Just cancelled my Rockland Journal Subscription

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Warfish

New Warfish Gun Laws:

1. All Guns Must be Registered. No Full Autos allowed. Max 25 round Clips.

2. If you are found guilty of committing a crime while in posession of a NON-registered firearm or illegal firearm, you and executed.

3. If you are found guilty of committing a crime while in posession of a registered gun that is not your own and has not been reported (within 24 hours) as stolen, you get life in prison no parole, the registered owner gets 10 years, no parole.

4. If you are found guilty of committing a crime with a registered gun that is your own, automatic 50 year mandatory minimum.

To make room in prisons, Pot will be legalized (and taxes), and all other non-violent drug posession crimes will be converted to misdemeanor and the prisoners released. Violent drug crimes get no repreieve.

Done, gun problem fixed as fixed as it'll ever possably be in a free country.

Best of all, the only "rights" involved are those of a convicted, violent, gun toting criminal. Not all of us.

Jeez, number 2 is pretty harsh on the guy who kept his weapon at a second house on the land he hunts on. He had it in a gun safe, but since he doesn't live there, and houses are pretty far apart in land suitable for huting, no one noticed the criminal who used a blowtorch to extract his hunting rifle, he later held up a 7-11 with.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Axil

Jeez, number 2 is pretty harsh on the guy who kept his weapon at a second house on the land he hunts on. He had it in a gun safe, but since he doesn't live there, and houses are pretty far apart in land suitable for huting, no one noticed the criminal who used a blowtorch to extract his hunting rifle, he later held up a 7-11 with.

For #2, please see #1. All Guns must be Registered.

Nothing stops your hypothetical 2-home hav'in Hunter registering his Hunt'in House guns.

The 24 Hours is from the time it should reasonably be discovered to be stolen, not the time of the actual theft. With a clause for willful negligence of course. Better yet, firearms should not be stored in unattended, remote, easy-stolen from locations.....

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Warfish

For #2, please see #1. All Guns must be Registered.

Nothing stops your hypothetical 2-home hav'in Hunter registering his Hunt'in House guns.

The 24 Hours is from the time it should reasonably be discovered to be stolen, not the time of the actual theft. With a clause for willful negligence of course. Better yet, firearms should not be stored in unattended, remote, easy-stolen from locations.....

I messed up the numbers, it was 3 i took issue with. If it's 24h from the time of "reasonably discovering the gun has been stolen" rather than when the gun is stolen i suppose that would alleviate that concern. It brings a lot of subjectivity into the law though.

I'm not sure your weapon is more likely to fall into the wrong hands in a gun safe in your hunting cabin than in your home. Plus if you you have to transport it back in forth, you run the risk of being car jacked, or having it stolen from your vehicle while you are in a restaurant, etc.

But then we're rather far apart on what constitutes negligent storage anyway, as i don't think a gun safe should be required.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Warfish

New Warfish Gun Laws:

1. All Guns Must be Registered. No Full Autos allowed. Max 25 round Clips.

2. If you are found guilty of committing a crime while in posession of a NON-registered firearm or illegal firearm, you and executed.

3. If you are found guilty of committing a crime while in posession of a registered gun that is not your own and has not been reported (within 24 hours) as stolen, you get life in prison no parole, the registered owner gets 10 years, no parole.

4. If you are found guilty of committing a crime with a registered gun that is your own, automatic 50 year mandatory minimum.

To make room in prisons, Pot will be legalized (and taxes), and all other non-violent drug posession crimes will be converted to misdemeanor and the prisoners released. Violent drug crimes get no repreieve.

Done, gun problem fixed as fixed as it'll ever possably be in a free country.

Best of all, the only "rights" involved are those of a convicted, violent, gun toting criminal. Not all of us.

=================================================

On #3 could you expand on the reasoning//point of having the registered owner of a gun which was stolen spend 10 years when the gun is later found to be used in a crime?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Another reason for me as a lawful firearm owner to resist/reject gun registration.

Do you feel any of your suggested laws will prevent a mad man with a death wish from committing a crime as we saw in Newtown?

[Brooklyn Jet]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=================================================

On #3 could you expand on the reasoning//point of having the registered owner of a gun which was stolen spend 10 years when the gun is later found to be used in a crime?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Another reason for me as a lawful firearm owner to resist/reject gun registration.

Do you feel any of your suggested laws will prevent a mad man with a death wish from committing a crime as we saw in Newtown?

I think his point is that if you own a gun that is stolen, and DONT report it, and its used in a crime, you should get 10 yrs. I dont think Warfish is saying a gun owner who reports a gun stolen should face jailtime, but i could be wrong.

If your gun was stolen and you didnt report it, I agree that there should be some responsibility taken.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Axil

I messed up the numbers, it was 3 i took issue with.

I tried to cover both, I got the gist.

If it's 24h from the time of "reasonably discovering the gun has been stolen" rather than when the gun is stolen i suppose that would alleviate that concern. It brings a lot of subjectivity into the law though.

Yes. Like having a child, having a gun can come with it a number of additional responsabillities the onwer must meet. One of which may be "don't leave your gun unsecured in a cabin for 3 years without checking on it".

Plus if you you have to transport it back in forth, you run the risk of being car jacked, or having it stolen from your vehicle while you are in a restaurant, etc.

And if you report it within 24 hours, you face no criminal liabillity.

But then we're rather far apart on what constitutes negligent storage anyway, as i don't think a gun safe should be required.

And you're wrong (in Warfish Law Land!)

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet

I think his point is that if you own a gun that is stolen, and DONT report it, and its used in a crime, you should get 10 yrs. I dont think Warfish is saying a gun owner who reports a gun stolen should face jailtime.

You're right.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You're right.

===============================================

So what happens if I go on vacation to NYC for 3 days?

Are you suggesting I inventory my gun safe daily? Before going to bed, Lock doors, check on kids, set the coffee pot, inventory gun safe?

I do understand what you are getting at Fist, just pointing out some issues I have.

I will offer an alternative.

Let's say you own over three guns, you are then required to secure them in a UL approved safe. This would not put an undo financial burden on someone wishing to protect themselves and there loved ones, but would require those that have more then one firearm, and I assume the means to afford a safe to secure said firearms.

I do not agree with a law mandating guns should be kept in safes or otherwise secured by law. But I do admit and believe it is every gun owners responsiblity to keep there guns secure.

Kinda like how I am opposed to helmet and seat belt laws.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by gunnails

===============================================

So what happens if I go on vacation to NYC for 3 days?

Was your gun registered?

Was your gun reasonably secured (Trigger lock or safe, say?)

Did you report it stolen within 24 hours of arriving home?

If yes, yes and yes, you're fine.

Are you suggesting I inventory my gun safe daily?

Only if your home displays evidence of having been broken into daily, or evidence that a family member has stolen your gun daily.

I do understand what you are getting at Fist, just pointing out some issues I have.

No Law is perfect, but DraconianFish is bets Fish.

I will offer an alternative.

I do not agree with a law mandating guns should be kept in safes or otherwise secured by law.

The law wouldn't mandate it per se.

But you would be held accountable if it was not secured, and it was stolen, for allowing it to be stolen by being so bloody insecure with it.

Kinda like how I am opposed to helmet and seat belt laws.

Really?

My friend in the pointy DarthVader style helmet would like to have a word with you ova heeeere ----->

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

And yet almost none of which were enforced.



Obviously.



Yes.



Disagree. Intolerable Tyrany can exist even in a Constitutional Representative Republic, for example, if the system and process is corrupted in any number of ways (widespread Gerrymandering for one example).



Assumes the majority of people always and universally posess "good sense".

How'd that work out over slavery, for example?



No gorund in your view.

Perfectly resonable ground, perhaps, for millions of thers.



Assumes, arrogantly, that our system is perfect, and uncorruptable.

To which the only reply is....lol.



Assumes only the Millitary can "take over" and run roughshod over the Constitution and the people.

This exchange is one reason I strongly support the rights of succession. If a region ont he Nation feels, via it's own representative democratic process, that it no longer chooses to be a willing part of the Union, it should have the freedom of self-determination as to what Government is chooses.

Nah, I'm not saying it's perfect. But I am saying the Constitution has built in ways to amend itself and move toward improvement.

Re secession, I strongly disagree. Given the supremacy of federal over state, I could see the possibility that a state could petition for separation, but it would be subject to something akin to an amendment level approval of the rest of the Union. Who knows, since secession was never addressed in the Constitution and no process was ever offered for such an event by the founders. Hard to believe that the founders formed a Constitution to rectify the ills of the Articles of Confederation by heightening the Union and asserting federal supremacy and also included the dissolution of the whole megilla in the seams of the 10th Amendment. Secession, IMHO, is not an option. Revolution is.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Was your gun registered?

Was your gun reasonably secured (Trigger lock or safe, say?)

Did you report it stolen within 24 hours of arriving home?

If yes, yes and yes, you're fine.



Only if your home displays evidence of having been broken into daily, or evidence that a family member has stolen your gun daily.



No Law is perfect, but DraconianFish is bets Fish.

I will offer an alternative.



The law wouldn't mandate it per se.

But you would be held accountable if it was not secured, and it was stolen, for allowing it to be stolen by being so bloody insecure with it.



Really?

My friend in the pointy DarthVader style helmet would like to have a word with you ova heeeere ----->

============================================

LOL Draconian Fish.

Here is the rub, out of my 10 guns none are registered, there is only a remote possibility that 2 could be traced to me, 2 of my guns do not even have serial #s cause there that old.

Puts me in a small dilemma on what I should do if registration should ever be required, should I just register some and keep a couple as throw away guns, (LOL at feeling a need for a throw away gun) or submit to laws I feel are unjust?

I figure there maybe 100,000,000 others pondering the same decision.

So many of us are suspicious of the govt. Gun owners even more so, and with arguably good reason. Just not sure where all this will lead or what side I am left on.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Re secession, I strongly disagree. Given the supremacy of federal over state, I could see the possibility that a state could petition for separation, but it would be subject to something akin to an amendment level approval of the rest of the Union. Who knows, since secession was never addressed in the Constitution and no process was ever offered for such an event by the founders. Hard to believe that the founders formed a Constitution to rectify the ills of the Articles of Confederation by heightening the Union and asserting federal supremacy and also included the dissolution of the whole megilla in the seams of the 10th Amendment. Secession, IMHO, is not an option. Revolution is.

The basic core human right of self-determination over-rules all others of the Nation-State.

I could care less if it's "legal" or not under U.S. Law tbqh. Putting it in that term is akin to saying "well, being Jewish was illegal in Germany, so it's ok what the State did".

Right and wrong doesn't work that way. For a State to force a population to remain a part of that state against their will is tyrany and oppression. It's what Syria and the USSR does. Not a free nation.

Ironicly, we support (almost universally) that exact position when it comes to every other nation and people on Earth. Only here at home is it verbotin.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by gunnails

============================================

LOL Draconian Fish.

Here is the rub, out of my 10 guns none are registered, there is only a remote possibility that 2 could be traced to me, 2 of my guns do not even have serial #s cause there that old.

Obviously if FishLaw were to be passed, you'd have to register them.

Puts me in a small dilemma on what I should do if registration should ever be required, should I just register some and keep a couple as throw away guns, (LOL at feeling a need for a throw away gun) or submit to laws I feel are unjust?

You should register them.

And if at some point the state comes to take them.....well, to quote Jane Cobb in "Firefly'....."that'll be a real interest'in day".

I figure there maybe 100,000,000 others pondering the same decision.

Registration is not in any form an infringement upon your right to own. If it's required, you should do it, or face the consequences.

The real question is what you should do (if it were to come) on the day your fears of wholesale banning/confiscation become reality.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

The basic core human right of self-determination over-rules all others of the Nation-State.

I could care less if it's "legal" or not under U.S. Law tbqh. Putting it in that term is akin to saying "well, being Jewish was illegal in Germany, so it's ok what the State did".

Right and wrong doesn't work that way. For a State to force a population to remain a part of that state against their will is tyrany and oppression. It's what Syria and the USSR does. Not a free nation.

Ironicly, we support (almost universally) that exact position when it comes to every other nation and people on Earth. Only here at home is it verbotin.

To withdraw from a nation is easy. Emigrate some place else and relinquish your citizenship. To attempt to create a separate state within the confines of any country because you feel like it is called treason. Paging Aaron Burr. As Franklin noted, the price of revolt is that we hang separately or we all hang together. That was the price then, and it's the same price now. I'm surprised that you actually think that the right of an individual supercedes the law of the country in which he/she is located - those rights are subject to the will of the people, whether on a county level, state level or federal level. Like I said, there's no provision for secession, which I would think would have been enumerated if it was intended as an option, since it would castrate the very Union just created.

[Frequent Flyer]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

To withdraw from a nation is easy. Emigrate some place else and relinquish your citizenship. To attempt to create a separate state within the confines of any country because you feel like it is called treason. Paging Aaron Burr. As Franklin noted, the price of revolt is that we hang separately or we all hang together. That was the price then, and it's the same price now.

Accept it's not the same:

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by 32green

Check this out. There is no provision for retired Law Enforcement.

I am now....a criminal.

The 15 round mags I had for my glock are now illegal. If I were to sell them out of state, there are no 7 round mags for this weapon.

Technically, the law allows me to put 7 in a 10 round mag, but only if I owned the mag before, which none of us do because we had no warning about this.

This is why people are screaming; In Cuomo's rush to be the first, he effectively disarmed thousands of good guys... and essentially criminalized them....did nothing to address the thousands of black market weapons that flow in and cause the real damage in our streets. (I vouchered many many guns during my career due to arrests....all handguns and all illegally possessed...virtually all of them from out of state....I was nearly killed by one too)

Throw the baby out with the bath water for political expediency, demonize solid citizens with ill informed rhetoric, ignore the roll of mental illness and societies failure to protect itself from the thousands of virtual time bombs "not taking their meds"....

One of these time bombs drives into Harlem with a pocket full of cash, he will drive out with a gun. Its no big secret.

I hope it gets overturned. It was not well-thought out at all. Not even sure how he plans on enforcing it. Alienates a lot of legal pistol owners.

I recommend getting a 1911.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

I hope it gets overturned. It was not well-thought out at all. Alienates a lot of legal pistol owners.

I recommend getting a 1911.

===============================================

It's a crying shame, tsk tsk NY.

On the other hand you could move to OR and get one of these 50 round drums.

[DDNYjets]

^^^^^

LOL. Now THAT is ridiculous.

BTW, I don't plan on staying in NY my whole life. At least not LI. It is a cesspool.

[adpz]

Originally Posted by 32green

Check this out. There is no provision for retired Law Enforcement.

I am now....a criminal.

The 15 round mags I had for my glock are now illegal. If I were to sell them out of state, there are no 7 round mags for this weapon.

Technically, the law allows me to put 7 in a 10 round mag, but only if I owned the mag before, which none of us do because we had no warning about this.

This is why people are screaming; In Cuomo's rush to be the first, he effectively disarmed thousands of good guys... and essentially criminalized them....did nothing to address the thousands of black market weapons that flow in and cause the real damage in our streets. (I vouchered many many guns during my career due to arrests....all handguns and all illegally possessed...virtually all of them from out of state....I was nearly killed by one too)

Throw the baby out with the bath water for political expediency, demonize solid citizens with ill informed rhetoric, ignore the roll of mental illness and societies failure to protect itself from the thousands of virtual time bombs "not taking their meds"....

One of these time bombs drives into Harlem with a pocket full of cash, he will drive out with a gun. Its no big secret.

I would support real gun laws that have a chance at making a difference, but this law just seems to be grasping at straws. It seems to me that controlling the flow of ammo would make a lot more sense than worrying about the weapons themselves. It doesn't seem like these assault weapons fire .22s The damage difference between some of these 'target' rounds and military-style ammo is really huge.

- as LE, what's your thought on that?

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by adpz

I would support real gun laws that have a chance at making a difference, but this law just seems to be grasping at straws. It seems to me that controlling the flow of ammo would make a lot more sense than worrying about the weapons themselves. It doesn't seem like these assault weapons fire .22s The damage difference between some of these 'target' rounds and military-style ammo is really huge.

- as LE, what's your thought on that?

================================================
Most modern hunting rifles like my 270 Win, 7mm Mag, and my 30/06 are considerbly more powerful then the 5.56x45mm NATO round.

All so as I understand it there are lots of AR15's chambered in .22 rim fire.

And most gun deaths are via .22 rim fire, firearms. Reagan was shot with a .22. Which is no surprise as it is the most common caliber in the US.

I read a book when I was a teen, it was called "Saturday Night Special" (?)
Which is a knick name for a short barreled revolver, it was about the evils of hand guns. I remember it spoke of different calibers and had several cops postulating on how they feared the .22 the most because it would enter the body then deflect/ricochet and cause all kinds of damage (this is what happened to Reagan, he was shot in the arm and the bullet ricocheted to less then an inch from his heart) where as a larger caliber would just blow through you and result in less damage.

A lot of gun guy's poo poo the .22, not I though. Of course I don't want to get shot with any caliber.

Another also is that the Secret Service has begun to employ the FN five-seven which is a, .224 caliber that holds 20 rounds in a standard magazine, 30 rounds in a slightly extended magazine, these are said to be able to penetrate body armor. These along with full auto AR15's are what are used to protect O's wife and children........... These run about $1,000 and a civilian version is legal for commoners in Oregon.