NYS Gun Laws

[Templar]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

For me, the term menacing has very little to do with a guns appearance. It has more to do with a guns purpose; what it was specifically designed for. Guns for military use are specifically designed to kill a lot of humans quickly. That's what makes them menacing guns. They were not originally designed for personal use by civilians yet their derivative versions are among the most popular guns sold today.

Ah, interesting...

Military weapons have been banned for civilians for quite some time. Weapons for the military and law enforcement are designed completely differently and function differently as well. You're focused on the looks. You're relying on what you see in the movies instead of doing research and (gasp) picking up a weapon with your own two hands.

There is fundamentally no difference between an AR-15 and many types of hunting rifles out there. It's all COSMETIC. But you'd know that if you actually ever saw a gun in real life.

Also, I won't argue with you on the NRA though. They do good things for gun rights, but they also go overboard quite a bit IMHO. Some things I agree with them on, but some things I don't, even though I am a member. They usually take the stance that if "we give an inch, they will take a mile" referring to the government. So they often refuse to budge at all.

I also don't disagree about background checks. They should be done for everyone, and should be thorough. However, any "assault weapons" ban needs to be clearly defined. Of the 55% you mentioned, how many of them know what a real assault weapon is? The term in and of itself is nonsense, as all weapons can be used to assault (a deer, a squirrel, a person). A muzzle loader that fires one round at a time can be used to "assault" someone. How does that term even make sense to people? It goes to show that the public and a lot of the leadership have very limited knowledge. How about we try a logical approach? Enforce background checks, checking for history of mental illness, enact education on gun safety and operation (to include so called "assault weapons")... There's a lot that can be done to enforce current regulation instead of enacting new legislation that does not/will not accomplish much.

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by Templar

Ah, interesting...

Military weapons have been banned for civilians for quite some time. You're focused on the looks. Stop relying on what you see in the movies and pick up and handle an AR-15...

There is fundamentally no difference between an AR-15 and many types of hunting rifles out there. It's all COSMETIC. But you'd know that if you actually ever saw a gun in real life.

That's what is so wrong with what is going on in NY. The people making the laws are in no way connected to the people who strongest support their rights. It's two different worlds and they are colliding. I think what Bill Clinton said says it best:

http://now.msn.com/bill-clinton-tell...ze-gun-culture

[solefald]

Originally Posted by Templar

Ah, interesting...
There is fundamentally no difference between an AR-15 and many types of hunting rifles out there. It's all COSMETIC. But you'd know that if you actually ever saw a gun in real life.
.

Not only that. NY State officially admits that too

http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

Q: I own a gun that I use for hunting, is it an assault weapon?

A: Most guns that are used for hunting are not assault weapons and are not affected by this law. Typical shotguns and hunting rifles are exempt as the law specifies military style assault weapons by design characteristics. For example, any pump, lever, or bolt action shotgun or rifle cannot be an assault weapon. To confirm that your rifle is not an assault weapon and to see common models and characteristics click here. To confirm that your shotgun is not an assault weapon and to see common models and characteristics click here.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

For me, the term menacing has very little to do with a guns appearance. It has more to do with a guns purpose; what it was specifically designed for. Guns for military use are specifically designed to kill a lot of humans quickly. That's what makes them menacing guns. They were not originally designed for personal use by civilians yet their derivative versions are among the most popular guns sold today.



Your self righteous indignation is duly noted, but that doesn't change the facts.

A Pew poll shows the following:

85 percent of Americans support background checks
55 percent support an assault weapons ban
54 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines

In the past notable republicans including Ronald Reagan supported reasonable gun restrictions including a ban on certain types of guns such as those described above. That was before Republicans were completely co-opted along with many Democrats by the NRA. The NRA says their interest is protecting citizen's rights to own guns, but truthfully their main concern is protecting gun manufacturers ability to make money.



You are (intentionally) overlooking the obvious but very important difference between BMWs and guns. BMWs are not designed to kill people.

If i've been through an extensive back ground check including mental health history. And the people in my household have been through the same. Why is it necessary to regulate what type of weapon i can own? If the law says i currently pose no threat to society by owning a gun, why tell me what kind i can and can't own?

I mean no disrespect but i believe you may be somewhat ignorant with regards to real figures on gun homicides and with firearms as a whole. As stated before an AR-15 is not a fully automatic rifle, also known as an Assault Rifle. The fully automatic feature is what separates it from a standard semi-automatic rifle or hand gun for that matter. With out that feature is is simply a rifle, most commonly used for target shooting, competition shooting and yes, hunting. I know several friends including myself who hunt with AR-15s. it's a great varmint gun and works very well as a hog gun from my experience.

Also, as stated before the vast majority of firearm homicides in this country are committed by hand guns. In fact, over the last 30 years deaths by mass shootings make up 500 deaths compared with 500 firearm deaths in 2012 alone in Chicago. Of those 500 deaths, over the whole 30 years only about 55 of those deaths were committed with a rifle. When you look at over all firearm death statistics you'll find that in a given year only .0005% of all firearm deaths were perpetrated with a long gun. (rifles & shotguns) All the rest, 99.995% were done with hand guns.

With that data ascertained by the same information the government has access to, why would they target AR-15s over hand guns when clearly hand guns pose a much more serious threat than rifles?

This lack of logic points to the government having a different agenda than actually curbing gun violence. To a gun owner and advocate, this seems like an agenda to disarm law abiding citizens.

Maybe this has more to do with the latest victims of a mass shooting being rich white children. And in government eyes this takes precedence over the young black males shooting each other in inner cities. I don't know which but i do know that my weapons are safe and will not be used to inflict harm on anyone that is not intent on inflicting harm on me or my family.

The facts are facts and when law makers ignore them, a portion of the people become outraged by their actions.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by Templar

Military weapons have been banned for civilians for quite some time.

Yes, that's a true statement and there's a reason for that. Your statement supports the argument for reasonable gun regulation. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Templar

You're focused on the looks. You're relying on what you see in the movies instead of doing research and (gasp) picking up a weapon with your own two hands.

I've already stated that the appearance of a gun is not the issue. It seems to me you are the one who is focused on the looks of guns. I suppose telling yourself that anyone who doesn't share your gun fetish must be afraid of guns because they "look scary" somehow makes you feel a little more macho. But that's your issue, not mine. Even those with your same level of enthusiasm for guns recognize there is a problem in this country with gun violence. The numbers bear that out.

Originally Posted by Templar

There is fundamentally no difference between an AR-15 and many types of hunting rifles out there. It's all COSMETIC. But you'd know that if you actually ever saw a gun in real life.

So 20 first graders in Newtown had their bodies completely riddled with bullets in less than 10 minutes by a hunting rifle?

[Templar]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I've already stated that the appearance of a gun is not the issue. It seems to me you are the one who is focused on the looks of guns. I suppose telling yourself that anyone who doesn't share your gun fetish must be afraid of guns because they "look scary" somehow makes you feel a little more macho. But that's your issue, not mine. Even those with your same level of enthusiasm for guns recognize there is a problem in this country with gun violence. The numbers bear that out.

Many of the "assault weapons" you seem to know so much about function exactly the same as a lot of hunting rifles. So how is it not about cosmetics for you? If they function the same, why are only cosmetic mods being labeled as criteria to ban something? You used the word "menacing," not me. But, how is this about me now? Please, stay focused and on topic. Also, how do the numbers "bear out" on the TYPE of gun used in violent attacks?

You're the one calling them "menacing" when they function exactly the same as many hunting rifles. Can you make a distinction between your definition of an "assault weapon" and any number of hunting rifles on the market?

FWIW, I don't have a "fetish" for them, I enjoy hunting. I've also handled many strictly military firearms in my days in service. I know the differences, but do you? Sure doesn't seem like it. If you could answer the questions, instead of attempting to redirect/insult me because you don't know, that'd be nice.

I never said there wasn't a problem with violence in this country. Please point out where I did. I sure do agree with that statement.

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

So 20 first graders in Newtown had their bodies completely riddled with bullets in less than 10 minutes by a hunting rifle?

Could have been done just the same. The same damage can be done with a .22 caliber small game rifle. But because it doesn't have a collapsible stock or a pistol grip, it's not "menacing" enough for you?

Does this qualify as an "assault weapon" to you?

[GT3 Tim]

Gents -- Civil discussion is encouraged. Personal attacks can, and will, result in "penalties" if any of the mods or admins deem necessary.

Enjoy and keep it civil please......

Thank you.....

[carve]

BK: What design aspects of the AR-15 make it menacing? The low recoil? The modularity? It is one of the least powerful centerfire rifles you can buy. Killing effectiveness at 100 yards is <20% of that of a 30-06 round (formerly used in battle rifles, now just used for hunting)

Here are the facts

1) The 2A has nothing to do with sport or hunting. It has to do with the ability of the citizens to form militias equipped to engage in infantry combat. This means we were intended to have infantry weapons comparable to what the military uses. Many of the revolutionaries used "kentucky rifles", which were dramatically SUPERIOR to the "brown bess" muskets the Brits were using

2) Rifles, of which assault rifles are a small subset, account for about 3% of gun homicide. Even if you could wave your wand and make all rifles VANISH, AND make criminals so stupid that they didn't realize they could use another type of weapon to kill someone, gun homicide would be reduced a whole 3%

3) It's dangerous to set a precedent of having the government break its own laws, especially laws intended to limit government power and protect our freedom, starting with the Bill of Rights no less!

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by carve

It's dangerous to set a precedent of having the government break its own laws, especially laws intended to limit government power and protect our freedom, starting with the Bill of Rights no less!

bksbimmer has no interest in the government's power being limited

[xbook]

Originally Posted by bolinp78

bksbimmer has no interest in the government's power being limited

Yup, gotta keep our gunz so we can all defend ourselves from the evil phederil gubermint.

[carve]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yup, gotta keep our gunz so we can all defend ourselves from the evil phederil gubermint.

We weren't referring NECESSARILY to limiting their power at the point of the gun. We were referrring to them violating constitutionally protected freedoms of any kind. The ENTIRE bill of rights was intended to limit government power and protect liberty- not just the 2nd amendment. Do you want to encourage your government to break its own rules and exercise powers it has no authority to exercise?

[xbook]

Originally Posted by carve

We weren't referring NECESSARILY to limiting their power at the point of the gun. We were referrring to them violating constitutionally protected freedoms of any kind. The ENTIRE bill of rights was intended to limit government power and protect liberty- not just the 2nd amendment. Do you want to encourage your government to break its own rules and exercise powers it has no authority to exercise?

What are your feeling about the warrantless wiretaps that started under President Bush? I don't see a thread where you are railing against that.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by xbook

What are your feeling about the warrantless wiretaps that started under President Bush? I don't see a thread where you are railing against that.

The government was no less worse while Bush was in office. I don't see why so many people play it up to who was president when what ever happened. The president doesn't have much power. It's the other 520 some odd people in office who have much of the control.

And you will likely find that most people who are against the government infringing upon the 2nd amendment are also against ANY invasion of privacy by the government.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by Templar

Many of the "assault weapons" you seem to know so much about function exactly the same as a lot of hunting rifles. So how is it not about cosmetics for you? If they function the same, why are only cosmetic mods being labeled as criteria to ban something? You used the word "menacing," not me. But, how is this about me now? Please, stay focused and on topic. Also, how do the numbers "bear out" on the TYPE of gun used in violent attacks?

You're the one calling them "menacing" when they function exactly the same as many hunting rifles. Can you make a distinction between your definition of an "assault weapon" and any number of hunting rifles on the market?

FWIW, I don't have a "fetish" for them, I enjoy hunting. I've also handled many strictly military firearms in my days in service. I know the differences, but do you? Sure doesn't seem like it. If you could answer the questions, instead of attempting to redirect/insult me because you don't know, that'd be nice.

I never said there wasn't a problem with violence in this country. Please point out where I did. I sure do agree with that statement.



Could have been done just the same. The same damage can be done with a .22 caliber small game rifle. But because it doesn't have a collapsible stock or a pistol grip, it's not "menacing" enough for you?

Does this qualify as an "assault weapon" to you?

I'm sure you will agree that topics like this one seem to elicit strong opinions and strong emotions on both sides. Frankly I was feeling ganged up on a bit so that may have been reflected in some of my responses. My intent was not to insult you or anyone else here and I apologize if I did.

That said, I've stated plainly I'm not a gun enthusiast. I don't own a gun and have no interest in owning guns. That doesn't disqualify me from this debate nor does it make my opinions less valuable. I feel very strongly about my opinions as i know you do. I'm prepared to have a respectful discussion and debate. Don't insult me and I won't insult you.

I notice the guns guys seem to be really focused on terminology, particularly the term "assault rifle". Keep in mind, I didn't create the term. That is the term being used in the current dialogue about guns and gun regulation in the US. What matters is how the law makers define the term "assault rifle". Any resulting gun legislation will be based on their definition, not mine.

Since you guys are so exorcised about the term maybe it's more pertinent to know how YOU define the term "assault rifle"?

[MiddleAgedAl]

I really dont understand what the point is of arguing about what constitutes an assault rifle vs. a hunting rifle, when realistically, many posters here would be opposed to any regulation against "assault rifles", no matter what definition the lawmakers eventually agree upon anyway ? (unless of course you think that it's possible to achieve a definition so restrictive, that nothing shy of a fully-automatic M60 would qualify, so practically speaking, what you can own would not change).

And speaking of that, how come people have not been saying that the 2nd amendment has been trampled for decades now, since the fact remains that you have never been able to buy a fully automatic M60 at Walmart. How is that not a violation of the 2nd amendment? If you need to provide a deterrent against the gov, and the gov is using an M60, then shouldnt you get one too, otherwise the asymmetry of power is so great that little deterrent exists anyways?

If the government is going to use an M60 to oppress you, and you already cant have one yourself, then it seems to me that going from 10 rounds per mag to 7 wont really make your chances to stop tyranny any worse than they already are.

Gov: "to keep your freedom, it will be 1-on-2 hoops, you vs. Lebron James and Chris Bosh".
Patriot: "ok sure".
Gov: "oh, and by the way, we're going to put a 1-pound wraparound weight on your waist".
Patriot: "holy shit, stop right there, now THATs trampling my rights to a fair fight"

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

That said, I've stated plainly I'm not a gun enthusiast. I don't own a gun and have no interest in owning guns. That doesn't disqualify me from this debate nor does it make my opinions less valuable. I feel very strongly about my opinions as i know you do. I'm prepared to have a respectful discussion and debate. Don't insult me and I won't insult you.

I notice the guns guys seem to be really focused on terminology, particularly the term "assault rifle". Keep in mind, I didn't create the term. That is the term being used in the current dialogue about guns and gun regulation in the US. What matters is how the law makers define the term "assault rifle". Any resulting gun legislation will be based on their definition, not mine.

Since you guys are so exorcised about the term maybe it's more pertinent to know how YOU define the term "assault rifle"?

It doesn't make your opinion any less valuable, but your lack of knowledge of the functionality between one firearm and another does somewhat affect the validity of some of your opinions.

The term Assault Rifle is a real term, unlike the term Assault Weapon which is a political term coined by the government in order to encapsulate any type of weapon they want to in a future ban.

An Assault Rifle is a rifle capable of firing in full automatic mode or a burst fire mode. When in full auto the weapon continues to fire round after round as long as the trigger is depressed. In burst mode, the weapon will fire 3 rounds every time the trigger is depressed.

A semi-automatic rifle fires one round for each time the trigger is depressed.

A bolt action rifle requires the shooter to manually eject a spent shell and chamber another. In a magazine feed bolt action rifle, an intermediate shooter can cycle the bolt in a second or less.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I really dont understand what the point is of arguing about what constitutes an assault rifle vs. a hunting rifle, when realistically, many posters here would be opposed to any regulation against "assault rifles", no matter what definition the lawmakers eventually agree upon anyway ? (unless of course you think that it's possible to achieve a definition so restrictive, that nothing shy of a fully-automatic M60 would qualify, so practically speaking, what you can own would not change).

And speaking of that, how come people have not been saying that the 2nd amendment has been trampled for decades now, since the fact remains that you have never been able to buy a fully automatic M60 at Walmart. How is that not a violation of the 2nd amendment? If you need to provide a deterrent against the gov, and the gov is using an M60, then shouldnt you get one too, otherwise the asymmetry of power is so great that little deterrent exists anyways?

If the government is going to use an M60 to oppress you, and you already cant have one yourself, then it seems to me that going from 10 rounds per mag to 7 wont really make your chances to stop tyranny any worse than they already are.

Gov: "to keep your freedom, it will be 1-on-2 hoops, you vs. Lebron James and Chris Bosh".
Patriot: "ok sure".
Gov: "oh, and by the way, we're going to put a 1-pound wraparound weight on your waist".
Patriot: "holy shit, stop right there, now THATs trampling my rights to a fair fight"

At walmart, no. But we are legally able to buy fully automatic weapons. The only thing stopping anyone from doing so is cost. You have to qualify for Class III licensing, pay the taxes associated with that licensing, and then you have to be able to afford the weapon itself. These fully automatic weapons come with a hefty price tag ranging from $18k to $45k, some costing even more. But they are available.

Al, the point of being armed isn't to be as well armed as the government is. But to humor your example... We'll assume that the government isn't going to carpet bomb cities and the burbs or hammer the like with artillery or roll over cities with armored calvary. With this being the case it would be all the "robot solders" the military has created who would be fighting the citizens on the ground.

In the red corner, the challenger.... 2,300,000 well trained personnel with superior small arms weapons. (3.9 million of them if they borrow them from all the police in the country) In the blue corner, the world heavy weight champion.... 150,000,000 americans, hell bent on disallowing the government from taking their rights to freedom. Many as well trained as the challenger, all well armed with nearly 300 million small arms weapons.

I quite like those odds. Especially since every individual i know who is currently serving in the military is as disgruntled with our government as many of our citizens are.

The law abiding citizens being armed is a deterrent for the government exercising power, we the people, don't want them exercising. The constitution and bill of rights were written by the people, for the protection of the people.

And no, i wouldn't change what i can and can not currently own with regards to firearms. I've asked before and haven't received an answer from anyone yet. If the government sees me fit to own a weapon without being a threat to society, why regulate what type of weapons i can own?

[MiddleAgedAl]

I could swore I read about some firearms act of 1986 or something which expressly forbade civilians from owning full auto... Gotta check that tomorrow when I have time....

[Templar]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

A good piece on the differences, with references from several locations.

[carve]

Originally Posted by xbook

What are your feeling about the warrantless wiretaps that started under President Bush? I don't see a thread where you are railing against that.

I was up in arms about the patriot act as well. This thread is about gun control.

[carve]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I notice the guns guys seem to be really focused on terminology, particularly the term "assault rifle". Keep in mind, I didn't create the term. That is the term being used in the current dialogue about guns and gun regulation in the US. What matters is how the law makers define the term "assault rifle". Any resulting gun legislation will be based on their definition, not mine.

Since you guys are so exorcised about the term maybe it's more pertinent to know how YOU define the term "assault rifle"?

So, you don't know what it is, but you're afraid of them and want them banned fast, damnit!

We're focused on the terminology because the terminology was invented by the anti-gun lobby precisely to stoke irrational fears such as yours.

The military defines "assault rifle" as a select-fire (i.e. offers some kind of full-auto mode) rifle that fires an intermediate power cartridge (i.e. more powerful than a pistol, but less powerful than a battle rifle). I believe it is unconstitutional to have such tight controls on guns like this, starting with the NFA in the 30's, precisely because it is an infringement.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I could swore I read about some firearms act of 1986 or something which expressly forbade civilians from owning full auto... Gotta check that tomorrow when I have time....

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.

[carve]

The reason, Al, is so they would not have to endure the shitstorm that would've occured had they implemented confiscation.

I agree- it does constitute a violation of the 2nd amendment. You're awknowledging the slippery slope argument.