Home Politics

If you Own a Double Barrel Shotgun...

13»

Replies

  • NACl H2O LuvrNACl H2O Luvr Posts: 12,389 AG
    dave44 wrote: »
    This is amazingly dense. No wonder the libs are controlled so thoroughly.

    yep. I really wish we could institute background checks before allowing people to vote.

    In my opinion their vote is WAY more dangerous than a gun.
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    dave44 wrote: »
    This is amazingly dense. No wonder the libs are controlled so thoroughly.
    No point attempting a logical discussion with <Dave>....he just comes here to hurl personal attacks at anyone he chooses.

    He's got to vent his frustrations somewhere.

    .
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    yep. I really wish we could institute background checks before allowing people to vote.

    In my opinion their vote is WAY more dangerous than a gun.

    Seriously, the gun grabbing, where's the beef? Please don't run away like you always do when shown facts.
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    :idiot

    Well, it's obvious you have no clue as to what's in the bill....ergo, attempting to continue this discussion is pointless.

    I read it, please point where it states a NY'er can not POSSES more than the limit set in the bill when it comes to purchases?

    Where does it state if I own a Double barrel shotgun I can not make more that 2 round in 90 days in my garage?

    Come on buddy, let's see your dance moves.

    NY regulated ammo sales in 2014 by making it a face to face transaction. No one, of sound mind, was screaming "gun grabbing"

    At the very least post up what YOU read where this law takes away a single fire arm then :idiot
  • NACl H2O LuvrNACl H2O Luvr Posts: 12,389 AG
    Plan Sea wrote: »
    Seriously, the gun grabbing, where's the beef? Please don't run away like you always do when shown facts.

    You want facts.....here is your facts.....explain this away.


    The provision would limit the amount of bullets a gun owner can buy to no more than twice the amount of the capacity of the weapon ever 90 days, which means someone who owns a six-shooter could only buy 12 bullets every three months, the Brooklyn Eagle reported.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/23/new-york-lawmakers-float-bill-to-restrict-gun-ammo/
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    dave44 wrote: »
    One of our posts is silly. You didn't read my link. And the 2 of you choose to ignore history with silly innuendo. Research your own references to how many times weapons in America were seized. I guess you could throw in a " draconian" into google if you wanted.
    your link is history just as Mike's post is dated...
    so what's your point???
    are you trying to use "jim crowe" laws to make your post valid???
    No point attempting a logical discussion with Mac....he just comes here to hurl personal attacks at anyone he chooses.

    He's got to vent his frustrations somewhere.
    no personal attack on anybody nacho, just an observation and a lame attempt to justify his comment....
    as for you, your posts speak volumes by your attempts to be taken seriously....

    carrion~~~~~~~
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    You want facts.....here is your facts.....explain this away.


    The provision would limit the amount of bullets a gun owner can buy to no more than twice the amount of the capacity of the weapon ever 90 days, which means someone who owns a six-shooter could only buy 12 bullets every three months, the Brooklyn Eagle reported.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/23/new-york-lawmakers-float-bill-to-restrict-gun-ammo/

    Yes, we all read that part, still waiting on the ability to "gun grab" as you stated, is there a hold up?

    Also where does it say I can not BUY as many BULLETS as I want say from a neighboring State or making way over the REGULATED COMMERCE LIMIT in my own garage?

    There are States that limit the purchase of alcohol as well, because every business is regulated.
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    No point attempting a logical discussion with Mac....he just comes here to hurl personal attacks at anyone he chooses.

    He's got to vent his frustrations somewhere.
    Psst.....I'll let you in on a little secret.....if a topic/thread doesn't interest you......You don't Need to keep clicking on it, nor commenting.

    Immune to your own hypocritical BS suddenly?
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    dave44 wrote: »
    This is amazingly dense. No wonder the libs are controlled so thoroughly.
    the rightwinghastani continue to try and make something out of nothing...
    read the original OP if you haven't....
    then, consider the possibility of the bill actually being passed which has been posted by many others that see the proposal for what it really is...nothing...
    you might want to distance yourself from the "troll king"....
    :idiot

    Well, it's obvious you have no clue as to what's in the bill....ergo, attempting to continue this discussion is pointless.

    I know what's in the bill and how many lawmakers are behind it...
    it's nothing more than grandstanding....
    yet here you are, still trying to bolster your own spread and be taken seriously...which ain't gonna happen....
    you are right about one thing, it's pointless to continue this discussion....

    carrion~~~
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    Mac, even if the Bill is passed into law it does nothing about " gun grabbing" nor limits or denies the POSSESION of a single round.

    These are the town drunks that complain at 2:05 AM when they are cut off due to State regulations wanting to grab their Natural Light.
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    Plan Sea wrote: »
    Mac, even if the Bill is passed into law it does nothing about " gun grabbing" nor limits or denies the POSSESION of a single round.

    These are the town drunks that complain at 2:05 AM when they are cut off due to State regulations wanting to grab their Natural Light.
    absolutely....
    I don't even know how gun grabbing got into the topic other than the poster of the OP is the king of trolls...

    as you were.....
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    I thought the issue is that they want to limit NY State citizens to basically a few rounds every 90 days? Am I missing something? Serious ****??

    Again where does the law state anything about possession? or taking away property?

    A serious **** because you missed proving anything. Going to VT and buying a 100 rounds has what to do with NY's gun owners ammo OWNING ability?

    Still waiting...........
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    Incrementalism isn't some made up word bandied about by professors and elitists.
    It accurately describes many scenarios that led to wars.

    The fact it remains an abstract thought and impossible to fathom by some doesn't make them right.
  • FibberMckeeFibberMckee Posts: 12,837 AG
    No. What I'm saying is that despite the perfectly reasonable & logical challenge to NACl's "Gun Grabber" BS, nobody has yet to post a single case where a gun was actually grabbed in NY.
    dave44 wrote: »
    So are you saying it's not possible to take guns because of the second amendment, or just because You say so?

    That's a fact, NOT b/c I "say so". It's a fact b/c none of our vociferous Gun Nutz, not even NACl, has posted anything to even remotely begin support his claim.

    Whether "it's not possible" or common occurrence for "Gun Grabbers" to actually grab guns in NY, can't be established merely on NACl's "say so".

    Unless we see cases where NY "Gun Grabbers" have actually grabbed guns it remains a baseless charge.
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    You'll be allowed to purchase only 4 shotgun shells every 90 days in New York State........yes, you read that right, 4 shells every 90 days.

    The gun grabbers are hard at work destroying rights
    I realize you hail from the great state of Mississippi, so I try to keep that in mind when replying to you, by using simple words.

    Perhaps you missed this part of the OP, in BOLD Nothing disingenuous about it....now I demand an apology.

    statewide limits on ammo purchases"[/I][/B][/SIZE]

    Unless ammo some how is now considered a gun to be grabbed, you owe the apology.
  • Plan SeaPlan Sea Posts: 5,453 Officer
    dave44 wrote: »
    Incrementalism isn't some made up word bandied about by professors and elitists.
    It accurately describes many scenarios that led to wars.

    The fact it remains an abstract thought and impossible to fathom by some doesn't make them right.

    What right? the fact that Gov't has the right to regulate commerce? Oh the horror. Let us know when your war on NY starts
  • FibberMckeeFibberMckee Posts: 12,837 AG
    daves's lame attempt to semantically evade the facts "accurately describes" the fallacy of Gun Nutz ranting about "Gun Grabbers".
    dave44 wrote: »
    Incrementalism isn't some made up word bandied about by professors and elitists.
    It accurately describes many scenarios that led to wars.

    The fact it remains an abstract thought and impossible to fathom by some doesn't make them right.

    "Incrementalism" in this context, would by definition, need to start with at least 1 confirmed example of NY "Gun Grabbers" actually grabbing a gun, AND then expand that "Draconian" practice in a verifiable extended pattern. Despite the fair & reasonable challenge, neither requirement has been satisfied.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 11,543 AG
    Well if it's just New York that's a different story. Here's one . The promise of protecting others because of " mental health issues" is another slippery slope. It's from the blaze though, sorry bout that. Tell you what, you should just look it up. 2013 though.


    GOVERNMENT
    A Form of Gun Confiscation Has Reportedly Begun in New York State — Here’s the Justification Being Used
    Apr. 9, 2013 6:30pm Mike Opelka
    28.6K
    SHARES
    Share ThisTweet This
    Update: Hear an interview with the lawyer representing some of the New Yorkers who were forced to surrender their guns and permits (at the end of this story).

    Despite promises from the president and a host of other politicians who are pushing for more gun control that nobody is coming for your guns, the confiscation of guns and gun permits has apparently started in some form in New York State. One attorney representing several people who have been forced to surrender their guns spoke with TheBlaze and alerted us to some disturbing facts:

    Gun owners are losing their 2nd Amendment rights without due process.
    HIPAA Laws are likely being compromised and the 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated in some of these cases
    How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed psychotropic drugs.

    This is curious because in his January 9th address, Cuomo specifically addressed the issue of confiscation:


    The Case:

    On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.

    Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.


    After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.

    In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.

    Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.

    A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being.

    That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).

    The Mental Health Law provision of the SAFE Act claims

    The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

    The law is clear on what it expects:

    MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS”) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

    The man who was asked/directed to turn over his guns reportedly did not exhibit any signs of violent or dangerous behavior. According to his attorney, the man’s doctor did not report any danger to the authorities. So, who did report it?

    Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify:

    The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers.
    In addition to what Mr. Tresmond called “the laughable diminution of our rights,” the lawyer speculated about additional unintended consequences of releasing this confidential patient information to law enforcement.

    What if an employer learns that a worker had their firearms confiscated? Could that person’s employment be put at risk?
    What if your neighbors saw police come to your home and leave with your guns? Could that compromise your safety?
    Could this kind of confiscation also make people think twice about getting treatment for a temporary mental illness?
    In an effort to learn how many permits and guns have been rescinded due to this medical exception, TheBlaze has made several attempts to contact the Erie County office over pistol permits where this one incident originated. We have yet to be connected with a real person who can answer these questions.

    We have also reached out to the Albany office of the New York State Police, but no official response has been received.

    Mr. Tresmond has also agreed to keep us posted on his client’s efforts to have his Second Amendment rights restored and get back his guns.

    TheBlaze will continue to monitor this story and we are also interested in hearing from other New Yorkers who may have experienced this type of confiscation. Please send all emails to [email protected].

    Tuesday, Buffalo radio talk show host Tom Bauerle spoke with Jim Tresmond on WBEN radio.



    (H/T: ammoland.com)
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    here's more...

    ALBANY –

    Two years after the state adopted among the toughest gun-control measures in the nation, some Republican state lawmakers are seeking reforms to the controversial law.

    Republicans senators in recent days have introduced bills that would either repeal the so-called SAFE Act or modify it, such as allowing homeowners to have 10 bullets, instead of seven, in a handgun at home.

    Critics said the law was hastily passed in the middle of the night in January 2013 and needs to be revisited. For example, a federal judge has ruled the seven-bullet limit as unconstitutional, and police aren't enforcing it. The law is also being fought in court.

    Gov. Andrew Cuomo championed the law in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting in 2012, and he's shown no interest in major changes. Some Democrats said they want to make the law stronger, while gun-rights advocates held numerous protests calling for its repeal.

    Republicans, who took a majority in the state Senate this month, said they would press for changes.

    "I think the time is right for, if not outright repeal, then certainly modifications to the SAFE Act, and I'm hopeful we are going to see some movement on it in the new session," said Sen. Phil Boyle, R-Suffolk County, who is sponsoring the "Defend Our Homes Act."

    Since the law took effect in March 2013, there were 3,930 arrests as of mid-December under the various SAFE Act offenses, state records obtained by Gannett's Albany Bureau showed.

    The overwhelmingly majority of the arrests — 3,230 — were in New York City, mainly in the Bronx and Brooklyn. Outside the city, the most were on Long Island and then Monroe County, where there were 69 arrests, records shows.

    There were 53 arrests under the SAFE Act in Erie County, 34 in Westchester County and 14 in Broome County.

    The most — 3,173 — were for criminal possession of a firearm, which was made a felony under the law. Of the total arrests, 2,409 were in 2014.

    There were just two arrests, both last October in Jefferson and Rensselaer counties, for failing to register an assault-style weapon, and none for a provision that makes it a crime for a seller of ammunition to fail to register or keep records — which took effect a year ago.

    Some law enforcement officials said they are enforcing the law but haven't been aggressively seeking out gun owners to determine whether they are complying.

    "If we run across it through other circumstances, whether it be on a call, an investigation or a traffic stop, then we will take the appropriate action," Dutchess County Capt. John Watterson said. That county had 12 arrests under the SAFE Act, eight of which were for criminal possession of a firearm.

    Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss, the Republican lieutenant governor candidate last year, opposed the law, and state records showed no arrests under the SAFE Act in his county.

    "It's not high on my list of priorities," said Moss, saying he's focused on other crimes and the area's heroin problem.

    Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley, a Democrat, said the county routinely uses the criminal possession of a firearm felony charge when a defendant illegally has an unregistered handgun, even if it is unloaded — something that wasn't possible before the law.

    "Though the SAFE Act has garnered a great deal of debate in our state, its use in Monroe County has been limited to enhancing, rather than initiating, the prosecutions of violent criminals already facing serious felony charges," she said in a statement.

    Cuomo has called the SAFE Act one of the main accomplishments of his first term, and Democrats who control the Assembly have also praised the law.

    The law requires guns to be registered, strengthens a ban on assault-style weapons and mandates that mental-health professionals report potentially violent patients who may be gun owners. About 34,000 people were reported as too dangerous to have guns, the New York Times said in October.

    "After Sandy Hook when we saw the massacre and we saw the children killed and we said, 'Enough is enough with this lunacy of guns,' " Cuomo said in his inaugural address Jan. 1 as he began a second term. "You needed a big state to pass sensible gun control. Who did it? The state of New York did it. We did it first. That is who we are."

    Senate Republicans now hold an outright majority, and several new GOP members beat Democrats in the Nov. 4 elections in part because of their opposition to the gun law.

    Assemblyman Bill Nojay, R-Pittsford, said gun-rights groups focused on five Senate races, and Republicans won them all, including beating three sitting Democrats — in the Rochester area and Hudson Valley — who backed the law.

    "There's no question that the anti-SAFE Act voters had significant impact in all five races," he said.

    Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, R-Nassau County, who voted for the law, said he was open to changes but didn't think Cuomo would go along. State leaders did make some minor changes after the law took effect, including exemptions for current and retired police officers.

    "The reality is that the governor is not going to change the SAFE Act and the Assembly is not going to change the SAFE Act," he said. "But if there are things that can be done in a positive way, I would be supportive."

    Critics said the law needs an overhaul. There have been questions about the effectiveness of the mental-health reporting requirements, and a database the state is creating for background checks on ammunition sales has not been operational.

    Meanwhile, the State Police have refused to release statistical information on the number of new pistol permits or how many assault-style weapons have been registered under the law. The state claims the information is private, although the state Committee on Open Government has disagreed.

    Supporters of the law said they too would be open to revisiting the law, particularly to make it stronger. Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, D-Manhattan, said it could be strengthened in domestic-violence cases, as well as to add a safe-storage provision.

    "It was a very good bill, but no bill gets the law perfect," Kavanagh said, "and there may be changes that we want to make, and more importantly there may be additional things we can do to keep New Yorkers safe."

    [email protected]

    Twitter.com/gannettalbany



    Findings

    •Since the SAFE Act took effect, there were 3,930 arrests as of mid-December under the law.

    •The overwhelmingly majority of the arrests — 3,230 — were in New York City, mainly in the Bronx or Brooklyn.

    •Outside the city, the most arrests were on Long Island and then Monroe County, where there were 69 arrests. There were 53 arrests under the SAFE Act in Erie County, 34 in Westchester County and 14 in Broome County.

    •The most arrests — 3,173 — were for criminal possession of a firearm, which was made a felony under the law.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • Reptile DysfunctionReptile Dysfunction LP - Edge of the Known UniversePosts: 3,301 Captain
    guido4198 wrote: »
    But..But..But...
    We HAVE to prevent gun violence by denying Constitutional rights to Law-Abiding Americans...!!!
    It's for the children..!!!
    If passed, this law will prevent crime and make New York a safer place...you know..for the children...!!!

    ****...are there REALLY people in New York looney enough to believe all that..???

    Are there really VOTERS in New York STUPID enough to elect someone who believes that..???
    Surely this is some kind of Joke piece..isn't it..???

    :rotflmao:rotflmao:rotflmao

    Guido, I hate to break the news to you, but the answer is yes, profoundly yes.
    "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free" - P. J. O'Rourke
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    I thought that since it has two barrels it also requires two background checks?:)
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    the ny law as it stands is kind of idiotic...
    and it is going to be seriously revisited by the state legislators...
    the gov'nah has said he won't approve any changes but there appears to be enough support for change that a veto would be meaningless...

    a judge has already said part of the law is unconstitutional and the police aren't enforcing it...

    in any event, it's in ny and it's their problem...

    I know that a law like that would never even make it out of committee in skrippy land....
    and anyone foolish enough to try and bring it up would be laughed out of Jackson.....

    that is all....
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
Sign In or Register to comment.