Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Watch who you are dating too now NYers, have a crazy ex? They file a restraining order against you and you lose your guns
edit on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:54:24 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Can you provide a source that backs up your claim that a restraining order gets a person's guns taken away?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
www.governor.ny.gov...


Protecting Families: When a judge issues an order of protection and finds a substantial risk that the individual subjected to the order will use a gun against the person protected by the order, the judge is required to the surrender of the weapon.


Like I said before it's all there. Now lets be honest here you havent really been reading all the laws now have you?
edit on 25-1-2013 by jaynkeel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by exitusstatuquo
 

Isnt Civil Disobedience something that the Liberals have long preached? I am waiting to see if they come out and say that Registration was just a way to update their records but that they already know who bought the guns.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Here is the PDF factsheet from NY senate gov, I posted a link somewheres to the full bill itself, trying to find it again.

Full bill
edit on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:07:34 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


My point exactly. It doesn't say that "a restraining order gets your guns taken away" like the previous poster is intimating. That's an exaggeration and sensationalism. It says if a judge finds "substantial risk" that the person will use a gun against the person who placed the order, it must be surrendered.

I don't agree with MUCH of the law, but if I'm a woman who has to get a restraining order against a guy to protect myself or my children and he is at "substantial risk" of using a gun against me or my children, I want his gun taken away. This is the exact kind of situation where the law SHOULD step in to protect me. In my opinion.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

If they didn't think you were a threat, they would not issue the order of restraint..........
Or at least that is how it is supposed to work.
edit on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:12:56 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
And removal is up to the opinion of a judge. Wonder how evenly issue will be dished out. Probably 99% of the time based on one side, lies or not.

Just another round about way to limit someone. Sometimes rightful some times just because.

It keeps adding up to near zero.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It's a slippery slope no doubt, but the way the whole thing is written it's open to interpretation, comb through it you will see many things that will make you go hmmm. Another example including the order of protection,

Safe Storage: To better ensure that guns are kept inaccessible to those who are barred from possessing them, the legislation requires safe storage of firearms in households where individuals live who have been convicted of a crime, involuntarily committed, or are subject to an order of protection.

www.governor.ny.gov...



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by exitusstatuquo

This situation could get really ugly in the State of New York.


This situation could get really ugly everywhere. I like to see them try to enforce this. Many will comply, but a hell of a lot more will stand up and say, "No." Period. They'll be labeled disruptors, criminals, truthers with an agenda, (which has become the new kind of terrorist on the net according to the mainstream), revolutionists, etc. BTW, revolutionist... God willing I be labeled that. Revolution is what our nation was built on. It is what made America.. America. I'll stand for that. I'll be labeled that if it meant the legacy I create is that I stood for freedom and my rights.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, how about such asinine things in the NY law such as a ban on pistols weighing more than 50 ounces empty, you do realize as a knowledgeble person that this makes many large frame "sporting" and "hunting" pistols into so called assualt weapons to be outright banned. This law does not just apply to "black" rifles and "normal" capacity magazines.

So no Ruger Blackhawks, Redhawks, S&W 659 or Dan Wesson .44's either! Yes people are rightfully bitching about this law.

If you read the laws preamble carefully it calls for registration of everything btw. There is so much gobbledy gook and ambiguity within that prosecuters will have nightly dreams on how they can screw the public over while things wend through the court system for final disposition - the phase "tell it to the judge" will be the norm for any citizen trying to make sense of the law.

The whole thing is very poorly written besides its utter unconstutionality in the first place.

Hey youre a smart one, how about this question?

If commerce clause is as I think you love it to be then according to SCOTUS precedent this law violates supremacy doctrine right?

Or is it only in special cases you like states rights as originally written into constitution - see the issue I'm getting at?

Federal court said Heller had "individual" right to bear whilst NY is saying "collective" kind of turns that 10th amendment thing backwards does it not.

edit on 25-1-2013 by Phoenix because: sp



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Can you provide a source that backs up your claim that a restraining order gets a person's guns taken away?

If they can't... I can.


Federal law prohibits purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by persons who have been convicted in any court of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” and/or who are subject to certain domestic violence protective orders.

Federal law defines a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as an offense that is a federal, state or tribal law misdemeanor and has the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon as an element.9 In addition, the offender must:

be a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;
share a child in common with the victim;

be a current or former cohabitant with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian; or

be similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.10
Source

States don't have to pass that part. That is already standing Federal law, at least where domestic violence is concerned and D.V. can cover a pretty wide range of things if the police write the report that way or the court is looking to insure it functions that way. Although a bit further down the page it does show which states exceed federal law with cited links to each, including states that do require surrender of firearms when a protective order is issued. New York is among them with citation to specific code sections that apply in each state.

Hope that helps.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   


NY law such as a ban on pistols weighing more than 50 ounces empty


When I read the law when it was published I figured a bunch of people just threw in whatever was floating around without much thought.

One would think a heavy weapon would be less likely to be carried into a shooting. Are they thinking too reliable? It's heavy. must be more powerful?

Maybe just nonsense???



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Here is it worded in another section of the actual pdf of the law:

Sections 4 through 16 amend the Family Court Act, the Domestic Relations Law and the CPL to require, under certain circumstances, the mandatory suspension or revocation of the firearms license of a person against whom an order of protection or a temporary order of protection has been issued.

open.nysenate.gov...

What are these certain circumstances?

And it seems they like to kinda reference the 2nd when it's in their favor, but omit certain things that go against what they want to control example:


While the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court has said that that right is "not unlimited." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595, 626 (2008). In the Heller case, the Supreme Court explained, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." 554 U.S. at 626-27. The Court also recognized there is a "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons." Id. This piece of legislation heeds the guidance of the Supreme Court by refining and improving the assault weapon ban and increasing the safety of New Yorkers while observing the protections of the Second Amendment. Some weapons are so dangerous and some ammunition devices so lethal that we simply cannot afford to continue selling them in our state. Assault weapons that have military-style features unnecessary for hunting and sporting purposes are this kind of weapon. The test adopted in this legislation is intended to bring a simplicity of definition focusing on the lethality of the weapon, amplified by the particular features. Given the difficulty of maintaining a list of guns that keeps pace with changes in weapon design, the one-feature test is a more comprehensive means for addressing these dangerous weapons.


open.nysenate.gov...

Assault weapons that have military-style features unnecessary for hunting and sporting purposes are this kind of weapon.
Is the 2nd about hunting and sport ? Did they change it?
edit on 25-1-2013 by jaynkeel because: add comment



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well this California Native won't play their little games either. I have always thought that only a fool does not own at least one firearm that is unknown to the ATF.

When they come to take our guns they can have some......... I won't go the pry it out of my dead hands route though as here in Cali I won't have enough like minded folks playing the same game. I hate going to jail with the very people I want to shoot........



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by exitusstatuquo
 

Isnt Civil Disobedience something that the Liberals have long preached? I am waiting to see if they come out and say that Registration was just a way to update their records but that they already know who bought the guns.


Here ya go!


The proposed regulations would give local law-enforcement agencies access to the gun-sale database that is maintained by the FBI. The rules would also preserve records of denied weapons sales indefinitely.


Holder begins gun control push


Oh really! "gun sale database that is maintained by the FBI" and all this time I thought that stuff was against the law - silly me.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


As homer would say doh!!!! Think they shot themselves in the foot there on the database!!!!!



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by Phoenix
 


As homer would say doh!!!! Think they shot themselves in the foot there on the database!!!!!


Pardon the pun as I say they have overshot the target with that kind of statement. Yup the gang that couldnt shoot straight - and thats with everything they do - nothing is done as it should be according to any existing law, code, tradition or custom - everything has a twisty curvy angle with these folks.

One good that may eventually come is the backlash at these methods used when the minority is attempting to dictate the majority.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel



NY law such as a ban on pistols weighing more than 50 ounces empty


When I read the law when it was published I figured a bunch of people just threw in whatever was floating around without much thought.

One would think a heavy weapon would be less likely to be carried into a shooting. Are they thinking too reliable? It's heavy. must be more powerful?

Maybe just nonsense???


I think anything more than an orange colored cap pistol with a 75 decibel limit scares the bejesus out of these people. Its apparent in the NY law as written that fear drove the authors because it sure does not address anything that would help stop what they used as a reason for this law.

Stopping would consist of law directing prosecutors and judges to allow no plea bargaining away of existing weapons laws which is rampant.

Nor does it address big pharma and the role of wholesale drugging of american youth with drugs big pharma themselves admit cause incidents such as we have recently seen.

Want to go after major root cause then declare big pharma an "assault weapon" and class them much like WMD.

Instead we have nanny cry cry class once again taking a run at law abiding citizens who have nothing to do with the problem at hand. Nanny class is such a tool though.

That smells of an agenda rather than doing any good.



edit on 25-1-2013 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Those are reasonable points and I believe not far, if any at all, from the truth in all of this mess.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join