NYS Gun Laws

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

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?

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.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by carve

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

No, you missed my point entirely. If the bigger affront to the "ideals" of the 2nd amendment was not legally a violation in 86 (and I'm sure the NRA's busload of lawyers would have stopped it if they could have) then it seems unlikely to me that a lesser affront to the ideals will be deemed a violation.

You can personally hold the opinion of course, but unless you are a supreme court judge or something, that opinion wont change much.

My point is that some people here say these NY laws are such a clear violation that they wont stand a chance in court, but looking at what's happened so far, it would seem to me that maybe they are wrong...

I'm no fortune teller, so I guess we'll see what really happens.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

No, you missed my point entirely. If the bigger affront to the "ideals" of the 2nd amendment was not legally a violation in 86 (and I'm sure the NRA's busload of lawyers would have stopped it if they could have) then it seems unlikely to me that a lesser affront to the ideals will be deemed a violation.

You can personally hold the opinion of course, but unless you are a supreme court judge or something, that opinion wont change much.

My point is that some people here say these NY laws are such a clear violation that they wont stand a chance in court, but looking at what's happened so far, it would seem to me that maybe they are wrong...

I'm no fortune teller, so I guess we'll see what really happens.

How do you figure it wasn't a violation? Does artificially limiting the supply and preventing new sales not infringe on my ability to keep and bear arms? Perhaps it seemed reasonable at the time when different gun groups thought "compromise" wasn't a euphemism for "continuing eroding rights/slippery slope", but that's been shown to not be the case. Therefore, any new gun laws will be fought tooth and nail.

Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to enact the '86 ban? I can show you a place where they're specifically prohibited from doing it.

Related question: do you know why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

[Foxrus14]

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?

No.. the real police report just came out. No AR-15 was used... I repeat NO AR-15 was used. All pistol rounds were used. 4 different pistols. The original police report said the AR-15 was not used and in the back of his car... some how that got pushed under the proverbial rug and the democrats and media ran with the AR-15 "Assault" rifle as the demon. All were shot with semi-auto pistols. Media Bias... Agenda being pushed by democrats...

I have a 9mm with 2 clips that hold 17 bullets plus one in the chamber... I can pump 35 rounds out of it in probably 20 seconds. a clip change is only a half a second.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by carve

How do you figure it wasn't a violation?

Doesn't matter or not if you or I figure it is a violation. Why don't people get that? It's like yelling at a ref during a football game. His ruling affects the outcome, your screaming from the stands does not.

If the gov was legally unable to enact the '86 ban, then surely it would have been overturned when the NRA threw a bunch of the finest lawyers that big money can buy at it.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but what is clear from observing the past, is that it must not be as simple as, "see, the constitution says you cant do this, case closed".

[carve]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Doesn't matter or not if you or I figure it is a violation. Why don't people get that? It's like yelling at a ref during a football game. His ruling affects the outcome, your screaming from the stands does not.

If the gov was legally unable to enact the '86 ban, then surely it would have been overturned when the NRA threw a bunch of the finest lawyers that big money can buy at it.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but what is clear from observing the past, is that it must not be as simple as, "see, the constitution says you cant do this, case closed".

Do you think a government would come out and say they're violating their own rules? This is a great demonstration of the validity of the slippery slope argument. At what point does it become infringement if not at the first law prohibiting arms. I'm asking your personal opinion.

Why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohol?

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by Foxrus14

No.. the real police report just came out. No AR-15 was used... I repeat NO AR-15 was used. All pistol rounds were used. 4 different pistols. The original police report said the AR-15 was not used and in the back of his car... some how that got pushed under the proverbial rug and the democrats and media ran with the AR-15 "Assault" rifle as the demon. All were shot with semi-auto pistols. Media Bias... Agenda being pushed by democrats...

I have a 9mm with 2 clips that hold 17 bullets plus one in the chamber... I can pump 35 rounds out of it in probably 20 seconds. a clip change is only a half a second.

Can you post a link please.

[Foxrus14]

Originally Posted by pgviper

Can you post a link please.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/3020...town-shooting/



there is a video directly from NBC news.

It is unbelievable actually. As it was unfolding I remember reading the initial police reports that the AR-15 was found in the car and not in the school.

[carve]

Originally Posted by Foxrus14

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/3020...town-shooting/

there is a video directly from NBC news.

It is unbelievable actually. As it was unfolding I remember reading the initial police reports that the AR-15 was found in the car and not in the school.

That's from Dec 15. If you read the editor's note at the bottom of the page it also says a rifle was used.

Ultimatelly, it doesn't matter what he used. He could've cause about the same amount of death with a .22 pistol and 7 round mags (one of the weapons used at Virgina Tech). He had all the time he wanted and calmly went from room to room, shooting each victim multiple times at point blank.

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by Foxrus14

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/3020...town-shooting/

there is a video directly from NBC news.

It is unbelievable actually. As it was unfolding I remember reading the initial police reports that the AR-15 was found in the car and not in the school.

Wow ...

Talk about jumping the "gun" NYS.

Pun intended.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

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

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.

Correct.

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....

[Foxrus14]

Originally Posted by carve

Ultimatelly, it doesn't matter what he used. He could've cause about the same amount of death with a .22 pistol and 7 round mags (one of the weapons used at Virgina Tech). He had all the time he wanted and calmly went from room to room, shooting each victim multiple times at point blank.

It does matter due to them attacking the AR-15 when you could literally go from door to door and confiscate every gun in the US and I would guarantee the next day there would be a shooting. The only people being hurt or affected by these new regulations is the law abiding citizen. Criminals don't care... Mentally unstable dont care... they will find a way to harm people if they really want to.

[Foxrus14]

Just glad I live in NC with the castle law and a concealed weapons permit and we voted Red!

[carve]

This is ironic. All US gun control laws are set on the precedent of US vs. Miller in 1936.

Miller committed a crime with a sawed off shotgun. Since the military didn't use such a weapon, and it was considered unsuitable for militia use, the government saw fit to put restrictions on sawed-off shotguns.

Ironic that now we're tying to restrict gun specificially BECAUSE the military uses them and they're suitable for militia use.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by carve

Do you think a government would come out and say they're violating their own rules? This is a great demonstration of the validity of the slippery slope argument. At what point does it become infringement if not at the first law prohibiting arms. I'm asking your personal opinion.

Why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohol?

My personal opinion (which matters not), is that saying I cannot buy a new gun would be more restricting than saying you can buy a new gun, but the mag must be smaller. In either case, I cant say I'd agree it violates the 2nd amendment because it talks about "arms", not traditional bullet-firing guns specifically. It's vague, and to me, it is intended to deal with equipment used by militias. The gear they have has drastically changed in ways the founders couldnt have imagined. If the '86 rule is a violation, then you could equally argue that if you can't buy a rocket propelled grenade or drone, that's already a violation too. Talk about slippery slope. It's too easy to interpret in a non-relevant way for today's world, therefore less weight should be placed on it (IMHO; you asked).

The fact the '86 ban was not overturned further reinforces my position that if an arguably bigger offence against the 2nd amd was unable to be stopped then, any legal attacks today on the smaller offence (7-round-rule) are unlikely bear fruit. I suppose time will tell, but if I were a gun owner, I would operate under the assumption that any challenge will probably fail, rather than the assumption that the constitution will save me.


You seem to really be dying here, waiting for someone to ask you about the alcohol prohibition thing. Why dont you just go head and tell us?

[carve]

The intent of the amendment is to ensure the people have weapons suitable for armed infantry combat. Banning the weapons and mags suitable for this is a violation of the 2A and goes against the intent. Unless the constitution is amended, we should be able to carry anything a typical infantry soldier carries....maybe even something better (the Kentucky Rifle was vastly superior to the British "Brown Bess")

Speaking of amendments, one was required to ban alcohol because nowhere in the constitution is congress given the power to enact such a ban, so it had to be amended to give them that power. That was just controlling a recreational substance- not to violate a constitutionally protected right.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by carve

The intent of the amendment is to ensure the people have weapons suitable for armed infantry combat. Banning the weapons and mags suitable for this is a violation of the 2A and goes against the intent. Unless the constitution is amended, we should be able to carry anything a typical infantry soldier carries....maybe even something better (the Kentucky Rifle was vastly superior to the British "Brown Bess")

Yes, BUT it must be said that at that time, the infantry really comprised the only type of organized threat the average citizen would have to go up against. (whether it was their own government tyranically oppressing them, or whether it's the British invading, or <insert other country here>).

Planes and helicopters were not invented, and neither were many other types of self-propelled, motorized, armored vehicles, some of which could move much faster than the speed of sound. Nobody thought of missiles being launched from a submerged nuclear submarines off the coast, taking out your buildings.

Interpreting the 2nd amendment in a more literal, orthodox or old fashioned way would basically enable the populace to be ready to defend against any attacker (foreign or domestic), as long as that attacker just stepped out of time machine from 200 years ago.

If they are coming with an armored attack helicopter (with the precision of laser guided armaments and the ability to see clearly in pitch darkness), regardless of the flag painted on the side of the helicopter, the odds are so lopsided even before the 7-round restriction, that I'd argue it no longer creates a deterrant against anyone.

IMHO, this is why most people in other countries are not all screaming they can't defend themselves, because they realize if the shit really hits the fan at home, they are dead man walking anyway, regardless of what some limited rights to ownership of rifles an outdated rule in a constitution might grant.

To create a REAL deterrant is to give said populace the RPG's, etc. So unless you do that, you are already making a mockery of what the founders intended, IMHO. So, then you gotta ask yourself, do you start down that slope, or do you say, you know what, a different time calls for a different interpretation.

Obviously, your opinion may vary, but that's what's informing my statements.

[carve]

1) If a guy in a truck with a low-caliber rifle is not an effective weapon of war (particularly an occupation, rather than an invasion), then why is it the primary weapon system of the Army and Marines? Why has that been a successful insurgency weapons system in Afghanistan? Do you know something the Army doesn't?

2) Look around the world to see what modern guerrilla warfare looks like. It's not generally massed formations against military regulars- it's ambushes, harassment, and assassination.

3) Most countries don't want to lay waste to their own neighborhoods- it lowers the neighborhoods value and is not politically acceptable, because people don't like it when gunships strafe their cul-de-sac

4) Rifles offer a means to procure heavier weapons


5) Even if you were right, we can't just start interpreting it to mean the exact opposite of what it says. What's the point of even having a constitution then? We'd require an amendment to change things for the times.

[Mr Tonka]

The debate is getting a bit out there. Al, it seem as if you're saying that all citizens of all nations should just lay down to not only their own government but any other that may decide to occupy their country.

Not really an ideal i can get on board with.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Afghanistan, and similar theatres to that, are not like modern USA. To occupy and control an area there, you need to go, on foot, farmhouse to farmhouse, in a slow, manual fashion, because people are "off the grid". Much more like what you had to do everywhere when the 2nd amendment was written, ironically enough.

The vast majority of the population today (here) lives not in rural areas, but in dense urban centers. People dont grow their own food and livestock on their own land (for the most part). They are on the grid, and dependently so.

If I were to quarterback an assault against any major city, what would I do?

First target: Utilities: kill the power, phone, internet, and water supply. Some person in their 20th story condo or townhouse on residential street, waiting to shoot back with his AR-15 at the foot soldiers will be waiting a LONG time, cause they aint coming. With no food, water, electricity you'd be out of food pretty damn quick. You could maybe gather at the nearest restaurant or store, but with no means to refrigerate food, that wouldnt last long either.

Control the airport, and fuel distribution centres. Run outta gas and you cant go far, and since nobody owns a horse anymore, you gotta walk or ride your bike. Given obesity rates, mass migrations in a hurry to congregate and defend sounds unlikely.

Before long you got a starving, cold, isolated group of people who find themselves in a nasty spot, compared to the Afgan rebel whose family has not come to be dependant on running water, electricity, cars or internet service in generations. He can milk his cow, eat his eggs, survive with limited shelter just fine, and he probably knows how to make an IED off the top of his head. If the internet wasnt down, your accountant across the street could probably look up how to make one too, but....

Taking those key targets with the aid of apache helicopters wouldnt be too hard initially,the "150 million" armed citizens with their 300 million guns would not be pre-massed there ready to defend. Once you have control of that, if the citizens to organize into small groups to try and take them back, I would bet it would be much easier to defend once established, against small arms fire.

I'm no military strategist, so I'm sure those who have served may be able to poke small holes in my plan, but hopefully you get the idea where I'm going with this.... and no, it doesnt require using F-18's to carpet bomb suburbs and kill millions of people right away.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

The debate is getting a bit out there. Al, it seem as if you're saying that all citizens of all nations should just lay down to not only their own government but any other that may decide to occupy their country.

Not really an ideal i can get on board with.

Not saying you should choose to, I'm saying, in modern day 21st century, most people would end up having to do so anyways, not out of choice, even if the 2nd amendment grants you the ability to shoot back with your AR-15. See the scenarios Ive described above....

[Templar]

Wow, I don't even know what to say...