at three AM, then the obvious solution would be to reduce the speed limit to 15mph and then set a cop out there at 6PM and catch anybody speeding home from work, right?

More proof that the best things in life are free

[fuse]

I see this as a ban on most firearms. Unless many other states impose 7 round bans, it will not make financial sense for companies like Glock, smith and Wesson, or h and k to make 7 round magazines. And since buying 10 rounders is illegal you can't buy them and modify them. So in essence they have just outlawed the vast majority of handguns, and rifles. Good job new York. Way to screw yourself. I hope its seen like this in court.

Maybe they're all staunch traditionalists, and want every to shoot .45 1911s. Cult of Browning, and such.

[BaiHu]

Adding a little humor to this:

Piers can't control himself when 2 intelligent women tell the truth.
http://www.businessinsider.com/piers-morgan-gun-control-obama-proposal-speech-dana-loesch-alex-jones-scottie-hughes-2013-1

[rsa-otc]

A NY attorney out of Buffalo is asking people to jion his class action suite against this new legislation.

From nepaidpascores.com:

“
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Also, read the following:
Someone is starting to take action:
Lawyer : Jim Tresmond, Attorney in Buffalo, New York. Attorney phone is 716.202.4301
Successfully represented clients in the past on Second Amendment issues in NYS
Supreme Court. This case is pro-bono for all the gun owners of New York. According
to Mr. Tresmond the new ban is illegal as it is an ex-facto law taking away previously
owned property and he intends to file this action in Federal Court.
We are looking for as many as possible to add to CLASS ACTION CASE:
SEND Your Name and EMAIL ADDRESS and phone number to:
psacco1@twcny.rr.com [mailto:psacco1@twcny.rr.com]
WE ARE COLLECTING AS MANY AS POSSIBLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE!!
If you sat back and thought: "nah, this can't happen here" You were wrong. It IS
happening.
Contact your state and local representative and talk to them about it. Some food
for thought: they swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States
and NY State. if they voted yes, they just violated that oath.
Hold them accountable!”

Now the address listed above it not for the Attorney. It is for Pat Sacco of Verdad Investigations. Here is the link to his site: http://www.verdadinvestigations.com/

[BaiHu]

Great argument about infringement versus limitations:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/andrea-mitchell-argues-govt-can-infringe-upon-americans-inalienable-rights-hear-pro-gun-advocates-epic-response/

[RoyGBiv]

Great argument about infringement versus limitations:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/andrea-mitchell-argues-govt-can-infringe-upon-americans-inalienable-rights-hear-pro-gun-advocates-epic-response/

Too bad they cut the video right where Andrea was trying to tell us that an AR can't be used for hunting.

Not me, obviously. (I'm a brunette :D )
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5277/buckw308ar02.jpg

[BaiHu]

Obama's record on laws to crack down on school shootings:

Bill: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/summary/910SB0759.html

Vote: http://ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls91/pdf/910SB0759_03251999_001000T.PDF

Now all of a sudden he's worried about the children? Probably b/c he couldn't garnish more power back in his IL days?

[NickA]

To use the vernacular of my people, "Ya'll come on down!" :D
www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/article/Texas-AG-urges-NY-gun-lovers-to-move-to-Texas-4199701.php

[G60]

I'm seeing from a few not-so-reliable sources (random retweets on twitter), and maybe one reliable source, that NY SAFE Act does not include a LE exemption:

This release from NY Assemblyman Graf is the closest thing to anything official I could find:
http://www.algraf.org/2013/01/15/graf-rails-against-flawed-gun-bill/

[RoyGBiv]

Here's the list of evil banned guns from the NYSP web site..
http://troopers.ny.gov/Firearms/NYS_SAFE_Act/

Made my stomach turn reading this foolishness.
The epitome of stupidity. Especially the "Evil Shotguns" list. :mad:

[G60]

Here's the list of evil banned guns from the NYSP web site..
http://troopers.ny.gov/Firearms/NYS_SAFE_Act/

Made my stomach turn reading this foolishness.
The epitome of stupidity. Especially the "Evil Shotguns" list. :mad:

So Remington 8-shot semi-automatic shotguns are banned, but Mossberg 8-shot semi-automatic shotguns with identical features aren't?

Just the first thing that came to the top of my head.

[G60]

Missing LE exemption confirmed: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8958116
LE unions and congressmembers working to add exemptions for active and retired LE before law goes into effect in March. Because "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"

[TCinVA]

In such a hurry to trample the rights of citizens they couldn't remember to carve out an exception for the anointed.

Ha.

If another example was necessary of their hopeless incompetence, there it is.

[Shellback]

The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President released a statement saying, "The PBA is actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers."
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. :mad:

[RoyGBiv]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. :mad:

What's the justification for exempting retired officers?
"Obviously" OTJ officers "need" to be exempted... but why retired too?

[Shellback]

What's the justification for exempting retired officers?
"Obviously" OTJ officers "need" to be exempted... but why retired too?

The politicians, the police who recommended these changes in the law, the ones who enforce these laws and the FOP are all hypocrites. The politicians and police of NY, CA, IL, NJ, MA, Washington D.C., et al have put themselves and the police above their constituents. To claim that anyone of them is living up to their oath to support and defend the Constitution is laughable at best.

People are tired of being treated like second class citizens by the people they elect and those who are entrusted to enforce the laws of our country.

[Drang]

Missing LE exemption confirmed: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8958116
LE unions and congressmembers working to add exemptions for active and retired LE before law goes into effect in March. Because "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"

Don't look now Senator, (and retired NYPD captain), but you just admitted that, since you know Bad Guys won't obey the law, and law officers are above the law, the point of the law is to keep the citizens down.

[WobblyPossum]

Don't look now Senator, (and retired NYPD captain), but you just admitted that, since you know Bad Guys won't obey the law, and law officers are above the law, the point of the law is to keep the citizens down.

State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals."

Emphasis Mine. I love irony. It makes for a funny world.

[guymontag]

Don't look now Senator, (and retired NYPD captain), but you just admitted that, since you know Bad Guys won't obey the law, and law officers are above the law, the point of the law is to keep the citizens down.

*Cue the Jackie Chan "My Brain is Full of F^%"*

Senator and Ex-NYPD Eric Adams obviously lacks the ability to sense cognitive dissonance.

If cognition is present at all.

[Shellback]

Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin is on it!


http://youtu.be/lmPCRJJFlKA

[RoyGBiv]

Oopsie.!!

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

The problem: The new law bans ALL firearms. ALL.

S 265.01-B CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM.
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WHEN HE OR SHE:

(1) POSSESSES ANY FIREARM OR; (2) LAWFULLY POSSESSES A FIREARM PRIOR TO
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
WHICH ADDED THIS SECTION SUBJECT TO THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF
SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER AND KNOWINGLY
FAILS TO REGISTER SUCH FIREARM PURSUANT TO SUCH SUBDIVISION.
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM IS A CLASS E FELONY.

http://i.imgur.com/pWf1q.jpg

[RoyGBiv]

Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin is on it!
At least one NY'er gets it.

Bravo Steve-O.

http://thingist.com/user_uploads/321362382158439961.gif

[TGS]

At least one NY'er gets it.

Bravo Steve-O.

There's more than one. Check out Sen. Greg Ball's session comments, as well as Sen. Marchione's (in addition to her petition). I'm sure there's more that I just haven't seen yet.

[RoyGBiv]

There's more than one. Check out Sen. Greg Ball's session comments, as well as Sen. Marchione's (in addition to her petition). I'm sure there's more that I just haven't seen yet.
I know... That was me being dramatic. Thanks for stealing my moment. :D

[LHS]

Oopsie.!!

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

The problem: The new law bans ALL firearms. ALL.


http://i.imgur.com/pWf1q.jpg

They just set it up to get thrown out as contrary to Heller and MacDonald.

[LOKNLOD]

At least one NY'er gets it.

Bravo Steve-O.


Excellent, but missed an opportunity to follow up the "change the clip" comment with "how come the law abiding citizen can 'change the clip' to continue defending himself, but the criminal can't 'change the clip' to continue unlawfully killing people?"

[RoyGBiv]

Excellent, but missed an opportunity to follow up the "change the clip" comment with "how come the law abiding citizen can 'change the clip' to continue defending himself, but the criminal can't 'change the clip' to continue unlawfully killing people?"

Yeah.. I caught that... Otherwise, Steve was pretty darn good.

[RoyGBiv]

They just set it up to get thrown out as contrary to Heller and MacDonald.

I don't suppose there's any chance it was intentional??
Cuomo can now say that he banned ALL firearms in his state. NY is a gun free zone.

Nah... Hanlon's razor.

[TGS]

Nah... Cuomo's razor.

Fixed.

[JConn]

They just set it up to get thrown out as contrary to Heller and MacDonald.

Someone did it intentionally. I just wonder who.

[G60]

They just set it up to get thrown out as contrary to Heller and MacDonald.

Shhh...:cool:

They've still got until the law goes into effect in March to fix anything. Let's not help the NY gun-grabbers write a 'better' bill.

As Napoleon said, "Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake."

[EMC]

edit: duplicate link

[RoyGBiv]

Fixed.

It really was depressing watching him give that "We're gonna do something" speech.
The cultish fervor as he led the process of stripping his constituents of their natural rights made my stomach churn.

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ap_andrew_cuomo_mi_130109_wg.jpg

[TCinVA]

It really was depressing watching him give that "We're gonna do something" speech.
The cultish fervor as he led the process of stripping his constituents of their natural rights made my stomach churn.

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ap_andrew_cuomo_mi_130109_wg.jpg

He comes from the fine Tamany Hall tradition. Your notion of "rights" amuses him, peasant.

[fixer]

Oopsie.!!

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

The problem: The new law bans ALL firearms. ALL.


Wow. Good catch. And I must say...we have to pay taxes for such ineffective representation?

[LittleLebowski]

He comes from the fine Tamany Hall tradition. Your notion of "rights" amuses him, peasant.

Let us not forget how NY's gun laws began (http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian).

[JConn]

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116

I don't see the problem. The last sentence gave me a minor aneurism.

[gtmtnbiker98]

Retired cops should not be exempted in this piece of $hit legislation, period.

[Tamara]

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116

I don't see the problem. The last sentence gave me a minor aneurism.

Here's the GOP's chance to get back in everyone's good graces. If they don't block this amendment, then they don't have a hair on their @$$.

If seven rounds is enough for me to hunt deer with, then it's enough for NYPD ESU to hunt deer with.

Oh, what's that you say, Assemblyman? NYPD doesn't use their guns to hunt deer? Well, neither do I, you microcephalic cretin.

[NETim]

But, but the NYPD needs larger cap mags!! They seldom operate alone. They have radios. They have friends with radios. Their friends have guns. Their friends' backups have guns. They all can shoot better than those stupid Rambo-wannabe neanderthal private citizens.

So yes, they need 'em and the peasants don't.

[RoyGBiv]

Let us not forget how NY's gun laws began (http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian).

That was an excellent read. Thanks.
Not so much about how NY laws began as it is about how gun bans have been universally ignored, globally.

[TCinVA]

As much as I hate to drive traffic to anything involving Arianna Huffington:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/ny-gun-control-laws-anger-police-retired_n_2495417.html

Notable for the following quotes:



“As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact
the bad guys are not going to follow this law,” said Norman Seabrook, president of the correction officers union, the city’s second largest.

“The way the current legislation is drafted, it actually handcuffs the law enforcement community from having the necessary ammunition needed to save lives,” he said. “We must not allow this to happen.”

Roy Richter, president of the Captains Endowment Association and a lawyer, said, “It puts retired officers in a position that the clip they were issued by the NYPD, carried for their careers and were fully trained on, is now considered contraband.”

“Gun reform must prevent criminals and the deranged from getting illegal weapons — not restrict law-abiding retired cops from protecting themselves and the public,” Palladino said.

“I support the governor in gun reform, however the new legislation restricts law enforcement officers who retire and that could jeopardize the safety of the public.”

Despite the sharp criticism of this loophole in the law, the law enforcement heads were pleased with the move to allow retired cops to keep their names and addresses private if they have weapons. That followed the recent controversial disclosure of all legal weapon owners by the Journal News.


Dear Misters Richter, Seabrook, and Palladino:

You gentlemen have such a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion that the lump in your throat is your own nose. Stripped of all the American Hero fertilizer you like to dress your arguments up with, the reality is that you're arguing you are more special than everyone else and so the law shouldn't apply to you. You can all kiss the fattest part of my ass.

[JConn]

Aren't these the same cops who hit 10 innocent bystanders trying to shoot one bad guy in nyc?

[NETim]

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”

[JM Campbell]

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”

― Thomas Jefferson

That right there my friends is the "Star Of Gun Owners" thread idea. Put it on the Stars and Stripes, in your face but not offensive.

[jon volk]

Aren't these the same cops who hit 10 innocent bystanders trying to shoot one bad guy in nyc?

Training cost more that a few extra rounds in a mag. Who cares about hit rates over 10% anyway.

[RoyGBiv]

That right there my friends is the "Star Of Gun Owners" thread idea. Put it on the Stars and Stripes, in your face but not offensive.

Done...
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?6582-The-yellow-star-of-gun-ownership&p=113214&viewfull=1#post113214

[CMG]

... You gentlemen have such a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion...


...you microcephalic cretin.

I am not sure if the cranial-rectal inversion is the cause of the microcephaly or if the microcephaly just makes it easier.

[G60]

As much as I hate to drive traffic to anything involving Arianna Huffington:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/ny-gun-control-laws-anger-police-retired_n_2495417.html

Notable for the following quotes:



Dear Misters Richter, Seabrook, and Palladino:

You gentlemen have such a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion that the lump in your throat is your own nose. Stripped of all the American Hero fertilizer you like to dress your arguments up with, the reality is that you're arguing you are more special than everyone else and so the law shouldn't apply to you. You can all kiss the fattest part of my ass.

They should read Castle Rock v Gonzalez and rest easy. They've got no obligation to protect the public, they should be fine with the same means of self-defense as we little people do.

[Erik]

That was an excellent read. Thanks.
Not so much about how NY laws began as it is about how gun bans have been universally ignored, globally.

Agreed. Thanks for posting.

[BaiHu]

http://bentivolio.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-kerry-bentivolio-co-sponsors-first-bill-enumerated-powers

"The Enumerated Powers Act, introduced by Representative Phil Gingrey (GA-11), seeks to strengthen the Constitutional Authority Statement by requiring a concise and definite statement of authority. Members of Congress will be able to hold their colleagues accountable for their oath to uphold the Constitution by calling for a “point of order” on inadequate or flawed statements.

The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."

[BaiHu]

Ahhh, NY, always ahead in the world of fashion:

http://www.businessinsider.com/colts-close-quarters-battle-pistol-2013-1

See, Cuomo knew that the bestest gun on the market only uses.....7 rounds! Awww yeah!!!

[G60]

http://bentivolio.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-kerry-bentivolio-co-sponsors-first-bill-enumerated-powers

"The Enumerated Powers Act, introduced by Representative Phil Gingrey (GA-11), seeks to strengthen the Constitutional Authority Statement by requiring a concise and definite statement of authority. Members of Congress will be able to hold their colleagues accountable for their oath to uphold the Constitution by calling for a “point of order” on inadequate or flawed statements.

The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."

Screw Phil Gingrey.

"There are some problems, and maybe these huge magazines even for someone who says, ‘look, I just use an AR-15 for target practice,’ but do you really need to be standing there shooting at a silhouette a shot a second or even quicker with that kind of weapon? For what purpose?” Gingrey asked. “I would be willing to listen to the possibility of the capacity of a magazine.”

[BaiHu]

Not being familiar with him, do you think this is a bit of back pedaling from his previous statements?

[NMBigfoot02]

Not being familiar with him, do you think this is a bit of back pedaling from his previous statements?

Probably. He took more heat nationally for the Akin comments, but I wrote him myself expressing my displeasure with his comments. Knowing GA voters, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[RoyGBiv]

Had somebody suggest something today as a workaround to a Federal ban.

Couldn't a crafty Governor/legislature create a category of State Militia that everyone can join?

[Le Français]

Had somebody suggest something today as a workaround to a Federal ban.

Couldn't a crafty Governor/legislature create a category of State Militia that everyone can join?


You mean making everyone an LEO, and thus presumably exempt from a federal ban?

There would be some issues with that...

[RoyGBiv]

You mean making everyone an LEO, and thus presumably exempt from a federal ban?

There would be some issues with that...
The suggestion was some class of State Militia, NOT LE.
Issues such as?

The way I saw it, the legislature could define it any way they want.
The Feds could not "do away" with State Militias using Supremacy, because it's (seems to be) Constitutional...
I'm WAAAAAY outside my expertise here, so, I won't be offended if somebody tells me why I'm wrong.
Just seemed to be a creative way to skirt a Federal ban if one came along.
Certainly not any more creative than threatening to arrest Federal officials for enforcing a ban.

ETA: "Hereby every legal resident of the State of Texas between the ages of 18 and (still breathing) shall be eligible for service in the Texas State Militia, Class B, Reserve. Residents wishing to join the Texas State Militia in this capacity may do so by presenting themselves in person at any Texas Motor Vehicle office, providing proof they meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Section C herein, and taking the Oath of Service"... Blah, blah, blah...

[TGS]

The suggestion was some class of State Militia, NOT LE.

Seems to make sense. State militias are still around, they're just diluted, inept and (mostly) no longer armed. I imagine that not unlike F-Troopers alma mater, my alma mater (Norwich University) derives its history as part of a state militia. The university was actually founded by a former West Point commandant who believed a large standing army was dangerous, and was hard-core about a trained society of citizen-soldiers (sounds familiar!) and actually has a battle history. It was only recently, I think the 80s or 90s, that Norwich University replaced their cadet rifles with inert dummy rifles. Prior to that the cadets kept M1 Garands in their barracks rooms, and used to shoot them weekly. The NU Corps of Cadets are still technically part of the Vermont State Militia and professors holding full tenure are as well and required to wear uniforms. But, with the exception of maintaining a credentialed mountain rescue team and providing disaster relief...they're far from an actual militia.

So, sorry for the rant....but I see what you're stepping in. Sounds neat.....an actual state militia that isn't federalized.....gee, what ever happened to that? Oh yeah, American colonialism and civilizing people with a Krag.....

[Le Français]

I'm not seeing how membership in such an organization would exempt someone from a federal gun control law. What am I missing?

[Drang]

[QUOTE=BaiHu;113241]http://bentivolio.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-kerry-bentivolio-co-sponsors-first-bill-enumerated-powers

"The Enumerated Powers Act, introduced by Representative Phil Gingrey (GA-11), seeks to strengthen the Constitutional Authority Statement by requiring a concise and definite statement of authority. Members of Congress will be able to hold their colleagues accountable for their oath to uphold the Constitution by calling for a “point of order” on inadequate or flawed statements.

The bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."[/
Another link: Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 109) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr109)

[RoyGBiv]

I'm not seeing how membership in such an organization would exempt someone from a federal gun control law. What am I missing?
Such an action would make all the animals equally equal.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf


‘‘(4) Paragraph (1) [THE BAN] shall not apply to—
‘‘(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by
the United States or a department or agency of the United
States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision
of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement
officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law
enforcement (whether on or off duty);

[Le Français]

Such an action would make all the animals equally equal.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf


I see. Thank you.

[GJM]

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I read the new NY law, if you owned 10 round mags on Jan 15, you can use them if you only load seven cartridges. However, if on Jan 15, you had only previously legal hi cap magazines, you can't legally buy 10 round magazines now. Doesn't this effectively outlaw use of any pistol that doesn't have magazines holding seven or less cartridges, and if so, how will this stand up to a court challenge in light of Heller?

[WobblyPossum]

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I read the new NY law, if you owned 10 round mags on Jan 15, you can use them if you only load seven cartridges. However, if on Jan 15, you had only previously legal hi cap magazines, you can't legally buy 10 round magazines now. Doesn't this effectively outlaw use of any pistol that doesn't have magazines holding seven or less cartridges, and if so, how will this stand up to a court challenge in light of Heller?

Coumo's FAQ (http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq)

Check under the magazines section. The 7 round restriction kicks in on April 15. While they hilariously missed some obvious inclusions (a LEO exemption), the bastards seem to have covered other legal bases quite well. I hope the law gets struck down sooner rather than later.

[GJM]

Coumo's FAQ (http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq)

Check under the magazines section. The 7 round restriction kicks in on April 15. While they hilariously missed some obvious inclusions (a LEO exemption), the bastards seem to have covered other legal bases quite well. I hope the law gets struck down sooner rather than later.

Thanks for that link!

Dates are a little different, but still not sure how the magazine ban survives the courts given how few handguns will have 7 round magazines available after April 15?

[joshs]

Dates are a little different, but still not sure how the magazine ban survives the courts given how few handguns will have 7 round magazines available after April 15?

Any magazine that holds more than seven rounds can be modified to hold only seven rounds. Additionally, 10 round mags already legally possessed may be kept, but only loaded with seven rounds.

[WobblyPossum]

If the HK45c I ordered from the HKPro group buy doesn't come in before April, I'm going to be very dissappointed.

[GJM]

Any magazine that holds more than seven rounds can be modified to hold only seven rounds. Additionally, 10 round mags already legally possessed may be kept, but only loaded with seven rounds.

1) I am making a distinction between what is possible and what is available. While there might be, for example, 7 round Glock 19 magazines available in the near future, wonder how many other platforms will have modified 7 round magazines available near term? If a magazine is legally possible but practically unavailable, I think a strong argument can be made that the law has the effect of making your pistol effectively banned.

2) Virtually every seller of magazines, high cap and 10 rounders is out of stock. This means NY residents without 10 round magazines now will have to pay ridiculous prices to buy 10 round magazines between now and April.

3) Since magazines are not serialized, how is NY going to determine who got what magazine on what date?

[Slavex]

I know of a mystical frozen country where ten round mags for all available pistols are freely available for purchase... And they work as good as any standard capacity mag does too

[dbateman]

Not sure if this has been posted or not.


http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2495/ny_democrat_pleads_with_republican_not_to_share_do cument_proposing_confiscation_of_guns



Edited to fix link.

[WobblyPossum]

Not sure if this has been posted or not.


http://www.thecommen
tator.com/article/24
95/ny_democrat_plead
s_with_republican_no
t_to_share_document_
proposing_confiscati
on_of_guns
Link's broken.

[dbateman]

Link's broken.

Fixed.

[Spr1]

Wow. They actually put their wishes into print. I hope that gets a lot of airtime. I did my part to help it along....

[dbateman]

Wow. They actually put their wishes into print. I hope that gets a lot of airtime. I did my part to help it along....

I've put it every where I can think of..

[RoyGBiv]

I've put it every where I can think of..

Me too...

Here's the link and a copy/paste of the Assemblyman's FB post.
I believe it's "public domain" so not subject to copyright issues.

https://www.facebook.com/SteveMcNY/posts/134119446748862?_fb_noscript=1


Here it is. This is the video where I was asked to keep the Democrat proposals for the NY SAFE Act away from the public. This list was given to me by a colleague and it is not confidential.

This bill was an attack on the 2nd amendment and the Democrats clearly wanted to dismantle the work of the Founding Fathers. None of these amendments were included in the final bill thanks to us fighting back. I will not stand silent while these unpatriotic proposals are pathetically thrown at us a 11 o’clock at night:

1. Confiscation of "assault weapons"
2. Confiscation o ten round clips
3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public
5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons”
6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11. State issued pistol permits
12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryUbJfg4tAo

[TGS]

It appears that the anti-gun craze has even took hold in the US Navy.

My brother, an LPO on a fast attack sub, just got word today that the entire ready room of their sub is being taken away. There will now be one(1) Beretta M9 for the entire sub. No extra M9s, no shotguns, no M16s, nada....just one pistol for the entire sub.

What. the. crap. USS Cole? Naw! That never happened! No need for ships to defend themselves with small arms!

I'm wondering if the Navy is standing up additional force protection teams around the world to make up for the gun control.

[RoyGBiv]

First challenge in the works..?

http://www.nysrpa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=860&Itemid=192


NYSRPA, in co-operation with the NRA, are having the Cuomo law reviewed by a highly qualified legal team. We ask that no other 3rd party legal action be taken without prior consultation. We realize that this law impacts a large number of people, but a proper legal review will take some time. NYSRPA/NRA will be filing a Notice of Claim prior to submitting a brief on the merits of the constitutionality of the new gun law. Involved in the lawsuit will be two of the nations best 2nd Amendment attorneys. This is a very important proceeding and must be handled properly with the best lawyers. We will not win without support from gun owners. You can help either by joining/renewing your membership or making a online donation.

Please do not call or e-mail the office or directors asking for more information. Any announcements on this issue will be published here on our website. Thank you for your understanding.

Here is a link to the bill text of Cuomo's gun prohibition bill A-2388 (http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A02388&term=&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y)/S-2230 (http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S02230&term=&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Text=Y).

Here is a link to Sen. Marchione's petition to repeal it (http://www.nysenate.gov/webform/stand-second-amendment-standing-new-york-state-senator-kathleen-marchione).

[EMC]

It appears that the anti-gun craze has even took hold in the US Navy.

My brother, an LPO on a fast attack sub, just got word today that the entire ready room of their sub is being taken away. There will now be one(1) Beretta M9 for the entire sub. No extra M9s, no shotguns, no M16s, nada....just one pistol for the entire sub.

What. the. crap. USS Cole? Naw! That never happened! No need for ships to defend themselves with small arms!

I'm wondering if the Navy is standing up additional force protection teams around the world to make up for the gun control.

Gotta make room for separate showers and bathrooms. Gender integration on subs and all that. Is it a 7 round beretta mag?

[nycnoob]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/150705_10151335100508864_1773338252_n.jpg

Look, he does not even know how to hold a gun and yet I am supposed to be interested in his opinion.

[nycnoob]

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/wabc/cms_exf_2007/news/AP771986891861.jpg


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/19301_317095778408349_282320848_n.jpg



Did anyone know that there was "One Million Moms For Gun Control" today in NYC? I did not know of it. From the looks of the news photos they had a about a hundred people.

[RoyGBiv]

Did anyone know that there was "One Million Moms For Gun Control" today in NYC? I did not know of it. From the looks of the news photos they had a about a hundred people.

The absolute, futile stupidity of wishing to make the world safer by passing more laws on the law-abiding and demanding that their small, shattered little world thusly be made safe again.

What comes after <facepalm>?

[WobblyPossum]

The absolute, futile stupidity of wishing to make the world safer by passing more laws on the law-abiding and demanding that their small, shattered little world thusly be made safe again.

What comes after <facepalm>?

I didn't know we had a gun problem here. There are almost 10 million people in this city and we had just over 400 murders last year. What are these people complaining about?

[RoyGBiv]

I didn't know we had a gun problem here. There are almost 10 million people in this city and we had just over 400 murders last year. What are these people complaining about?

40 ppm of almost anything would make the EPA happy.

[will_1400]

The absolute, futile stupidity of wishing to make the world safer by passing more laws on the law-abiding and demanding that their small, shattered little world thusly be made safe again.

What comes after <facepalm>?

This

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t273/karasu_1400/headdesk_zpscd51f3d3.gif

[Shellback]

I thought this (http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/cops-are-outraged-that-new-yorks-new-mag) was appropriate for this thread.

"As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law," said Norman Seabrook, president of the correction officers union, the city's second largest.

"The way the current legislation is drafted, it actually handcuffs the law enforcement community from having the necessary ammunition needed to save lives," he said. "We must not allow this to happen."

Roy Richter, president of the Captains Endowment Association and a lawyer, said, "It puts retired officers in a position that the clip they were issued by the NYPD, carried for their careers and were fully trained on, is now considered contraband."

Michael J. Palladino, who is head of the NYPD's 6,000-member detectives union and president of the state's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which represents 50,000 members, joined in calling for Cuomo and the legislature to immediately amend the law.

"Gun reform must prevent criminals and the deranged from getting illegal weapons—not restrict law-abiding retired cops from protecting themselves and the public," Palladino said.

"I support the governor in gun reform, however the new legislation restricts law enforcement officers who retire, and that could jeopardize the safety of the public."

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. - Orwell

[Dagga Boy]

My biggest issue with L/E being okay for standard capacity magazines, but the public isn't on this is the idea that a citizen facing a criminal has less need to be able to finish a fight than a LEO. Having spent almost two decades as a full time LEO (mostly with big bore lower capacity guns), I appreciate that officers are often called to trouble and may face multiple suspects and have a need for higher capacity magazines, but what I don't get is how anyone can justify that citizens facing those exact same criminals as potential victims with no back up, radio, or police resources doesn't need the same equipment for the same criminals. I find it interesting that two of NYPD's finest who have received the training that Mayor Bloomberg feels is sufficient for his cops took 16 rounds fired between two officers to hit one murder suspect in Times Square enough to stop him, yet a citizen potentially facing the same bad guy will be limited to seven rounds to handle him alone and without aid. There are certain "privileges" afforded to both active and retired LEO's that I agree with, but limiting citizens access to standard capacity magazines for their pistols and rifles is something that I cannot agree with. For what its worth, when I am in ban states, I usually carry pistols that have magazine capacities that fall under ten rounds because I don't trust that just because I have an ID card that says I can carry hi-caps, doesn't mean that I believe i won't be made an example of, test case, or just plain targeted by an over zealous judicial branch of state government if I am forced to defend my life or the life of others with a pistol holding more than ten rounds.

[GJM]

Fox News (Hannity) reported tonight the details of what the NY Dems actually wanted -- a 5 round magazine ban and maximum of two magazines owned per person. It is pretty clear that 7 rounds is just a "reasonable" stopping point, which will become a lower number the next time there is an opportunity.

My bet is that a NY Dem would never consider a person having the ability or right to defense, rather it was just your bad luck to be the victim of a crime. Of course, they would then offer another new law to protect the people.

I predict there will soon be three kinds of states:

1) Places like NY, CT, IL and CA where anti-gun laws accelerate an out-migration.

2) Places like TX, FL, MT, AK and WY where pro-gun laws cause an in-migration.

3) Places in the middle, like CO, where there is a fierce struggle between pro and anti-gun folks to control the laws.

[John Ralston]

The next step will be 3 rounds, not 5, since you only need 3 rounds to kill a deer...Sarcasm off

[jon volk]

The next step will be 3 rounds, not 5, since you only need 3 rounds to kill a deer...Sarcasm off

The market for 3 shot 30-06 wheel guns will explode.

[BaiHu]

The market for 3 shot 30-06 wheel guns will explode.

Taurus will jump in on that :p

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Tamara]

Look, he does not even know how to hold a gun and yet I am supposed to be interested in his opinion.

It's a documentary program on a station that was sold by Al Gore to Al Jazeera; I'm fairly certain that the only words in it that I will agree with or find accurate or truthful will be "a", "and", and "the".

[Shellback]

My biggest issue with L/E being okay for standard capacity magazines, but the public isn't on this is the idea that a citizen facing a criminal has less need to be able to finish a fight than a LEO. Having spent almost two decades as a full time LEO (mostly with big bore lower capacity guns), I appreciate that officers are often called to trouble and may face multiple suspects and have a need for higher capacity magazines, but what I don't get is how anyone can justify that citizens facing those exact same criminals as potential victims with no back up, radio, or police resources doesn't need the same equipment for the same criminals. I find it interesting that two of NYPD's finest who have received the training that Mayor Bloomberg feels is sufficient for his cops took 16 rounds fired between two officers to hit one murder suspect in Times Square enough to stop him, yet a citizen potentially facing the same bad guy will be limited to seven rounds to handle him alone and without aid. There are certain "privileges" afforded to both active and retired LEO's that I agree with, but limiting citizens access to standard capacity magazines for their pistols and rifles is something that I cannot agree with. For what its worth, when I am in ban states, I usually carry pistols that have magazine capacities that fall under ten rounds because I don't trust that just because I have an ID card that says I can carry hi-caps, doesn't mean that I believe i won't be made an example of, test case, or just plain targeted by an over zealous judicial branch of state government if I am forced to defend my life or the life of others with a pistol holding more than ten rounds.

Very well put and right on the money. I'm curious to know what privileges you think a retired LEO should have that any private citizen shouldn't? Are you referring to the LEOSA/HR 218 law?

Incidentally the DHS thinks AR-15's are the ticket for a personal defense weapon, even select fire ones. http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

[TAZ]

Taurus will jump in on that :p

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

They'll probably call it the Chief Justice too. LOL

AR's and select fire weapons are perfect tools for personal protection, so long as you are one of those few more equal animals. If you're not, sorry those weapons aren't very useful at all.

[Dagga Boy]

"I'm curious to know what privileges you think a retired LEO should have that any private citizen shouldn't? Are you referring to the LEOSA/HR 218 law?"

Yes, that is one. It is not that I think they should have a right that citizens shouldn't have, but more of a belief that they should be able to maintain some specific status from the job time. Keep in mind that I would be for many members of top tier military units having similar status and I would like to also see a national CCW that has consistent and solid qualification requirements and a extensive background check.

On the other hand, I have to get called in for all of my firearm purchases as my LEOSA ID is not considered a CCW, so in some ways a person with a CCW has more "privileges" with their CCW than I do.

[LittleLebowski]

Yes, that is one. It is not that I think they should have a right that citizens shouldn't have, but more of a belief that they should be able to maintain some specific status from the job time. Keep in mind that I would be for many members of top tier military units having similar status.


OK, that's a slippery slope. Are you equating all LE with top tier military units? What about, the grunts in the second Battle of Fallujah that saw house to house fighting akin to or worse than Stalingrad with no respite, no union mandated time off after discharging a weapon; nothing but more stress, combat, and sleep deprivation?

Personally, I agree with you on CCW permits having requirements to be met but I disagree on LE getting special privileges past retirement, especially when it pertains to military style sporting rifles that the regular citizenry cannot own. It's already an accepted fact that a retired law enforcement officer has no problem obtaining a CCW permit in the most liberal CA county; yet a seasoned Marine Infantry combat vet cannot? Which one is more likely to be more proficient with said rifle? Why should retired LE have de facto rights to a carry permit AND a banned rifle? Granted, they should get reimbursement from their department for the rifle.

[Tamara]

Personally, I agree with you on CCW permits having requirements to be met...

Your wookie suit has the mange. :p

(Support Constitutional Carry!)

[LittleLebowski]

Your wookie suit has the mange. :p

(Support Constitutional Carry!)

PM inbound as so to not derail the thread.

[Dagga Boy]

OK, that's a slippery slope. Are you equating all LE with top tier military units? What about, the grunts in the second Battle of Fallujah that saw house to house fighting akin to or worse than Stalingrad with no respite, no union mandated time off after discharging a weapon; nothing but more stress, combat, and sleep deprivation?

Personally, I agree with you on CCW permits having requirements to be met but I disagree on LE getting special privileges past retirement, especially when it pertains to military style sporting rifles that the regular citizenry cannot own. It's already an accepted fact that a retired law enforcement officer has no problem obtaining a CCW permit in the most liberal CA county; yet a seasoned Marine Infantry combat vet cannot? Which one is more likely to be more proficient with said rifle? Why should retired LE have de facto rights to a carry permit AND a banned rifle? Granted, they should get reimbursement from their department for the rifle.

Nothing I will ever post will change your mind on any L/E related stuff, so i won't even attempt to change your views, but I won't let you pervert mine. In regards to top tier units-they have a far greater level of experience with carrying a concealed pistol in non combat environments, a better understanding of rules of engagement and regulations regarding use of force and far more training and experience in working within specific force guidelines because of the time they spend with US law enforcement. It's simply an opinion of mine and not a disregard for for combat experienced grunts who have fought in overseas operations that don't have much in common with applicable laws and rules within the U.S. You don't hear me bitching because I don't get to use the PX, VA hospital, military discounts and soldier and vet specific considerations. I instead applaud all of those things and am glad they get them and don't feel any jealousy or "what about me" attitude.

On a couple of other things. Has anyone else here been called out by name by a Hells Angel's officer at Disneyland, run into a pack of gang members you arrested the night before at the grocery store, had your name puto'ed out on a wall by gang members, had multiple righteous and acted on hits put out on your life? Probably a short list of those who have had regular issues with these things. As far as days off and rest after shooting people............I have not had a single extra day off after shooting anyone. I worked 19 years of weekend nights, so spare me the working while fatigued and stressed. You won't find many LEO's more pro gun for the masses than I am. With that said, no matter what you think about LEO's, the fact remains most have 20 plus weeks of full time training and have been subjected to the full colonoscopy background investigation and psychological testing along with at least a decade of full time experience daily dealing with the populace while armed as a bare minimum before qualifying for the privilege of a LEOSA ID.

[TCinVA]

On a couple of other things. Has anyone else here been called out by name by a Hells Angel's officer at Disneyland, run into a pack of gang members you arrested the night before at the grocery store, had your name puto'ed out on a wall by gang members, had multiple righteous and acted on hits put out on your life?


Probably not...

...but when you're staring down the wrong end of a gun, it's still staring down the wrong end of a gun whether the scumbag holding it is a Hell's Angel who wants some revenge, or a gangbanger who thinks you deserve to get popped because you looked at him funny. There are lots of ways the average joe or the law enforcement officer can end up in a moment where he/she needs to defend themselves, and in that moment it's the height of stupidity to have a legal system tilted to making either of them helpless at the hands of a criminal aggressor.

Everybody has a right to defend themselves. Inherent in that right is access to a reasonable means of self defense. Anything else is like saying someone has the right to free speech, but they can't type anything, write anything, print anything, or address anyone in public. Not really much free speechin' going on, then.

Any law or system that takes the self defense rights of people who haven't harmed a soul any less seriously than the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendment rights of a child molester or terrorist is ridiculous.

The general point I think we all need to focus on here is that the guys the cops need guns to defend themselves against typically show up on the police radar because they victimized somebody who doesn't have arrest powers first. It's the same bad guy, doing the same dastardly deeds. Anyone who encounters him should probably have a gun handy.

[RoyGBiv]

I agree that retired LE should be able to keep and bear arms, but so should we all. The SAME arms. Yes, your retirement risks are a bit higher than mine and I don't begrudge you LEOSA benefits, as I realize those "benefits" also benefit me indirectly. But, if you can have a 17 round Glock, for all the good reasons why you need one, I should have the same right. If we start with the assumption that you are statistically more likely to be the target of bad men (and I'm not convinced that's true, but I'm willing to stipulate it here), by what logic do you suggest that equates to you having a greater need for a standard capacity magazine? Is my gunfight going to require less rounds than yours?

Hopefully you also would agree that ALL honest citizens having the uninfringed right to those same weapons makes criminals less likely to commit crimes of violence against persons. That if you reduce my round count, YOU become less safe because criminals will be more brazen. Their risks will be less.

I realize there are many arguments one can make for exempting LEOSA-types from gun bans. I would hope that after a life of service to the people of this country, you don't let the anti's divide you from us in this way. It's part of their plan. Stand up for all of us and we'll stand up for you.

[TCinVA]

nyeti isn't the sort of guy who is going to support gun control. That's the kind of thing the white-shirt peter-principle politician types who get 9 kinds of offended when a good cop shoots a bad man do.

[SecondsCount]

All we have to remember is that laws only affect the law abiding.

There are thousands of criminals that get up every morning and strap on their weapon of choice. They are more worried about the criminal element they will be dealing with than any laws or police effort.

[Dagga Boy]

Please don't cull me out:(. Remember, I am the same guy who wants a nationally recognized CCW for everyone..........I just am not in favor of it with a four hour lecture class. Some states may think that a short nothing class works for them, and I am all for the tenth amendment in this regard. But I am also for a greater standard for something that applies to everyone. The standards for LEOSA is not a cake walk or a given for everyone with a badge at some point in their lives. Also keep in mind that most LEO's have a minimum of a couple of days training to be able to use and purchase modern service rifles. I don't necessarily agree that should be a requirement for everyone, but it would probably be a good idea on paper. We need to remember that most of the gun owning public and "first responders" are not like the people on this forum in any way shape or form in how they train, use, and operate firearms. The world would be a much better place if they were (cops, soldiers, and citizens alike).

Our meat and potatoes class at HiTS is "First Responder Pistol". It sounds like a L/E only class. It is based on typical L/E CONUS engagements, ROE's and moral, legal and ethical expectations. We are often asked if non-sworn citizens can take the class. Our response and belief is very simple. If you are confronting evil in your living room at 3 AM, you just became a first responder. We fully believe that individual citizens from every walk of life are responsible for their own well being and safety and we fully support the use of firearms as one of many means to protect yourself, loved ones, and fellow citizens from predatory criminals. We also aim to do whatever we can to provide training to make people safer and more competent to not just survive, but to crush these predators when they are intent on doing harm to others. Essentially, we hate criminals and want them removed from society by anyone willing.

I hate the divide and conquer tactics used by all sides. I don't hunt, but support legal hunting. I support people's rights to not have guns if they don't feel the need. I just wish everyone could get on board with a simple "let's remove criminals and evil people from society", rather than making people criminals because of the choices they make to protect themselves.

Let me also make perfectly clear-I am against magazine and AWB's bans and restrictions for everyone. They are stupid and have zero impact on criminals.

[BaiHu]

The only thing a mag cap does to the law abiding is increase the odds for the criminals. First off, IMO, criminals use....illegal guns, b/c they are a) felons already and shouldn't/can't have a gun or b) are using the gun in a nefarious way (duh) and certainly don't want a homing device connecting them with said gun and action.

Logically, which is a term that politicians either a) don't care to understand or b) more likely, don't want to understand b/c it dilutes their power, all law abiding citizens should be allowed to have exactly what their LE carries. If their LE only carries 7 rounds in NJ, then fine, I'll carry 7.

However, it could be argued, that since the citizen is often the first responder and the victim simultaneously, that he/she should have a higher capacity, not a lower or equal to capacity, b/c the cops come in pairs with tactics, vehicles, more guns and powers of arrest.

Lastly, how is it less years in prison for having an illegal gun/s versus having too many rounds in a legal gun? I'm re-posting this: http://www.pressherald.com/news/Maine-man-gets-27-months-in-prison-for-stealing-firearms.html

[Shellback]

I would like to also see a national CCW that has consistent and solid qualification requirements and a extensive background check.

A national CCW would be ideal for many citizens, including myself. When crossing state borders a person shouldn't have to decide between protecting their families from predators or breaking a law that criminals don't pay any mind to.

[RoyGBiv]

A national CCW would be ideal for many citizens, including myself. When crossing state borders a person shouldn't have to decide between protecting their families from predators or breaking a law that criminals don't pay any mind to.

Would be interesting to see a National CCW introduced alongside the new AWB.
Let's see the Anti's justify voting no on a CCW bill while at the same time proclaiming to "Support the Second Amendment" and the "Right to Self Defense"

That would be fun to watch...

That said.... I think asking for a national CCW bill is asking for trouble. I don't trust the Feds to write a good bill.
National RECIPROCITY, on the other hand, should be a no brainer.

[Shellback]

That said.... I think asking for a national CCW bill is asking for trouble. I don't trust the Feds to write a good bill.
National RECIPROCITY, on the other hand, should be a no brainer.

You're right. I was just daydreaming about my own little utopia ;)

[TCinVA]

CCL's should work just like DL's in regards to recognition.

Lots of people are morons when it comes to driving, and they cause massive death and destruction...but we don't say that somebody from New York can't drive in Virginia because they aren't properly trained.

It's worth noting that Senator Boxer has introduced legislation to set minimum standards for concealed carry across the board...which is designed to prevent concealed carry. And therein lies the problem with standards for concealed carry.

Sure, we'd all like for people to be trained. In reality training requirements are seized upon by anti-gun politicians as a means to deny people access. Just as they did with the program to let pilots carry firearms in the cockpit. This is why permits and training requirements are, in general, bad ideas. We're not dealing with people who act in good faith.

[MDS]

We're not dealing with people who act in good faith.

Quoted for truth.

[Spr1]

And, the problem they are trying to solve is not crime, it is liberty.

[TGS]

We're not dealing with people who act in good faith.


And, the problem they are trying to solve is not crime, it is liberty.

And that is the issue.

In NJ, bills have come up for the usual gun control nonsense. You know, 5 round mag limits, greater restriction on so-called "assault weapons," ect. Now for the interesting part......mandatory in-home inspections. Mandatory mental health evaluations.

Wow.

The fact that this stuff is even being proposed is outright f'ing scary. Statism is in full swing. We're actually seeing the realization of the books we read in school, such as Nineteen Eighty-Four and Fahrenheit 451. Orwellian dystopia is coming to fruition. It's no longer just a hypothetical danger put forth by the blue-helmet fearing, barium vapor cloud avoiding survivalists....it's actually happening. BaiHu shared an excellent quote with me the other day:



First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


And, that's what's happening. People only want to see the whole gun control debate as that.....a gun control debate. They are not thinking about the precedents set by such things as mandatory in-home inspections and mental evaluations. They're not willing to acknowledge the erosion of rights by doing such, because they still see it as a "common sense" and "reasonable" action in the interest of public safety.

[BaiHu]

Just spoke to a NY cop in Penn Station. Lord god was it refreshing. He used to work in Brooklyn and said as soon as homicides broke 100 in a year the politicians got antsy. He said none of this will do anything. Amen.

More and more, I feel it's all about the politicians covering their asses and the media hyping it up because it makes the whole lot of them feel good, I mean fills their pockets for good.

They're the same type of amoral scum that tells the rich they need to pay more taxes like Buffet and Obama.

These people are out for their way of life and eff the rest of us if we can't find a way to be like them. That's their brand of freedom.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Drang]

Please don't cull me out:(. Remember, I am the same guy who wants a nationally recognized CCW for everyone..........I just am not in favor of it with a four hour lecture class. Some states may think that a short nothing class works for them, and I am all for the tenth amendment in this regard.
I refuse to spend time and money on training/certification/qualification just because it makes some statist, some nervous Nelly, or some Only One feel better.

Produce proof that training requirements make for a "better" concealed carry program, or a safer community. Go ahead, I'll wait. While you're looking (Hint: Don't look at John Lott's work, he disagrees with you) I'll just point out that Washington state has had shall-issue concealed carry for 50 years now, without a training requirement, and without a significant amount of accidents or incidents that would have been prevented by a rigorous training requirement.

Training requirements only serve to make the distrusting feel better, and to dissuade the otherwise law abiding! Giving you a warm and fuzzy feeling about my competence to carry is not worth a dime of my money or a minute of my time.

No doubt I will now be inundated by a wave of righteous indignation for accusing nyeti of being an Only One, but the badge don't make you a better class of citizen than me, any more than my two decades plus of military service makes me a better class of citizen than you, or, for that matter, my father's two and a half decades as a police officer in Detroit does him. Frankly, it's a short step from "You have to prove to me you can be trusted with a gun" to "Only the guy with the badge can be trusted with a gun".

[SeriousStudent]

Drang, this reply is polite and civil. Please take it that way. It's not indignant or hostile.

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding or mischaractarizing nyeti's words. I have had the opportunity to have several one-on-one conversations with him about training and the rights of free citizens in a republic. These were not yes or no conversations. I'm talking an hour over lunch, and another hour when we ran into each other. That's in addition to several days training with him and his training partner.

I'm also not his paid spokesperson, either, and I hope I'm not out of my lane. I'm just some old guy in the internet that is trying to learn, and filter, and become more proficient. Nyeti's helped me with that.

I personally believe the guy reads and understands the Constitution. I live in Texas, where I need to follow the law to legally carry a concealed firearm. If I don't, I'm a felon. The law requires training. I follow the law. Ignoring the law will not make me Jim Cirillo or Jelly Bryce. But training can sure help.

If you ever get near Texas, I'd be happy to discuss it over a beer in a friendly manner. But I don't think the guy needs to justify himself to me or anyone else. He's one of us. And as has been said previously, I don't think division helps us right now.

Hope that helps, and stay safe.

[Haraise]

Drang, this reply is polite and civil. Please take it that way. It's not indignant or hostile.

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding or mischaractarizing nyeti's words. I have had the opportunity to have several one-on-one conversations with him about training and the rights of free citizens in a republic. These were not yes or no conversations. I'm talking an hour over lunch, and another hour when we ran into each other. That's in addition to several days training with him and his training partner.

I'm also not his paid spokesperson, either, and I hope I'm not out of my lane. I'm just some old guy in the internet that is trying to learn, and filter, and become more proficient. Nyeti's helped me with that.

I personally believe the guy reads and understands the Constitution. I live in Texas, where I need to follow the law to legally carry a concealed firearm. If I don't, I'm a felon. The law requires training. I follow the law. Ignoring the law will not make me Jim Cirillo or Jelly Bryce. But training can sure help.

If you ever get near Texas, I'd be happy to discuss it over a beer in a friendly manner. But I don't think the guy needs to justify himself to me or anyone else. He's one of us. And as has been said previously, I don't think division helps us right now.

Hope that helps, and stay safe.

It all depends on what you mean by 'one of us.'

A unified front is what is needed, yes.

A unified front by compromise only strengthens those who compromise further.

I would no more support certification needed to carry than I would certification needed to own. Just because it is the current state does not make it acceptable.

If unification should be had, it should be around freedom. Not where the government should and shouldn't give us permissions, cards and excuses to have rights.

Disclaimer: Not angry/mad/upset/disrespectful/etc/etc/etc as the board seems to require.

[SeriousStudent]

It all depends on what you mean by 'one of us.'

A unified front is what is needed, yes.

A unified front by compromise only strengthens those who compromise further.

I would no more support certification needed to carry than I would certification needed to own. Just because it is the current state does not make it acceptable.

If unification should be had, it should be around freedom. Not where the government should and shouldn't give us permissions, cards and excuses to have rights.

Disclaimer: Not angry/mad/upset/disrespectful/etc/etc/etc as the board seems to require.

I am not talking about having to prove that I need a handgun, or need to carry one concealed. I live in a shall issue state. I am spending my time and money to help every state become a "shall issue" state. I send money to candidates working to do that in California, New York, Illinois, etc.

What I am saying is that in order to legally carry a concealed weapon, I have to follow the law and get a CHL here in Texas. That's what I am saying.

The only other thing I am saying is that I have met the guy, and read all his posts on this board. I've also read many of his posts on two other boards where he's a mod. I've also read his magazine articles. And I have talked to him in person for hours. Have other people done that?

I'm not a disciple or acolyte, I'm some old guy that reads and thinks and researches. I'd also rather not scare off someone that makes the contributions he does, to this board. When there is a poster that the SMEs and Staff say good things about, I tend to listen and take notes when they talk. That's it.

Have a good weekend.

[SecondsCount]

There are many police officers that should not be carrying a gun.

[Dagga Boy]

"No doubt I will now be inundated by a wave of righteous indignation for accusing nyeti of being an Only One, but the badge don't make you a better class of citizen than me, any more than my two decades plus of military service makes me a better class of citizen than you, or, for that matter, my father's two and a half decades as a police officer in Detroit does him. Frankly, it's a short step from "You have to prove to me you can be trusted with a gun" to "Only the guy with the badge can be trusted with a gun"."

I'll just make a short comment and bow out of this as I somehow became an enemy and one of "them". If you think I am out of line on my criticisms of some CCW programs that I don't get overly wrapped around the axle about, you should see how critical I am of most L/E training programs. The reason is simple. What you do with a gun, your sex organs, and most other things in the privacy of your own home or property that has no effect on anyone else doesn't bother me. Want to be dangerous with a gun, turkey fryer, chain saw, or anything else...I don't care, even if you hurt yourself or your family. Now, you expose others to a level of stupidity, irresponsibility, or injury and I very much care. This is why I would like to see some decent level of training (and trainers) for those whose actions can likely affect those around them. If others don't care, fine, I'll just get back in my lane and not worry about it unless it affects me personally.

LEO's by the nature of their jobs should be exceptionally well trained in the use of those tools in which are needed to police society, but can also injure and kill those they are supposed to be protecting. The biggies are firearms and police vehicles. Most L/E are very much under-trained in these areas, and I will continue doing what I can to change that. In regards to the rest of society, well I'll just leave it to others to decide what is best at this point.

[GJM]

The slippery slope of mandating a certain level of competency in shooting, flying and similar things, is the danger that anyone that does it worse than you is unsafe and anyone training to a higher level is "over trained." This is analogous to anyone driving slower than you being an "idiot" and anyone driving faster being a "maniac."

I see this all the time with people carrying firearms for bear protection in the bush in Alaska. Most have no idea what they are doing, but do I have any right to impose my standards on their right to protection?

[TGS]

I see this all the time with people carrying firearms for bear protection in the bush in Alaska. Most have no idea what they are doing, but do I have any right to impose my standards on their right to protection?

I think you could if you could also make a link between the lack of a standard and public safety.......

but.....

as we've discussed in another thread a few months back, there is nothing to prove it'd actually be in the interest of public safety. The amount of 3rd parties/bystanders injured by gun owners is truly miniscule.

[nycnoob]

Nyeti,

I would be interested in more about what you have to say about CCW training. I have read John Lotts book and I thought he made a fairly good (statistical) case that training does not necessarily improve safety. Do you have any anecdotes that you wish to share which highlights your concerns. I think a concrete discussion would be more productive then the current thread drift about principles.

[Tamara]

I have read John Lotts book and I thought he made a fairly good (statistical) case that training does not necessarily improve safety.

I don't think anybody here would disagree that training is a good thing, and that anybody who carries a firearm in public should be encouraged to seek out training in marksmanship, tactics, and the legal issues surrounding self-defense.

However, I also have lived in two states that require no training of any kind (GA and IN) and one state (TN) that has the usual minimal 1-day classroom training with a marksmanship test that could be (and has been) passed by a blind man. Any actual differences in net public safety between the two conditions tends to wash out in the statistical noise. Despite the lack of a training requirement even in big cities like Indianapolis or Atlanta, shootouts over parking spaces or other anomalies that could be caused by a lack of training are pretty rare.

Which is small comfort if you happen to wind up as the statistic, but there you go. "I didn't know I wasn't justified in shooting him!" is not a good courtroom defense strategy.

To use a more concrete example, I'll bet there are a lot of gun carriers in FL who wish that Zimmerman had availed himself of a trip to LFI-I, however he had passed Florida's training requirements. Would he have acted differently one state to the north where he could carry with no training pre-req at all?

[NETim]

I think every CCW permit holder should be able to meet or surpass the standards required of DiFi to get her permit. :)

I wish EVERY permit holder would get all the training that they can afford and take it to heart. Seriously though, I see mandated training as an avenue to abuse where only the rich and politically well-connected would be allowed to get permits.

[Drang]

"No doubt I will now be inundated by a wave of righteous indignation for accusing nyeti of being an Only One, but the badge don't make you a better class of citizen than me, any more than my two decades plus of military service makes me a better class of citizen than you, or, for that matter, my father's two and a half decades as a police officer in Detroit does him. Frankly, it's a short step from "You have to prove to me you can be trusted with a gun" to "Only the guy with the badge can be trusted with a gun"."

I'll just make a short comment and bow out of this as I somehow became an enemy and one of "them". If you think I am out of line on my criticisms of some CCW programs that I don't get overly wrapped around the axle about, you should see how critical I am of most L/E training programs. The reason is simple. What you do with a gun, your sex organs, and most other things in the privacy of your own home or property that has no effect on anyone else doesn't bother me. Want to be dangerous with a gun, turkey fryer, chain saw, or anything else...I don't care, even if you hurt yourself or your family. Now, you expose others to a level of stupidity, irresponsibility, or injury and I very much care. This is why I would like to see some decent level of training (and trainers) for those whose actions can likely affect those around them. If others don't care, fine, I'll just get back in my lane and not worry about it unless it affects me personally.

LEO's by the nature of their jobs should be exceptionally well trained in the use of those tools in which are needed to police society, but can also injure and kill those they are supposed to be protecting. The biggies are firearms and police vehicles. Most L/E are very much under-trained in these areas, and I will continue doing what I can to change that. In regards to the rest of society, well I'll just leave it to others to decide what is best at this point.
I wish you wouldn't bow out of the conversation. It's a conversation that needs to be held.

And it's not that I "don't care" about gun safety, it's that there is little evidence beyond the anecdotal that lawful concealed carry without a training, certification, or qualification requirement poses a threat to public safety. John Lott's research indicates that the mere act of applying an paying for a permit is a self-selection process that results in a responsible, safe, citizen.

Frankly, statistics from states with Constitutional Carry seem to show that the decision of a law-abiding citizen to carry has the same results.

My biggest issues with mandatory training/certification/qualification for a concealed carry permit (whatever it's call in those particular parts):

It ceases to be "Shall Issue.
Demonstrably no difference in pubic safety levels, EXCEPT for the drop in crime that goes hand in hand with more lawful concealed carry on the street.
Time, difficulty, and money.

The latter is at least as big an issue as the others, as it would be far too easy to make the required training regimen almost impossible for those not in the inner circle. (By "inner circle" I mean those whose names appear on the lists of people in LA or NYC who manage to acquire permits.)
Who sets the standards? Who sets the fees? Who designates certified trainers and training locations? A politician or political appointee?

I could live with--note, emphatically NOT "would be willing to compromise for"--a training/testing system like we use for amateur radio. Three levels of license, test administered by volunteers certified by non-governmental agencies, test questions public, and test fees nominal.

I also think Eddie Eagle should be required in Elementary School, NRA Home Firearm Safety should be required in Junior High, and Basic Pistol, Rifle, and Shotgun should be electives in High School. (We'll leave the Personal Protection courses until post-secondary.)
The problem with that bright idea, though, is that the FCC is required by law to "encourage" ham radio; how would we implement such a program with the CMP running it--ass-you-me'ing that the state even has a CMP-like program--and not the state equivalent of Justice or Homeland Security, which would be subject to whatever political winds are out there. (The pitfalls of running this on the federal level should be obvious.)

[MDS]

I'm hit with a strong sense of deja vu....I muscle through it and consider the substance of the debate. So at first blush, I think: what if we treat it a little like driving? No pre-reqs to own or operate on private property (i.e., "sporting purposes.") To operate in public, (i.e., CCW,) you need to pass a robust qual. Just like motorcycles, you get endorsements for things like full-auto. And just like driving, you can get a limitation that says you have to be wearing corrective lenses if you're carrying. You can get a "ticket" for safety violations, like carrying without a quality holster (or a SERPA. ;)) With enough tickets, you have to go through remedial training, and eventually will lose your CCW.

Haven't really thought this through, but on the surface it seems reasonable to have pre-reqs for CCW that are equivalent to the shooting standards cops need to pass - it doesn't take overly much training or practice to meet those standards, IME, but it would make for a much more prepared CCW population. Right...?

Then I remember TC's Second Law: "we are not dealing with people who act in good faith." And I realize that any pre-reqs would be ripe for effective abuse by the anti's, and I conclude that pre-reqs are a bad idea, and I stop thinking about it. Which eventually leads me to go through the whole through process again when someone paints me a superficially reasonable reason for pre-reqs. At which point I'm hit with a strong sense of deja vu.....

If we required firearm proficiency in school - say, pass the AQT at Appleseed or etc - then after a generation or two very few people would buy the BS that the anti's are selling and we could evolve the conversation towards meaningful things like pre-reqs for CCW. But while the general population is so under-educated about firearms that they can hear the words "assault clips" without chuckling and ignoring everything else that person says, we need to play a little defense here and be careful about the subjective powers that we put into law.

[pr1042]

NY Sheriffs respond...

http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-response-ny-safe-act


Sheriffs’ Response to NY SAFE Act
• Restriction on FOIL requests about pistol permit holders. By granting citizens the option of having their names and addresses withheld from public disclosure, the new law does provide a mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether their personal information should be accessible to the public. We believe, however, that no one should have to explain why their personal information should remain confidential. A better procedure, we believe, is simply to exempt all this personal information from FOIL disclosure.

• Killing of emergency first responders. The new law makes killing of emergency first responders aggravated or first degree murder, enhancing penalties for this crime and requiring life without parole. First responders need this protection, evidenced all too often by attacks on them when they attempt to provide help, and in special recognition of the terrible attacks on two firefighters in Webster, NY and attacks on first responders in Jefferson County.

• Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

• Comprehensive review of mental health records before firearms permits are granted and review of records to determine if revocation of permits is required. Sheriffs believe that there is an urgent need to increase funding for mental health care. The new law imposes reporting requirements on many mental health care professionals and others who may make a determination that a person is a danger to himself or others. The law further gives needed authority to courts or others who issue firearms permits to deny permit applications or to revoke permits already issued. We believe that this issue demands a much more full and detailed discussion about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. The Sheriffs of New York want to pursue these issues with the Governor and the State Legislature.

• Safe storage of firearms. The new law provides that guns must be safely stored if the owner lives with someone who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. We agree that firearms owners should have the responsibility to make sure that their weapons are safeguarded against use or access by prohibited persons, and the new law adds these protections to ensure that weapons are safely and securely stored.

• Increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. The new law adds several increased sanctions for violation of New York gun laws and creates new gun crimes which did not previously exist. These new provisions will provide added tools for law enforcement to prosecute such crimes. We further believe that the new provisions should help deter future misuse of firearms. We also suggest that the legislature consider limitations on plea bargaining for all gun crimes.

We have reviewed other provisions of the new law, and strongly believe that modifications are needed to clarify the intent of some of these new provisions and that revisions are needed to allow Sheriffs to properly enforce the law in their counties.

•Assault weapon ban and definition of assault weapons. We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. 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.

• Inspection of schools by state agencies. The new law transfers to state agencies the responsibility to review school safety plans. We expect that funding will be transferred to these state agencies to implement safety proposals. Sheriffs and local police provide this service in all parts of the state and can perform these duties efficiently. As the chief law enforcement officer of the county, Sheriffs are in the best position to know the security needs of schools in their own counties, and the state should help to fund these existing efforts by Sheriffs and local police departments to keep our schools safe. Because Sheriffs and local police are already deeply involved with school safety plans, have developed emergency response plans, and are familiar with structural layouts of schools in their counties, they should be included along with state counterparts in any effort to review school safety plans.

• Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. 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.

•Five-year recertification of pistol permit status and registration of existing assault weapons. The new law delegates to the State Police the duty to solicit and receive updated personal information of permit holders every five years in order to maintain these permits. Further, the law requires owners of certain existing firearms now classified as assault weapons to register these with the State Police within one year. The recertification and registration conflict with Sheriffs’ duties regarding issuance of pistol permits. All records should be maintained at the local, and not the state level. This information should be accessible to those who are responsible for initial investigation of permit applications. Pistol permit information should be maintained in one file at the local level, and forwarded to a statewide database for law enforcement use. It bears repeating that it is our belief that pistol permit and any registration information required by the law should be confidential and protected from FOIL disclosure.

• Sale of ammunition. The new law imposes several new provisions regarding how, and from whom, ammunition can be lawfully purchased. The law should be clarified about the use of the Internet as a vehicle for these sales, out‐of‐state sales to New York residents, and other issues. Businesses have said that they do not understand the new provisions and are concerned that they will have to cease operations.

• Law enforcement exemptions must be clarified. The new law has many provisions that might apply to law enforcement officers and there has been much confusion about whether existing law enforcement exemptions continue to apply. We understand that the Governor and Legislature have already agreed to review and modify these provisions where necessary, and the Sheriffs want to be part of the discussion to make the changes effective. Additionally, the exemptions should apply to retired police and peace officers, and to others in the employ of the Sheriff and other police agencies who perform security duties at public facilities and events.

•Method of bill passage. It is the view of the Sheriffs’ Association that anytime government decides it is necessary or desirable to test the boundaries of a constitutional right that it should only be done with caution and with great respect for those constitutional boundaries. Further, it should only be done if the benefit to be gained is so great and certain that it far outweighs the damage done by the constriction of individual liberty. While many of the provisions of the new law have surface appeal, it is far from certain that all, or even many, of them will have any significant effect in reducing gun violence, which is the presumed goal of all of us. Unfortunately the process used in adoption of this act did not permit the mature development of the arguments on either side of the debate, and thus many of the stakeholders in this important issue are left feeling ignored by their government. Even those thrilled with the passage of this legislation should be concerned about the process used to secure its passage, for the next time they may find themselves the victim of that same process. Fortunately, the Governor has shown himself open to working with interested parties to address some of the problems that arose due to the hasty enactment of this law. We will work with the Governor and the Legislature on these issues.

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.

[JM Campbell]

• Sheriffs understand their Constitutional obligations and the concerns of constituents Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers are not called upon by this new legislation to go door‐to‐door to confiscate any weapons newly classified as assault weapons, and will not do so.

Sheriffs represent all the people, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. Sheriffs will continue to enforce all laws of the state and will protect the rights of all citizens, including those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.


And they are still going to enforce this new law....kind of "doppelganger" isn't it (what looks to be one in fact is not)?

[peterb]

Haven't really thought this through, but on the surface it seems reasonable to have pre-reqs for CCW that are equivalent to the shooting standards cops need to pass - it doesn't take overly much training or practice to meet those standards, IME, but it would make for a much more prepared CCW population. Right...?

"Trained people are safer" is one of those points that seems "obvious", but I don't know if there's real-world data to back it up. Some of the arguments the anti-gun folks are making also seem "obvious"(fewer people carrying means less gun violence!) until you look at the data.

Vermont has no carry permit requirement, and has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country. I wouldn't be comfortable arguing that tighter requirements would make it any better.

I've certainly met folks who I felt had no business carrying a gun in public -- those with no knowledge of self-defense law and/or abysmal shooting skills. I think that training would be a huge help for those folks, and for everyone who chooses to carry. Bu I don't think the data exists to prove it.