Firearms restrictions

A place to discuss regulations, or the over regulation in most case, that our members have to deal with in their respective countries. Hopefully discussion will lead to more rules based on common sense, rather than fears by the government.

Moderators: skeetshot, deerhunter338mag

Post Reply
longrider
Meister der jagd
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Cody USA
Location: Cody, Wyoming

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by longrider »

Brad

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by thechamp »

Never heard of him but his voice sure has the "Clint" sound to it. Linked it to my Facebook page.....


BTW came across an article in the NYDailynews.com concerning their hastily rushed and passed gun laws that even one of the supporters admitted wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook.



Our new gun law: Rushed and wrong
When will we fix its many flaws?
By Kieran Lalor / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Published: Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 4:05 AM
Updated: Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 4:05 AM

New York’s new gun control law, celebrated far and wide as the first major piece of state legislation enacted in the wake of the Newtown massacre, is deeply misguided. It is bad policy made possible by a seriously flawed process.

For starters, Gov. Cuomo circumvented the state Constitution’s requirement that bills age for at least three days before being voted on.

Yes, the Constitution allows for the governor to issue a “Message of Necessity” letter in emergency situations. But there was no such emergency here, and doing an end run around this state mandate is no mere technicality.

When you rush a bill through, you can’t have committee hearings in which you learn from experts. You don’t allow for proper debate. You don’t allow for possible amendments that would refine and strengthen a bill.

And so, predictably, in his haste to win political headlines, the governor has delivered a mess to New Yorkers.

The law contains such basic flaws that it technically makes it illegal for police officers to carry their weapons into public schools. Cuomo might wave this off as something easily fixed, but the error is of a piece with a law riddled with bad ideas and faulty logic.

Magazines with more than seven rounds are now banned statewide. Although existing magazines that hold up to 10 rounds will be grandfathered in, they are no longer allowed to be loaded with more than seven rounds.

But no criminal is going to pause when loading his weapon to ask himself how many rounds state law has set as the limit.

Then there’s the logistical lift. Beginning in less than three months, certain weapons and ammunition — an estimated 1 million guns — will have to be registered with the state police within a year. That means the authorities will have to process more than 2,500 registrations every day for a 365-day period.

But the state police don’t even have a system in place to process these registrations.

This will be a colossal effort — one focused on people who, by virtue of the fact they are complying with the new law, are law-abiding. Even with the governor’s budget including more than $30 million to help implement the provisions, critical resources will undoubtedly be pulled away from efforts to prevent crime and catch criminals.

It is also fair to say that this law turns lawful citizens into criminals, because failure to register in a year is a crime and results in confiscation of a weapon. Can you think of any other constitutionally protected right that can be stripped upon failure to file proper paperwork?

Also problematic: New Yorkers want Albany to make our schools safer, but this law does little to secure our classrooms. In fact, the topic has been passed off to a blue-ribbon panel meeting sometime in the future.

That could wait, apparently. Banning guns and ammunition could not.

One of the bill’s sponsors was asked on the Assembly floor whether this law would have prevented the horrible murders of students and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School. He answered, “No.” When some of his colleagues gasped at his honesty, he changed his answer to “Maybe.”

It is clear from the brief floor debate that, if certain lawmakers have their way, New York’s assault on the Second Amendment is only beginning. Some openly supported confiscating weapons and only agreed to the current law as a compromise. One assemblyman said he thought one round of ammunition was all a citizen needed. He suggested that victims of home invasions hide, call 911 and hope that the one round does the job.

There’s a better way. While Cuomo and others rammed a deeply flawed bill through, Connecticut has formed a legislative task force that will deliver recommendations next month. That state’s speaker of the House, Brendan Sharkey, a Democrat, said wisely, “I think taking quick action is important, but taking smart action is more important.”

If only Cuomo and his allies agreed.

Lalor, a Republican, represents Dutchess County in the Assembly.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/new- ... z2J9ZPPvTf

longrider
Meister der jagd
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Cody USA
Location: Cody, Wyoming

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by longrider »

no doubt a bunch of idiots in NY

Trust me I have ......'s in NY State that that will not comply with this law in any way

they will not register and an attempt to confiscate or arrest will result in blood
Brad

dinsdale
Meister der jagd
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Hudson Valley,NY
Location: Hudson Valley, NY

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by dinsdale »

longrider wrote:no doubt a bunch of idiots in NY

Trust me I have ......'s in NY State that that will not comply with this law in any way

they will not register and an attempt to confiscate or arrest will result in blood

Just on face it will mean that between when our State Police start a registration process and next year on Jan 15,2014........They will have to do 2500 a day by most estimates. They can't even keep up with the conceal carry permits in the system now and then add some registration process in on top? With a convoluted way to hire folks here, how would thy ever be able to put this in place?

Folks are still selling "assault weapons" here FTF, and that was to stop day of signing bill.

Same with 10 round semi auto handguns....but they messed up in their haste passing the law and now that is April 15.

I never thought I would have to leave here and start over somewhere, but the way its headed, I don't see any choice.

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by thechamp »

More I think about all this the more convinced I am that the climate has changed so much in favor of gun ownership that this massive gun ban for the nation was a really stupid idea the left had. Granted Feinstein had it ready to go and they were waiting for the right crisis to advance the bill. However with concealed carry* legal in most states now and with so many young men having served in the military the last 10 years the 'soccer mom' that was behind the assault weapons ban of 94 just doesn't exist in any numbers today. Plus having seen how totally useless the establishment's police and fire departments are when the stuff does hit the fan has helped people understand that when the chips are down you better be prepared to defend yourself and your family. When New York City was hit on 911 the residents may not have noticed but the people of America saw that the police and fire departments weren't coming when called. They were overloaded and couldn't respond.

Certainly hoping the NRA and the New York gun clubs and others can join forces and get this law thrown out. If it was rushed through and the constitution wasn't followed you would think the courts would tell Cuomo and his cohorts to try again. Only thing is next time people will have had time to think and they well might not get it done.

*People will remember that when the concealed carry laws were being brought up in state legislatures that the left cried that we would have murders and shootings everywhere. That the "OK Corral" would be a daily occurrence. Well it didn't happen and in most places (probably all but not sure) where it was approved crime actually went down. Murders went down. Many a citizen who had their legal firearm on them interceded in bad situations and helped stop them or contain them till law enforcement could get there. The left has been so wrong so many times that it's amazing that anyone still listens to them. Then again don't check the IQ level of their believers....

On that same note I'm seeing comments from the left on Huff Post and other sites that if teachers are allowed to carry guns that they 'll be shooting kids in the classroom. They don't believe teachers can maintain their composure without resorting to deadly force when pushed by unruly students :roll: . If I were a teacher I would be very offended by such idiotic thinking and comments. I might even switch parties.... :lol:

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by thechamp »

As the article says 237 Sheriffs from across the country have vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against President Obama's unlawful gun control measures. I would estimate that 90% of their deputies are of the same mindset. I've attached an Excel file containing the names of those Sheriffs and their areas as well as a PDF file containing the letter they sent to President Obama's administration:

http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/


237 Sheriffs and 3 State Sheriffs Associations Saying ‘NO’ to Obama Gun Control

Posted on January 31, 2013

Sheriffs have risen up all over our great nation to stand up against the unconstitutional gun control measures being taken.

The following is a list of sheriffs and state sheriff’s associations from who have vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unlawful gun control measures. I applaud these public servants for their courage and conviction.

I call on sheriffs all over this nation to add their voices to the growing numbers of faithful protectors of our freedom. -Richard Mack

Sheriffs and associations who have made public statements committing to protect their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights from Obama’s gun control efforts will be added. Some of these sheriffs are members of the CSPOA, but inclusion in this list does not necessarily mean they are a member.

List of State Sheriff’s Associations

1. Utah Sheriffs Association

2. Florida Sheriffs Association

3. Georgia Sheriffs Association


List of Sheriffs.xlsx

Utah Sheriff's Association.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by thechamp »

A new update to the shooting at Newtown. Appears the school district already had SROs (school police officers) at their middle and high schools. The NRA recommended after the shootings that the answer was to put armed police officers or others who have been trained with weapons on the campuses to help protect the children. The administration's response was that MORE GUNS AREN'T THE ANSWER. They instead recommended registration and many of their followers are wanting to outlaw many of the guns and confiscate them or make the owners criminals if they don't turn them in. Well the people with the most at stake - the parents and the school board voted to hire officers and station them at every elementary school as well. Actually two people, one armed and one not armed.

Emphasis added below to point out the view of the parents. Anyone going to the article itself needs to read the comments below. From what I'd say the support side to putting officers ont he campus was at least 95%. Some very heady comments.


Newtown Votes for Armed Guards in Elementary Schools

By Alexander Abad-Santos | The Atlantic Wire – Fri, Feb 1, 2013.

As the nation continues to confront the concept of "good guys with guns" in schools, armed guards are coming in force to Newtown, Connecticut. Late Thursday the Newtown Board of Education voted to request the presence of two kinds of guards inside the town's elementary schools. The vote, for now, only represents a request — it still needs to clear budget and logistical boundaries since the guards would come from the town's police resources as opposed to the school board itself. But the plan "would put two eyes and ears -- one armed, one unarmed -- at each Newtown school," reports Bronxville Patch's Davis Dunavin. The guards, officially called school resource officers (SROs), were already a fixture at all Newtown schools in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, but until this vote they were budgeted only to be a presence at middle and high Schools, according to NBC Connecticut.

From reports of the school-board meeting, concerned parents cited the Sandy Hook shootings as their reason for backing an armed-guard policy. "The only thing that stopped that guy that day was when the two Newtown police burst in the building," one parent is quoted as saying in the Patch story. "You all know that." Which sounds eerily familiar to the NRA's "good guy with a gun" talking point, even though the Obama administration has backed armed guards if schools want them. One of President Obama's 23 executive actions on gun violence includes the following order: "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

The rest of the country seems to slightly favor armed guards in schools. According to a January 15 poll from CNN, 54 percent of Americans would approve of putting armed guards in every school, while 45 percent opposed.

The Newtown decision comes in a week when emotional locals — including parents of the Sandy Hook victims — spoke out about gun legislation and gun-violence awareness.


http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-votes-arm ... 26609.html

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by thechamp »

Sandy hook dad you`ll have to take my guns from my cold dead hands.



longrider
Meister der jagd
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Cody USA
Location: Cody, Wyoming

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by longrider »

Bravo Sandy Hook father!

People who can separate emotion from facts are also able to evaluate historical progression/digression relative to FREEDOM or bondage.

I will die for FREEDOM rather than live in bondage. Welcome to America, if you don't like our constitution, you are FREE to leave.

Here is someone, that has her head on straight - perhaps the illogical/emotionaluninformed/naieve left will listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/vn7bkncf1_E

Those who are intentionally trying to enslave my children and grandchildren will never listen. They know who they are - and they are about to find out who we are...
Brad

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by thechamp »

She certainly did a good job spelling things out where even the dimwitted amongst us might get the hint as to what the 2nd Amendment stands for. She gives one hope that America does have a future that's not a gloomy as it sometimes appears to be.

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by thechamp »

News from Canada. What follows a national database of gun registration? Most of us that have been around for a few years understand the role of government and the abuse of power that comes from it.


http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/feat ... 1848359001

ROdell

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by ROdell »

I think we will be back doored. Requirements for insurance (that no one offers), banning lead (and leaded primers), requirements for background checks for ammo/components, and things like this will hasten the drop in shooters and eventually weaken the lobby.

Maybe not in my lifetime, but certainly in that of my son's.

longrider
Meister der jagd
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:02 pm
Location: Cody USA
Location: Cody, Wyoming

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by longrider »

Brad

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Re: Firearms restrictions

Post by thechamp »

longrider wrote:This man echoes my very soul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiMKTLd1 ... e=youtu.be

Have to wonder what kind of area did he run in when he ran for office that would elect someone over him? He's a heck of a speaker and calls it like it is.

thechamp
Administrator
Posts: 8729
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: San Antonio
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Firearms restrictions - more companies boycotting these stat

Post by thechamp »

Learned yesterday that Wilsom Combat had joined the boycott as well. Kudos to Wilson Combat!


Magpul has joined the boycott of not selling to state governments that don't allow civilians to own the same goods! Congrats to Magpul for taking a stand. Now when will Glock, S&W, Sig, Ruger and the other big boys step up to the plate? Or will they?

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/magpul-ch ... un-states/

Magpul Changes Positions – Will No Longer Sell to Law Enforcement in Anti Gun States

· Bravo Magpul. The gun community spoke and you listened.

· After a bit of a backlash when Magpul announced they would continue magazine sales to law enforcement in states where those same magazines were banned from civilians, Magpul has now changes their policy and pledges to explore a better way enforce their sales in the future.

· Besides the sale to law enforcement issue, Magpul has been a very outspoken supporter of gun rights in recent weeks, announcing they will leave their home state of CO if a proposed magazine ban is signed into law there. They also put a plan in place to allow CO residents to buy up to 10 PMags immediately ahead of the ban. (This is a great idea.)

· Here is a copy of Magpul’s announcement.


· March 1st, 2013

· Back in 1990, when I was deployed in Desert Shield and Desert Storm as a Marine grunt, some companies prioritized me items for my M16 for shipping that I purchased with my own funds. After getting out and forming Magpul in 1999, I established the same priority policy for Military and Law Enforcement, due to the requirements of their profession.

· The same policy has been in place for 13 years now and has never been an issue until a few days ago. I do not support the idea that individual police officers should be punished for the actions of their elected officials. That said, I understand the concerns that some have with Law Enforcement officers getting special treatment while at the same time denouncing second amendment rights to another citizen in the same state.

· With the fight in Colorado right now we do not have time to implement a new program, so I have suspended all LE sales to ban states until we can implement a system wherein any Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution – specifically the second and fourteenth amendments – as it applies to all citizens.

· Richard Fitzpatrick
President/CEO – Founder
Magpul Industries

Post Reply

Return to “International Firearms Freedoms”