2nd Amendment: New York State Pistol Permit Process

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by tpsreporter
 


Wow. Sounds like some differing opinions of law makers in California. Law makers with little experience and/or knowledge of firearms. Always seems the case. The ones in charge know very little about what they're governing over.


You are quite right we have lawmakers trying to ban things they know nothing about. Look at Carolyn McCarthy who wanted to ban barrel shrouds. When she was asked what one was and why it should be banned, she hand't a clue. She hemmed and diverted but finally said "That shoulder thing that goes up."

edit on 9-10-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


Well the lawyers fighting for guns rights are doing a good job, taking the issue one step at a time. I do wish it was a faster process. They are back in court now to address this issue. That one case was ruled that because of one option the other was un-needed.

Now chances are at least one of those laws will be undone.

I think that total gross violence rises as populations do (but not necessarily per capita violence), and people assume controlling guns will curtail it, but it won't. Not fully. The most violent cities are all big. It has nothing to do with guns per person or total guns, just the nature of violence in society and all those factors that cause it (economic struggles, food, luxuries ect)

Assuming that there is always at least 1% that is bad or evil in society, then in a town of 100 you have 1 bad guy, and they are easily controlled and everyone knows him. But in a town of 1,000,000 you have 10,000 bad guys. And the remaining 990,000 people can't possibly know every one of them or keep their eye on every one of them and its far easier to get away with violence and hide amongst the million and far easier to act our with violence since its basically more sheep for the wolves at all times.

But i dont think people want to accept that, they want to believe we can build a perfect system to control the 10,000 bad people and keep the 990,000 perfectly happy.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
To NavyDoc-

"Notice that all of the gun control laws in Chicago and NYC have not stopped gun violence one wit."

How is it that you and I recognize this, yet our over-payed, under-worked politicians in Washington fail to see, or or fail to admit this fact, because it sure doesn't take a neurosurgeon or astrophysicist to see it. This is what's frustrating about living in New York; having all these nonsensical gun regulations, yet seeing no significant impact upon the crime statistics in my state. Again, we term this "Feel-Good" legislation, and the constituents of these foolish politicians buy this crap hook, line, & sinker.

I wasn't going to divulge the ATS member or his thread but for the sake combating this fallacies I'm hoping this will embarass him enough to see the error in his thinking. Not to be spiteful or mean or childish, but to wake up and see anti-gun legislation for what it is...pure foolishness. I believe it is fine to have an opinion to not like guns or firearms; fine, then don't buy them or shoot them. The ATS member's handle name is AdamLaw and the thread is called "Hi, I'm against fire arms," or something to that effect. The statement that most profoundly impacted me was when he said..."A ban of firearms would only hurt the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens." Or something very similar to that.

In all my years as a firearms owner, a veteran, a patriot, and an American, had I ever heard such a statement, not even from anti-gun folks! I kindly explained that argument made no sense since criminals don't follow the law, and in no way, shape, or form would that even remotely begin to quell illicit gun violence. It would do nothing but increase black market activity. I commended him on having an opinion and posting it on a public forum, but also explained him better come up with some better arguments than that. No way is that belief based in practice and/or real-life experience. They only way something like that would work is if all gun manufacturers went out of business, but still that would do nothing for the weapons still in circulation.

BTW...you had to be a Navy Corpsman, right?


edit on 9-10-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


This is awesome doc, and exactly the point I was trying to make. These people are fools and are only helping our cause. The amount of ignorance is astounding.

Let's face it. There's just too many guns here in American hands to really do anything signigicant about it. (i hope anyways). But, like others have said, they can easily start to over-tax the ammunition, etc, etc. My brother re-loads his .308. This week I'm going to buy dies for my .380 and 9mm. Besides being cheaper, it's getting ready to start stockpiling ammo. Soon, I'll start re-loading my 5.56 as well. It'll be a good winter project.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Wrabbit, I think that was me, only I made this thread my in-depth because I had the application paperwork in front of me and I wanted to show the people that believe there is no vetting process for handguns the truth. Truth be told, all the vetting now won't prevent an illicit shooting later if I loose my mind. No one can predict that. And you're absolutely right about micro-stamping and the replacement of parts. What about those Sigs that come with interchangeable barrels? I think there is a 9mm/45 cal. version; probably more too. And like so many people have said, with the tangible statistics to prove it. Motor vehicle crashes and alcohol kill so many more people than guns will ever. But, a car wreck isn't as sensationable as a shooting. It's an unfortunate ugly truth.

I'm so but the occassional mass shooting once or twice a year isn't worth a reactive policy change from the hip, half thought out and back by a bunch of liberal zealots. It accomplishs nothing. Case in point is the state/city of New York. The laws here are mind-boggling and they accomplish zilch man!



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


As a veteran you are no more or less able to read the constitution than anyone else. And you are supposedly sworn to uphold it. Are you an OATHKEEPER?

Anyways, anyone who supports any gun control in these late days of freedom being a dream, our republic dead and our global and US police state that is out of control is nuts. They will use every last inch you give them to go the mile, and that is a total and complete ban on firearms.

There is NO non-withstanding clause in:

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

And as has been pointed out in rulings:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Could be re-written:

"Ronald McDonald likes to cook hamburgers, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The words SHALL NOT are used quite sparingly in the US constitution and their meaning is completely unambiguous wherever it is used.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.


This is a mistake you get to make ONLY ONCE.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


That clip was priceless doc!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
i don't even get why we have any kind of gun laws at all. personally IM against crazy guns that can spew tank armor piercing ammunitions or take down an elephant sized animal but w/e floats your boat i guess lol. but i mean really, has any of these gun laws really slowed down gun violence? hell the cops in Detroit just declared it a war zone and told people not to come into city ha!, murder rates hardly ever go down, and now we come to find out our own government is reselling weapons that were supposed to be destroyed right back into the hands of the people that will use them and resell them back to criminals, so wth is the point, if they have fast and furious what "internal" secret give back gun programs are there? considering we have a war on everything program in this country, IM sure there are plenty. hell, we probably have a resell drugs back to gangs program, gotta keep that war on drugs going riiiight? no biggy though anyone gets caught , obama will get them of da hook yo!

the people who would be willing to sign up and be checked out and go through all the process are obviously not the ones who are going to go on killing spree rampages(not to say it hasn't, humans are animals too), so kinda mute in even doing it, if it were easy to get a gun everyone would have one and crime would probably go down when 20 people whip out their guns and point it at a rapist , someone stealing a child, someone getting beat, ect, ect. if everyone had a gun on side of hip , you know damn sure people would def, think twice before running in somewhere guns drawn and blazing.
the only real reason to make it hard for people to get a gun is because the "GOVERNMENT" is scared, not scared for the lives and safety of the people we know that for sure, they don't want people to have any means what so ever of ever being able to retaliate against a standing army. that way they can say jump, and actually make you jump or shoot you, when you have a chance to shoot back, and have 300 million + others with the same ability, the government actually has to listen to its people. when they have their own standing army protecting the crap laws they produce for companies and own self gain there is nothing to stop them or even make THEM think twice,

that is the real reason there are gun laws, and why it gets harder and harder for people to obtain them "legally". has nothing to do with crime, or safety, and everything to do with curbing rebellion.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
To NavyDoc-

"BTW...you had to be a Navy Corpsman, right?


edit on 9-10-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)


I had a varied military career over the last 25 years. USMC O311 as an enlisted, USNA commision, NFO, then back to school to get the ol' M.D., then back to Iraq and Afganistan on the FRSS teams.
edit on 10-10-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


This is awesome doc, and exactly the point I was trying to make. These people are fools and are only helping our cause. The amount of ignorance is astounding.

Let's face it. There's just too many guns here in American hands to really do anything signigicant about it. (i hope anyways). But, like others have said, they can easily start to over-tax the ammunition, etc, etc. My brother re-loads his .308. This week I'm going to buy dies for my .380 and 9mm. Besides being cheaper, it's getting ready to start stockpiling ammo. Soon, I'll start re-loading my 5.56 as well. It'll be a good winter project.


I need to reload, especially 5.56 and 7.62. The stuff can get pricey.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 




I have to ask what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

For most of the hardcore supporters of the 2nd Amendment, I"m sure you do not have to have this question, and if you do, well, you're discussing this topic with people who are gravely misinformed with Constitutional law. That doesn't appear to be anyone responding to this thread.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Awesome, sir. Great experiences and training I'm sure. I stayed enlisted up to E-3 before getting my BSN as a civilian. Did flight nursing and paramedicine for ten years. Worked at various level 1 trauma centers, or regional centers as they are calling them now in NY. Did some teaching and now headed back to the ED as a worker bee. Would love to get my acute care NP but not sure If I want to devote the time.

Keep up the good work. Love your posts BTW. With that type of experience it sure does make for some interesting reading, doc.
edit on 10-10-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Awesome, sir. Great experiences and training I'm sure. I stayed enlisted up to E-3 before getting my BSN as a civilian. Did flight nursing and paramedicine for ten years. Worked at various level 1 trauma centers, or regional centers as they are calling them now in NY. Did some teaching and now headed back to the ED as a worker bee. Would love to get my acute care NP but not sure If I want to devote the time.

Keep up the good work. Love your posts BTW. With that type of experience it sure does make for some interesting reading, doc.
edit on 10-10-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)


You too, thanks. I appreciate that you posted to show people just how hard it is to get a handgun legally. Most people who are not into guns think you can buy a UZI at every streetcorner.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mickrussom
 


reply to post by Cosmic911

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




As a veteran you are no more or less able to read the constitution than anyone else. And you are supposedly sworn to uphold it. Are you an OATHKEEPER?

With a statement like that I'd be interested in knowing your veteran status. You see, as a veteran you have even less Constitutional rights that the average civilian you have pledged to protect. Only a member of the armed services would under this. OATHKEEPER? What is your basis for this terminology or question?



Anyways, anyone who supports any gun control in these late days of freedom being a dream, our republic dead and our global and US police state that is out of control is nuts. They will use every last inch you give them to go the mile, and that is a total and complete ban on firearms.

This statement is a little confusing in syntax and grammar. Forms of gun control are necessary as long as they make sense. You cannot have every tom, dick, and harry running around with lethal weapons. That is just a fact in today's world. Like it or not, it should be common sense and minimal, but it must exist. Gun control, just like everything else in life needs to be tempered.



"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
And as has been pointed out in rulings:

True, but there are other ways to attack the 2nd Amendment without directly attacking firearms themselves, such as high taxes on ammunition, etc. The feds and state can make it so difficult to purchase ammunition that no one but the very rich could shoot for fun, say around 1% of the population. This is why re-loading is becoming so popular right now. They could restrict amounts of ammunition purchased at any given time. They could easily do this online if they wanted to. Hell, look at what China has done to world wide web!



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is an easy, often overlooked argument. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, or the rights of the individuals, not the en masse. Put to end the debate by anti-2nd Amendment Rights folks who believe our founding fathers were clueless when it came to putting a a documen together based upon our struggles with a tyrannical monarch. They understood the need of the individuals to have the have the ability to defend themselves singularly or in groups.



"Ronald McDonald likes to cook hamburgers, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The words SHALL NOT are used quite sparingly in the US constitution and their meaning is completely unambiguous wherever it is used.


The veteran in me frowns upon using the name Ronald McDonald in any sentence or paragraph containing the Constitution of the United States. Just my hang up, not anyone elses.




My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.




The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees


While I do not agree with this sentiment in its entirety, it is only because I think there are plenty more circumstances in which the government has refused to to stand for something, or the Supreme Court has made a "bad decision" in a ruling or confirmation.



This is a mistake you get to make ONLY ONCE.

Again, I can think of few time during the course of a lifetime when mistakes made had such dire consequences. This government is spineless and I don't believe we could pull off a type of operation we were capable of in the past. Compared to OSS the CIA is a walk in the park. It's doubtful if a coup like the one that capitalized on JFK would ever be able to organize much less execute a regime change. I'm not saying current operators couldn't do a bang-up job, I just find it unlikely.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I included FEMA in the original post for a variety of reasons, principally for the agency's ability to suspend Constitutional rights, including the Bill of Rights; obviously included in the Bill of Rights is our Right to Bear Arms. Additionally, however, as Americans we should be aware and informed of FEMA's ability to suspend All Constitutional Rights. This should scare the hell out of all of us. Created by execute order of the POTUS, FEMA exceeds even Congressional oversight. All of this seems very "hinky hinky" for an agency supposedly responsible for disaster managment. This agency duplicates other state, federal, city, and county. Is this level of duplication necessary. FEMA appears to the be the evil doppleganger of sister agencies.

FEMA was created in a series of Executive Orders. A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Executive Order Number 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic. Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry.



Some people have referred to it as the "secret government" of the United States. It is not an elected body, it does not involve itself in public disclosures, and it even has a quasi-secret budget in the billions of dollars. This government organization has more power than the President of the United States or the Congress, it has the power to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and hold them without trial, it can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the Constitution. Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under Constitutional law by the Congress. It was a product of a Presidential Executive Order. No, it is not the U.S. military nor the Central Intelligence Agency, they are subject to Congress. The organization is called FEMA, which stands for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Originally conceived in the Richard Nixon Administration, it was refined by President Jimmy Carter and given teeth in the Ronald Reagan and George Bush Administrations.



FEMA had one original concept when it was created, to assure the survivability of the United States government in the event of a nuclear attack on this nation. It was also provided with the task of being a federal coordinating body during times of domestic disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes. Its awesome powers grow under the tutelage of people like Lt. Col. Oliver North and General Richard Secord, the architects on the Iran-Contra scandal and the looting of America's savings and loan institutions. FEMA has even been given control of the State Defense Forces, a rag-tag, often considered neo-Nazi, civilian army that will substitute for the National Guard, if the Guard is called to duty overseas.


That's a brief overview of FEMA's creation and it's intention as a federal agency. Given what we know of FEMA's activities and charter, it appears the federal government gives it a wide berth when it comes to operations and logistics. There are multiple executive orders can be instituted by the POTUS. I've listed the orders I find too federalistic for comfort.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. (I find this last part extremely interesting)

According to the website FEMA-The Secret Government, authored by Harry Martin and David Caul,

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Continued from above post...

THREE TIMES FEMA STOOD BY READY FOR EMERGENCY


In April 1984, President Reagan signed Presidential Director Number 54 that allowed FEMA to engage in a secret national "readiness exercise" under the code name of REX 84. The exercise was to test FEMA's readiness to assume military authority in the event of a "State of Domestic National Emergency" concurrent with the launching of a direct United States military operation in Central America. The plan called for the deputation of U.S. military and National Guard units so that they could legally be used for domestic law enforcement. These units would be assigned to conduct sweeps and take into custody an estimated 400,000 undocumented Central American immigrants in the United States. The immigrants would be interned at 10 detention centers to be set up at military bases throughout the country.



The second known time that FEMA stood by was in 1990 when Desert Storm was enacted. Prior to President Bush's invasion of Iraq, FEMA began to draft new legislation to increase its already formidable powers. One of the elements incorporated into the plan was to set up operations within any state or locality without the prior permission of local or state authorities. Such prior permission has always been required in the past. Much of the mechanism being set into place was in anticipation of the economic collapse of the Western World. The war with Iraq may have been conceived as a ploy to boost the bankrupt economy, but it only pushed the West into deeper recession.



The third scenario for FEMA came with the Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King brutality verdict. Had the rioting spread to other cities, FEMA would have been empowered to step in. As it was, major rioting only occurred in the Los Angeles area, thus preventing a pretext for a FEMA response.



The crux of the problem is that FEMA has the power to turn the United States into a police state in time of a real crisis or a manufactured crisis. Lt. Col. North virtually established the apparatus for dictatorship. Only the criticism of the Attorney General prevented the plans from being adopted. But intelligence reports indicate that FEMA has a folder with 22 Executive Orders for the President to sign in case of an emergency. It is believed those Executive Orders contain the framework of North's concepts, delayed by criticism but never truly abandoned.


"The scenarios established to trigger FEMA into action are generally found in the society today, economic collapse, civil unrest, drug problems, terrorist attacks, and protests against American intervention in a foreign country. All these premises exist, it could only be a matter of time in which one of these triggers the entire emergency necessary to bring FEMA into action, and then it may be too late, because under the FEMA plan, there is no contingency by which Constitutional power is restored."

edit on 13-10-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Confiscation of Firearms-Katrina


Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, National Guard troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.[77][78] Even National Guard troops, armed with assault rifles, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave.



After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in police possession, and the matter was still in court.[77] The matter was finally settled in favor of the NRA in October 2008. Per the agreement, the city was required to relax the strict proof of ownership requirements previously used, and was to release firearms to their owners with an affidavit claiming ownership and a background check to verify that the owner is legally able to possess a firearm



Louisiana legislator Steve Scalise introduced Louisiana House Bill 760, which would prohibit confiscation of firearms in a state of emergency, unless the seizure is pursuant to the investigation of a crime, or if the seizure is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the officer or another individual. On June 8, 2006, HB 760 was signed into law.[81] 21 other states joined Louisiana in enacting similar laws. A federal law prohibiting seizure of lawfully held firearms during an emergency, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, passed in the House with a vote of 322 to 99, and in the Senate by 84-16. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on October 9, 2006



FEMA Criticism





top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join