Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I just had an awe damn moment. While cleaning out my gun safe I picked up my kids ar15 air rifle. Yes I even keep that under lock and key, as I have several little ones here. This rifle would qualify under this vague law as an assault rifle. It has an detachable magazine which holds pellets, an adjustable stock, pistol grip and it's black to boot. .177 cal bb gun folks. Maybe I will register that one when the time comes, if I can keep a straight face.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
NYC is part of New York State like Washington DC is part of the US - hell New York State goes all the way to the Canadian Border & the people upstate aren't putting up with Governor Cuomo's BS. imo
edit on 26-1-2013 by BABYBULL24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I live in upstate NY in the Lake Placid area. Lot of talk about the new laws up here. I have yet to hear one person they are for them. Our Governor is suiting up for a bid at President, and is not reflecting his constituents at all. We all get it, and hate him for it.

I have a story, and some good news.

I applied for my pistol permit last January. I had an interview with a state police investigator. They are called BCI. Well the interview went great and at the end I asked, "is there anything that precludes me from getting the permit?" He says no, you look great. Two more convos on phone. Same question, same response.

2 months go by. Some friends are in town and beg me to go out. I relent. We go from bar to bar. I get into a conversation with a guy. I have a buzz on, but am not drunk. I tell him many things indicating how little I care for his presence. Turns out he is off duty BCI.

Now I never go out. Never been in a fight. I am not that kinda guy.

4 months go by. Called for second interview. Same as before. This cop asks me specifically about that night. He grills me. I ask same question at end.

"Im going to have to talk to my superior, but we dont usually give permits to people with substance abuse problems."

So I dont get the permit. Never done anything wrong in my life.

My story is illustrate how easy it is to piss off the "deciders"

Under this law, you will have to get your permit, either "assault weapon or handgun", every 5 years. In NY state, the BCI will handle that. If you go to a protest. If you get in a argument with his wife at the grocery store. If you get pulled over and are mad at the cop, they will not allow you that permit.

The GOOD news is:
Sheriffs response to NY SAFE act


Best part:

• "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."



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   


AMENDMENT II
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.


I don't see how that amendment is being infringed or challenged....

EDIT: Let me clarify before anyone blows up on me.

The Government can ban any kind of weapon, or size of ammo, or have you register it, and they won't be infringing on that amendment. How? Well, as long as they don't ban ALL GUNS they're fine.. They can ban all ammo, and they still won't be infringing on that amendment.

EDIT2: my opinion.. I don't have one, honestly, I don't care, my household only has one hand gun, and just a few bullets. and it's under lock and key.
edit on 1/27/2013 by EDracon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by EDracon


AMENDMENT II
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.


I don't see how that amendment is being infringed or challenged....

EDIT: Let me clarify before anyone blows up on me.

The Government can ban any kind of weapon, or size of ammo, or have you register it, and they won't be infringing on that amendment. How? Well, as long as they don't ban ALL GUNS they're fine.. They can ban all ammo, and they still won't be infringing on that amendment.

EDIT2: my opinion.. I don't have one, honestly, I don't care, my household only has one hand gun, and just a few bullets. and it's under lock and key.
edit on 1/27/2013 by EDracon because: (no reason given)


Really? Why bother posting then, is there a point your trying to make? Do you live in NYS? Your opinion is yours and yours alone, if thats how you feel then fine your entitled to as as is anyone else. Just be firm in it and please don't muddy the waters with junk because we have enough of that going on already the way this law is written.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
Really? Why bother posting then, is there a point your trying to make? Do you live in NYS? Your opinion is yours and yours alone, if thats how you feel then fine your entitled to as as is anyone else. Just be firm in it and please don't muddy the waters with junk because we have enough of that going on already the way this law is written.


Apparently you didn't read my post at all.

My point was that the law does not infringe on the second amendment.
Does that mean it's right? I don't know, some people will argue yes, some will argue no. I'm staying neutral on the debate.

Also, the entire point of having a thread with comments is so people can give their two cents. I gave some info related, and my two cents were given.

However, the media, and people on this site seem to LOVE to blow the whole debate completely out of proportion, if you ask me. The people especially are acting like animals on instinct alone, if they honestly oppose it, protest, petition. don't just go "NO MY GUNS NO."



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by EDracon
 


Ammo is to a a weapon as a gas to car. They are part n parcel. So yes by banning ammo you would be infringing on the 2nd. If it was that easy they would have done it a long long time ago don't ya think? And have you gone to any of the links that I listed earlier? Had a good long look around at them? You would know what the outrage is if you did, but I am guessing that you just hoped on here at page 5 and spewed your crap. And are you a resident of the state of NY? Yes the answer to that question is important. Like I said keep going your entitled to your opinion but just like BH don't try to say everyone is blowing it out of proportion without first knowing the ins and outs of whats been presented as law.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
I just had an awe damn moment. While cleaning out my gun safe I picked up my kids ar15 air rifle. Yes I even keep that under lock and key, as I have several little ones here. This rifle would qualify under this vague law as an assault rifle. It has an detachable magazine which holds pellets, an adjustable stock, pistol grip and it's black to boot. .177 cal bb gun folks. Maybe I will register that one when the time comes, if I can keep a straight face.


BB guns, slingshots, super soakers, spit-wad shooters, pea shooters, you name it. Better buy your assault pen before they are banned.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by EDracon
 


Ammo is to a a weapon as a gas to car. They are part n parcel. So yes by banning ammo you would be infringing on the 2nd. If it was that easy they would have done it a long long time ago don't ya think? And have you gone to any of the links that I listed earlier? Had a good long look around at them? You would know what the outrage is if you did, but I am guessing that you just hoped on here at page 5 and spewed your crap. And are you a resident of the state of NY? Yes the answer to that question is important. Like I said keep going your entitled to your opinion but just like BH don't try to say everyone is blowing it out of proportion without first knowing the ins and outs of whats been presented as law.


For the ammo is to a weapon as gas to a car. I was being hypothetical. Since technically, you can have all the guns you want, but no ammo.. You're still armed.. you just can't do jack # with it.

I did go through the thread, I didn't see any information I didn't already know.

I am not a resident of New York, does that matter in the argument for/against the law. No, if you think it does, think again, it's one nation.

What I wrote, with the second amendment, isn't necessarily for/against the law, it's stating a technicality.

Do I think the new law is right? Well, according to your logic my opinion doesn't matter since I'm not in NY, at least ,that's the vibe I'm getting from you.

My opinion however is unchanged, and that is, no opinion/neutral.

And you may not see it as such, but it IS being blown out of proportion, if you can't see that, I can't help you there.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
The second doesn't say to 'keep an bear certain arms'. People had a false sense of trust in the government when certain weapons were banned. Now we are seeing how false it was.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
"Law-abiding citizens" would register their weapons and comply with the law.

Otherwise, y'all just criminals like the ones you're so frightened of.


Unconstitutional laws are not laws.

"If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it he is obligated to do so" - Thomas Jefferson
edit on 27-1-2013 by Shadowcast because: added quote



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is difference made legal.

You can be sure that the people who are making these laws are packing. That makes it an unjust law. In order to ban guns and that ban not be subject to scrutiny under the premise of an unjust law, all guns would have to be banned, including police,secret service, etc.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesquid
I live in upstate NY in the Lake Placid area. Lot of talk about the new laws up here. I have yet to hear one person they are for them. Our Governor is suiting up for a bid at President, and is not reflecting his constituents at all. We all get it, and hate him for it.



I live in Western NY. I see the same thing over here, not one person I have talked with is for this law. Many, including myself, have sent emails, and called local and state officials. I'm hoping this dosen't last long, the support against the law is growing.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
If they aren't following the law, then they are now a criminal.

I thought gun owners were responsible adults...it appears they are proving that they are not.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Law doesnt take effect until 2014. But If I were a mod I would still delete your post.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
i dont believe this story


can i get a list of all those people that wont register the guns? thanx.


^^



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by exitusstatuquo
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I agree with you on that as New York is like as liberal test ground. If it is too liberal for New York then the rest of the nation is not about to adopt these same measures.


Exactly! Or, they will use other measures, like forced weapons' seizures.


Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
i dont believe this story


can i get a list of all those people that wont register the guns? thanx.


^^


You are totally missing the point. The point is that no one should have a list of gun owners. Such lists are used ONLY to take those guns. No, you can't have one.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
If they aren't following the law, then they are now a criminal.

I thought gun owners were responsible adults...it appears they are proving that they are not.



Or something else. A failure of those legislators in NY to follow the Constitution they swore to uphold...

Lets review.

Infringed:
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Inalienable - not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"

Oath:a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words

Congressional oath "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

Presidential oath; “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by xedocodex
If they aren't following the law, then they are now a criminal.

I thought gun owners were responsible adults...it appears they are proving that they are not.



Or something else. A failure of those legislators in NY to follow the Constitution they swore to uphold...

Lets review.

Infringed:
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Inalienable - not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"

Oath:a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words

Congressional oath "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

Presidential oath; “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


Infringed: Regulating is not infringing, we already have gun regulation, the SCOTUS has backed it up.

Inalienable: Gun ownership is not an "inalienable right". The word "inalienable" isn't even in the Constitution, you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is not part of US law. And even in that document, the inalienable rights that were state are Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Happiness. I really wish pro-gun people would educate themselves and quite using this word to describe gun rights.

Oaths: No one broke any type of Oath for passing gun regulation...like I said earlier, we already have plenty of gun regulation...more gun regulation doesn't cross some imaginary line that pro-gun people have set up in their mind. Precedant has been set, so legally, gun regulation is not unconstitutional.

But that was entertaining...you tried so hard.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Thanks for your condescending reply. I expect no less from your ilk.

Did you read the definition of infringe? What part of that did you fail to understand?

As to the rest of your diatribe... It is total b.s.


Our founders knew what they meant and meant what they said!


"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788


"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
Samuel Adams "The Father of the American Revolution"


"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
Samuel Adams


"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46 January 29, 1788


"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)


"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776


"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography


"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President


"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President


"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington


Oh my I could go on and on. You my friend need a Civics class.





new topics
 
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join