Wait, are you confused? This is (going to be) a state law, not a city ordinance. People upstate were involved in the process.
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
I'm going to guess they include the dissenting votes.
I find it interesting that every time I mention don't ban guns people blow their load and think I'm saying guns shouldn't be regulated.
So much strawmanning.
They could be the dissenting votes but that doesn't mean they weren't involved in the process. Democracy works how it works.
Here's a link for you to check your assumption. Unfortunately, it only lists names and the corresponding vote, not their districts.
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013...-the-gun-bill/
I agree, that's how democracy should work imo. States should be allowed to set up their own laws.
Unfortunately, when it comes to gun control, you get people arguing their state's gun laws should apply to all states like earlier in this thread. The argument being they want to take away the states right to choose gun laws for the people's own good and use the federal government as that tool. When the coin is on the reverse side like here though, it's democracy working as intended.
A bit hypocritical if you ask me. I don't agree with New York but I think it should be their right to choose. I don't expect that kind of democratic thinking to come to play in other states with more gun freedoms.
The word "federalism" does not suffice as a justification of federalism.
Oh wow.. lol, this thread is worse than the Girls Who Broke Your Heart thread when it comes to privileged, mentally deranged and lonely nerd bros complaining about shit.
Hey Aychamo, did you see your girl Ann Coulter took up your crazy, racist rambling to the mainstream? You're in good company bro.
Hey Aychamo, did you see your girl Ann Coulter took up your crazy, racist rambling to the mainstream? You're in good company bro.
Nowhere did i say that it did; that conversation belongs in the politics thread. But to complain that "the government" is taking away our guns by citing individual state legislation shows a basic ignorance of this country's dual structure of government.
Borzak
Bronze Baron of the Realm
- 25,453
- 33,207
The NY law won't stand but it will take a while to work thru the court system. In both Heller Vs. DC and McDonald Vs. Chicago the supreme court ruled a state/local government could not ban or restrict a gun that was "in common use".
Another problem is NY is a hub for air travel which presents problems when flying to and from areas that dont' have the gun law. A couple of years ago a guy flew from an area where he could legally own a handgun to another where he could legally carry a handgun. His flight had issues and landed in NYC to avoid weather or whatever the problem was. He was arrested and convicted of a felony for rechecking his handgun into luggage to fly out of NYC. That was several years ago and as far as I know he is is still in prison.
This is the result of the last Chicago lawsuit that they lost which they have had a string of loses, which was even less reaching than the NY law.
Another problem is NY is a hub for air travel which presents problems when flying to and from areas that dont' have the gun law. A couple of years ago a guy flew from an area where he could legally own a handgun to another where he could legally carry a handgun. His flight had issues and landed in NYC to avoid weather or whatever the problem was. He was arrested and convicted of a felony for rechecking his handgun into luggage to fly out of NYC. That was several years ago and as far as I know he is is still in prison.
This is the result of the last Chicago lawsuit that they lost which they have had a string of loses, which was even less reaching than the NY law.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...day/?hpt=hp_t2
The announcement comes tomorrow. If he includes an aggressive push for an AWB, then it's time to call your representatives.
The announcement comes tomorrow. If he includes an aggressive push for an AWB, then it's time to call your representatives.
I expect parts of it will. Why do you think the background check and mental health parts of the law are unconstitutional? Did you mean the assault weapons (as defined by the law) portion won't stand? The clip regulation? Both?
I'm not sure about the AW portion but I haven't read Heller, McDonald, or any of the lower court decisions in their wake. The law will almost certainly be challenged so we'll find out.
Borzak
Bronze Baron of the Realm
- 25,453
- 33,207
Every case that has come before the supreme court in the last 5+ years has sided with the 2A and not the government. It has ruled in those 5 years that the 2A specifically applies to citizens, that governments both state and local can no longer ban a firearm that is "in common use", and several other issues. Unless the court changes the pattern has been to overturn the entire law with a given limit on how long they have to completely rewrite the law or have it removed completely.
If you read the actual wording of the law it not only bans the purchase, importation, or manufacture of some items it specifically prohibits the posession of several items such as pre 1994 magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Off that right there the law or at least part of it will be struck down as because it makes it never identifies what you are supposed to do with your already legally purchased magazines which are now illegal. In another part of the bill it says the state police will contact all permit holders for handguns to "ensure" that they don't have pre 1994 magazines which hold more than 10 rounds in their posession, that sounds a lot like confiscation. You can have post AWB magazines that hold 10 rounds but you can only load them to 7 rounds but the pre 1994 stuff is what will ultimately kill the bill.
I'm not sure on the mental health aspect but by federal law when you get a background check (NICS) to buy a firearm in the US that information is supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours on the FBI end. If the mental health check holds that on file that is a violation of federal law. When John Ashcroft took over as AG he ordered all the NICS information destroyed as per law which had not been done in the previous administration. So either they have to find a wonky way around it, or change federal law, or ignore it and wait for it to work thru the court system.
Another aspect many people dont' think about if they don't follow the industry. Look at what Ronnie Barret did. He's owner of Barrett firearms, makers of .50 rifles. When the state of CA passed a law banning private citizens from owning or buying them Ronnie Barrett told the state to fuck off and banned the sale to government agencies in the state. The CHP Swat team had a contract for a bunch of his rifles and he nullified the contract and told them they could buy them on the black market if they wanted at an increased price. Already this morning several law firearms manufactures have come out with the same law as it pertains to NY. Make them available to citizens or purchase them off the 2nd hand market, not from us.
I suppose Remington which is the largest firearm maker in the US will now have to move as they are located in the state of New York and a good portion of their catalog is now illegal to posses or ship in the state of NY. Both Remington and kimber both released statements today saying they were looking at a way to quickly relocate to save the business.
The law is pretty much a disaster from the get go and the final version was actually written in less than 2 hours. One of those bills you have to vote for befor eyou find out what is in it. Law enforcement as per the actual writing of the law are not exempt from this legislation. It's expected the governor will have to issue a special order or have another bill passed to issue a waiver to law enforcement agencies in the state, but they wanted to get what was on paper passed before anyone read it.
Another reason I think it will be struck down and they will have to start over is it is overly vague. They use descriptions that don't mean anything or everything. Even in the law itself as published today there are sections that easily contradict itself, several areas about magazine posession etc...are covered in multiple areas and overlap and I guess you just have to pick which section of the law you want to really follow.....In the past this has been the biggest reason most gun laws are struck down is because they are too vague.
If you read the actual wording of the law it not only bans the purchase, importation, or manufacture of some items it specifically prohibits the posession of several items such as pre 1994 magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Off that right there the law or at least part of it will be struck down as because it makes it never identifies what you are supposed to do with your already legally purchased magazines which are now illegal. In another part of the bill it says the state police will contact all permit holders for handguns to "ensure" that they don't have pre 1994 magazines which hold more than 10 rounds in their posession, that sounds a lot like confiscation. You can have post AWB magazines that hold 10 rounds but you can only load them to 7 rounds but the pre 1994 stuff is what will ultimately kill the bill.
I'm not sure on the mental health aspect but by federal law when you get a background check (NICS) to buy a firearm in the US that information is supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours on the FBI end. If the mental health check holds that on file that is a violation of federal law. When John Ashcroft took over as AG he ordered all the NICS information destroyed as per law which had not been done in the previous administration. So either they have to find a wonky way around it, or change federal law, or ignore it and wait for it to work thru the court system.
Another aspect many people dont' think about if they don't follow the industry. Look at what Ronnie Barret did. He's owner of Barrett firearms, makers of .50 rifles. When the state of CA passed a law banning private citizens from owning or buying them Ronnie Barrett told the state to fuck off and banned the sale to government agencies in the state. The CHP Swat team had a contract for a bunch of his rifles and he nullified the contract and told them they could buy them on the black market if they wanted at an increased price. Already this morning several law firearms manufactures have come out with the same law as it pertains to NY. Make them available to citizens or purchase them off the 2nd hand market, not from us.
I suppose Remington which is the largest firearm maker in the US will now have to move as they are located in the state of New York and a good portion of their catalog is now illegal to posses or ship in the state of NY. Both Remington and kimber both released statements today saying they were looking at a way to quickly relocate to save the business.
The law is pretty much a disaster from the get go and the final version was actually written in less than 2 hours. One of those bills you have to vote for befor eyou find out what is in it. Law enforcement as per the actual writing of the law are not exempt from this legislation. It's expected the governor will have to issue a special order or have another bill passed to issue a waiver to law enforcement agencies in the state, but they wanted to get what was on paper passed before anyone read it.
Another reason I think it will be struck down and they will have to start over is it is overly vague. They use descriptions that don't mean anything or everything. Even in the law itself as published today there are sections that easily contradict itself, several areas about magazine posession etc...are covered in multiple areas and overlap and I guess you just have to pick which section of the law you want to really follow.....In the past this has been the biggest reason most gun laws are struck down is because they are too vague.
I think it does deal with what you have to do with the pre 94 magazines -- one of the previously posted links says that if you have a pre 94 high capacity magazine, you have to sell it out of the state within 1 year.
I don't have time now but I'm gonna review the law in it's entirety and do more research tonight. Interesting to see how this flows through the courts.
Borzak
Bronze Baron of the Realm
- 25,453
- 33,207
You can read it and if you know anything about firearms you will see they threw everything in there desciption and definition wise with too much overlap and no real meaning. That's why at the end of the bill they also tacked on the "ban Bushmaster" instead of a description of the type of rifle they were trying to ban. That's a brand name, nothing more. It's like saying we are banning Remington firearms because we can't accurately define what model we are talking about.
That has always been on the list of reasons as to why the supreme court has struck down similar laws in the past.
Sorry for the 2 post and edit, having connection issues with the board today.
That has always been on the list of reasons as to why the supreme court has struck down similar laws in the past.
Sorry for the 2 post and edit, having connection issues with the board today.
- 6,338
- 7,144
I can't believe people are fucking retarded enough to have put Obama in office twice. That article you linked spells out bad news for our constitutional rights. Fucking retards.
Borzak
Bronze Baron of the Realm
- 25,453
- 33,207
I think before it even gets appealed the legislature will revisit the law numerous times once they get back home and realise how many sporting type firearms and events they just killed off in New York IDPA (which last I looked had the finals), Cowboy action shooting etc...Just because a non "gun type person" wrote it doesn't mean they know what is actually covered in it. One senator last night was given a list of typical firearms that they had just banned and he said no they didn't and he owned some of those, but by their definition they did.
Honestly after reading you for the last 30 pages or so I've gone from leave the current gun laws as they are to ban them all just so your head would explode and we'd be done with your particular brand of horseshit.
Did you read the law? It was linked here. It seems pretty explicit (not vague) to me. Also, the mental health stuff in law was much greater than that which you addressed in your post.
You may think it captures too many guns, but that doesn't mean it does so vaguely.
For instance --->
And it continues like that. Seems easy enough to understand to me. Does a semi auto rifle take a clip and have a bayonet mount? Then it's an assault rifle as defined by the law. And so forth.
Also, from my understanding, people who lawfully possessed guns that may not legally be sold in NY after this law may still keep those guns. They are required to register them, however.
Reading that I wonder if there are any semi-automatic rifles that would be legal in New York.
Some of those features don't affect the "safety" or "risk" of owning a weapon with that characteristic.
It looks like Obama plans to announce a push for some sort of "assault" weapons ban.
Some of those features don't affect the "safety" or "risk" of owning a weapon with that characteristic.
It looks like Obama plans to announce a push for some sort of "assault" weapons ban.