NDR - What dark times for us NY'ers

Brent,

Totally disgusting. This is nothing but political posturing for his presidential run and has nothing to do with the tragedy at Newtown or anywhere else for that matter. IMHO people would be better severed if Gov. Cuomo was working this hard on getting funding for the displaced populace after Hurricane Sandy.
 
Last edited:
Guess Remington is going to have problems, layoffs etc. Heard bushmaster is made down south. Started with bloomberg, rich can do anything they want. If rich and famous get caught, it was a mistake. You get caught, jail. Too late to vote. How did your rep vote, ask them.
 
You know what......I should really hold-off commenting...because I'm not done reading all 2,088 lines of text in the law!!!
Unbelievable....
 
These laws have been passed "TO FAST" Pressure not thought went into such a "SWIFT LAW" being passed !!!!!!!
 
Our Rep voted NO - but we don't count, cuz we are considered western NY "Country Folks". How did your Rep vote?
Click to expand...
Our state senator Betty little voted no.both assemby members voted no. I grew up near the remington plant in Illion. 1000 good paying jobs in an area that can't afford to lose one. I was going to buty a stoger I think i will buy a versa max instead.
 
Easy for me to say from the peanut gallery (no new gun laws proposed in my state yet), but based on what I see as the summary in the press (best article I found was in the Christian Science Monitor) this is a mix of things I support and things I oppose.

On the positive side, better and universal background checks, measures to make sure those with mental health problems fail background checks, and stiffer penalties for gun crimes. But all of those would be better dealt with in a consistent way at the federal level than state by state. Strong background check rules in NY will just drive the bad guys over the state line to purchase their guns.

On the negative side, the restrictions on ammo sales seem screwy--how are they going to implement that? Are we going to see something like the Massachusetts FOID card?

The assault weapon ban is just silly. I'd like to see how they've written that to understand what it means for various firearms on the market now.

I'm ambivalent about the idea of limits on magazine capacity. At 10 rounds, and excluding .22's (allowing, I believe most current semi-auto pistols), it might make sense. I do see value in getting rid of the 30 and 100 round magazines. But 7 rounds is very restrictive, and it seems to me there are serious legal questions about retroactively banning magazines that were acquired legally in the past. There are probably legal issues with how "assault weapons" are defined and dealt with, too.

And I'm sure there are lots of other issues in the details, too.


Here's betting it's good for fundraising/donations/attention for both the NRA and the various anti-gun groups. And that the firearms manufacturers are already ramping up their marketing campaigns to use the fear of new rules to drive sales and prices up.

Call me a cynic.
 
There's not much logic in this law. There's no debate, no studies, no supporting statistics, no feedback from the sporting community, etc.
I believe there is VERY little difference in the capability of a semi-automatic rifle that has a 100-round clip versus one that has a ten 10-round clip or fourteen 7-round clips. A 1-second pause in shooting to change a clip...I don't see that making ANY impact on gun crimes/violence.
 
I read a little of the law yesterday and it about made me sick. Our second amendment rights are in place to defend ourselves from our own govt if need be. It does not say what guns we can and cant own. It gives us the right to own similar firearms to what we might be faced with. If worst came to worst I think I'd want to read the constitution for what it is and have that 30 round clip rather than a 7-10 round. The other guy will have one.

You guys should read that very carefully. I saw several areas within the text that could be made to outlaw guns totally if a referenced paragrah was taken out. Its too long for me to give references.

Regardless the only ones that get hurt in gun laws are the law abiding citizens. Do you think the thugs will turn in their 10-14 round glock clips within 12 months? Not a chance.
 
apparently your guvna does not know the second amendment!! Looks like you folks who helped him and ohblahblah are gonna be in the thick of it, for sure
 
I suggest checking out the Rochester Democrat newspaper today. It details whats Legal and what IS Not, in NY. Very interesting and eye opening, to say the least.
 
Seems like a very swift (Me First) legislation not supported by the facts. I keep hearing the majority of American's support all of these gun bans, but if that is the case, why is Obama going to have a tough fight in Congress? I think the media has sensationalized this which is in very poor taste. I did read that NY passed the "Mark's Law" which gives the stiffest penalty (Life inprisonment without parole) to anyone convicted of killing a first responder. I think that's great, but it should be a very swift death penalty in my opinion. I have collected military weapons for years and I can't think that they could NOT be classified as Assault Weapons even though they are vintage WW2 and not the scary and fancy AR-15 frame style guns that are all the rage. I would still take a 12 ga with buckshot any day of the week and twice on Sunday before I used an assault weapon to defend my home. To me it just makes good sense to send 9 lead projectiles down range with every squeeze rather than 1. My .02. Sorry to hear the news New Yorkers, can't wait to see what Maryland has in store for us.

dc
 
Remember, liberal NY doesn't have the death penalty. So, while it was a fantastic bargaining chip for prosecutors in the past, there's no reason for murderers to strike a plea for life-in-prison to avoid the death penalty.
So, even though the amount of people actually put to death was very small, it was used to avoid mult-million dollar trials, when the criminal pleaded guilty to life.
Gotta love liberalism!
 
I think the M1 Garand meets the governor’s definition of an "assault weapon". It’s a shame that no one in New York will be able to buy this piece of history.
 
I think the M1 Garand meets the governor’s definition of an "assault weapon". It’s a shame that no one in New York will be able to buy this piece of history.
Click to expand...
John I think you will be ok with your M1. Wasn't that a special registration in Ny already?
 
I don't own an M1, but have family and friends that collect them. You might be right since these guns are obtained through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

Either way, the gun and ammo restrictions are just giving some people a false sense of security. I read a recent article quoting sheriffs in New York as saying that these gun and ammo restrictions are not going to make anyone safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top