Thread: NYS Gun Laws
View Single Post
      01-24-2013, 04:12 PM   #56
Mr Tonka
is probably out riding.
Mr Tonka's Avatar

Drives: Something Italian
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweatypeninsula

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
I guess it depends on what you mean by "if the gov sees me fit".

As it stands today, a lot of the time, gov has no opportunity to make that ruling at all. They aint saying you are NOT fit, but they aren't saying you are either; they cannot offer any sort of verdict since they are completely absent from that process.

In Ariz, if you have a gun, it is legal for you to sell it to me on the streetcorner for cash, with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. I could be an escapee from a mental institution with a list of felony convictions a mile long, and the seller apparently commits no crime. A car cannot be legally transferred that simply.

A painfully farcical situation arose in Ariz when a voluntary buy back of guns was organized following the Giffords shooting. The intent was to reduce the number "in circulation", so that bad guys have less supply to use when committing a crime. People showed up to trade in their old unused guns for much needed cash, but many never made it off the street, since gun lovers appeared in a lot next door with signs, offering MORE cash for your weapon than the officials, and it all legally happened in plain view of the police who could do nothing but shake their head and watch.

If we got to the place where some agency was always overseeing that transaction, so it would become true to say "the gov saw you fit", then I'd agree that it would make sense to loosen restrictions on you.

Of course, just because I can drive a car does not mean I can legally drive an 18-wheeler, so it would make sense to have multiple levels of regulation; this guy is OK to own small caliber rifle that is not full auto, and that guy has taken additional steps to prove competency with something that is potentially more of a handful, so he can own a larger caliber and/or full auto weapon.

It seems we are million miles away from that now, especially considering the NRA recently helped oppose and kill several Virginia bills requiring background checks on private firearm transfers, and then sent an email to all Virginia members bragging about it.
I have no idea why any law abiding gun owner would be opposed to having a back ground check done. Maybe it's because several people have done something in their past that would stop them from owning a firearm and don't want it taken away, who knows. I for one, as you know from my previous proposals, am ok with the the ATF or similar agency implementing and regulating firearm ownership. But only if the ticy-tac gunlaws were relaxed in return. IE. if i qualify, there is none of this telling me what type of guns or capacity of mags i can own.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
OK, so my memory has not completely failed me... not yet, anyway...

What I recalled was the "Firearm Owners Protection Act", signed into federal law in May 19, 1986.

It basically bans any civilian from ownership (and transfer rights) of any fully automatic weapon which was not already registered as of May 19, 1986.

I guess the catch, which I missed the first time I read it, is that any weapon made before the cutoff date could still be owned and transferred by civilians (which is really quite illogical; either it's worthy of restricting or it's not, I cant imagine any sane argument being constructed which proves that an M60 made on May 18, 1986 is fine, but not an identical one made 2 days later. They are either both OK, or both not OK. but I digress....)

So, it seems to still be true that any full auto weapons made in the last 27 years cannot legally be owned by civilians.

I guess that explains the crazy prices: limited supply, and ever growing demand.

What it still does not explain, to me anyways, is how that does not constitute a violation of the 2nd amendment, but going from 10 rounds to 7 does ?

I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess that one trying to argue constitutional law would have a more challenging time arguing that it's a violation even tho you can still go buy a new one tomorrow, (but you'll have to reload a bit more frequently than before), when it wasnt a violation when they said you can NOT go buy a new one tomorrow, no matter what mag you wanna put in it.

Full auto weapons, as much as i would love to own a few, should really be left to war time use. But in accordance to the law, if you REALLY want one, you're going to have to pay through the ass for it. So much so that a very select few people will have access to them. Hence the current law.

The problem of going from 10 to 7 is one of slow erosion. This clearly leads to having to go from 7 to 4 then any weapon using a detachable magazine is outlawed....
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"