US Army Veteran Arrested in New York for possession of AR15 Magazines

[mcdonl]

Just because you were told that by a state senator doesn't mean you have to listen to him. Use your own judgment. If something makes sense to you, or doesn't make sense, then point it out.

My own views tend to be unpopular both among most gun supporters, and most gun control people. Oh well. Better to be unpopular than to be dishonest with yourself.

No, I dont have to listen to him but I am smart enough to realize that one mans lone voice is not the same as the NRA and SAM... I do not agree with everything any organization does but when it comes to a fight of this size the ideal of "your vote counts" is a cute philosophy but it will not matter as much as the support the NRA and SAM can bring to the fight.

 

[radiotom]

So, timmy's idea of ideal capacity is more than seven but less than.......based upon....

Based upon his need to be neither on the "right" or the "left" and thus feel good about himself for being "in the middle."

 

[timmy4]

There is no middle ground on a constitutionally granted right. You either have it or you don't. They've been taking your proposed "middle ground" for almost a century now, and these 2nd Amendment infractions are becoming more and more frequent. By believing there is still a middle ground shows how little you have been paying attention. The fictitious middle ground is just another device used to bring us closer and closer to the end of 2nd Amendment.

I agree with you that there is no middle ground in terms of the Constitution. If ever a law were passed that would attempt to seize your guns, I would be fighting right along with you with every means at my disposal.

But we're a long way off from that, and there IS middle ground in these discussions. For example, I am very much against what Bloomberg is doing. I am against what Feinstein is proposing. I don't believe we should ban assault rifles. I no longer believe we should limit high capacity magazines. I do however, think we should have universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms. That is a middle ground position.

 

[HankR]

could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted. You're vacating the middle ground, and leaving the debate wide open for the extremists to jump in.

Timmy, we've been compromising with this evil for the last 79 years. What you're calling the middle ground would have been laughed at by almost all of society when we first started the compromising. They took half in '34, so now the "middle" was a 25% of our rights, they took half again in '68, so the new middle it 12.5%, they took a few little chunks with various executive actions and took another big chunk (half of the half that was left after the other half) in '94. Then some interpretations and import bans...

Now you want us to "compromise" and give up half of what we have left?

Folks like me who are moderate on this issue have very little influence at the present time.

And for that I am eternally grateful. If you and your ilk could explain your "moderate" positions to those who fought and died for the freedoms you are giving up (in the spirit of compromise) what do you think they would say? Could you explain how limiting a gun to X number of rounds in not infringing, but limiting it to x-y is ridiculous? This is what compromising leaves us with. We get to keep half of what's left, until next time.

 

[Solo]

So, timmy's idea of ideal capacity is more than seven but less than.......based upon....

The answer is 42, of course.

 

[radiotom]

I agree with you that there is no middle ground in terms of the Constitution. If ever a law were passed that would attempt to seize your guns, I would be fighting right along with you with every means at my disposal.

But we're a long way off from that, and there IS middle ground in these discussions. For example, I am very much against what Bloomberg is doing. I am against what Feinstein is proposing. I don't believe we should ban assault rifles. I no longer believe we should limit high capacity magazines. I do however, think we should have universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms. That is a middle ground position.

OK you've come a long way. But there is one problem with "universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms" .... and that problem is that criminals will follow none of those new laws. Only the people that you shouldn't be worried about are going to bring their guns to trade at a FFL, and only people that you shouldn't be worried about are going to register.

 

[timmy4]

The ACLU certainly represents millions of people - they have 500,000 members and act for the benefit of a country of over 300 million. As for their goals... pardon me for asking, but can you rephrase "single, pluralistic goal" in a less obtuse fashion?

Pluralism works in politics when a minority is willing to make their primary issue the key to their voting. In other words, the NRA has remained powerful, despite being a minority, because their members and supporters are willing to vote for candidates based on their views on gun rights over and above all other political concerns. The ACLU supporters have shown no willingness to do the same.

 

[HankR]

I do however, think we should have universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms. That is a middle ground position.

What possible goal would registration serve, other than to aid in confiscation? Do you favor registration only so that, after the next round of compromise, you can more easily confiscate the newly banned firearms?

 

[timmy4]

OK you've come a long way. But there is one problem with "universal background checks and a national registration for a firearms" .... and that problem is that criminals will follow none of those new laws. Only the people that you shouldn't be worried about are going to bring their guns to trade at a FFL, and only people that you shouldn't be worried about are going to register.

Obviously we disagree. I posted in another thread specific to that issue explaining my reasons. Perhaps we shouldn't cloud up this thread with that discussion.

 

[Solo]

Pluralism works in politics when a minority is willing to make their primary issue the key to their voting. In other words, the NRA has remained powerful, despite being a minority, because their members and supporters are willing to vote for candidates based on their views on gun rights over and above all other political concerns. The ACLU supporters have shown no willingness to do the same.

Ah, so you're saying the ACLU members will vote for candidates who will trample on civil liberties when NRA members will not vote for candidates likely to enact gun control.

 

[Xfire68]

But on the other hand, I could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted. You're vacating the middle ground, and leaving the debate wide open for the extremists to jump in. Folks like me who are moderate on this issue have very little influence at the present time.

You could argue that point but, you would be wrong.

You keep saying that we need to compromise when all that really means is to give up more of our rights.

This is what compromise has gotten us:

"I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog"

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html?m=1

 

[radiotom]

Obviously we disagree. I posted in another thread specific to that issue explaining my reasons. Perhaps we shouldn't cloud up this thread with that discussion.

So you think criminals, who by definition "break the law" are going to register their weapons with the Federal Government and only trade weapons through an FFL?

Seriously, the thugs in Chicago will not follow these rules, and Adam Lanza would still have stolen his mom's guns.

 

[mcdonl]

Just so everyone understands who your debating with....

Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects.

I posted that because most people assume that if you are a THR member you own guns or are at least interested in them.

So timmy, have you learned enough? Or do you want to continue arguing the same points?

 

[Justin]

The 7 round limitation is stupid. I've spent some time in here arguing for limiting high capacity magazines, but this particular limitation makes no sense even to me.

I also don't believe that anyone should be arrested for having a high capacity magazine. That's just really stupid as well. Even if they became illegal, at worst you should have to pay a fine. Arrests should only take place in our society when you are actively committing a crime, or in possession of stolen goods, etc.

Pay a fine and, presumably have the magazine confiscated? Or, in your world would the cop simply pat you on the head, and send you on your way with a piece of contraband considered so dangerous the state sees fit to punish you simply for having it?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

 

[Reloadron]

Injured veteran arrested in weapons investigation

That's it, four short paragraphs providing next to no actual information. Leaves one hell of a lot to the imagination in my opinion.

As to the argument concerning magazine capacity and what the gun rights advocates should concede? The problem is plain and simple. Every time the gun lobby has made a concession the anti gun lobby comes back wanting more and more. This goes well beyond guns and magazine capacity. Every time another constitutional right is usurped, they want more. Even a fool should readily see that those who would usurp the rights of others will never stop till those with rights and clinging to them, have none.

When I was a kid my father had a saying he would use with me. "Ronald, I give you an inch and you take a yard". Thus I have learned never give these people an inch because they will take a yard! History has shown me that much.

Just My Take
Ron

 

[SSN Vet]

I NY

(and I've never used that emotocon b4)

and will not spend one dime there.... period.

Unfortunately, I have to pass through if I drive anywhere outside of New England. But I make sure I tank up b4 hitting the state line and don't stop for any reason.

 

[bobdubois]

Regarding the original post:

From the NYS Police:

Q: What if I have a magazine that can contain more than ten rounds?

A: You can permanently modify the magazine so that it holds no more than ten rounds, responsibly discard it, or sell it to a dealer or an out of state purchaser by January 15, 2014.

More info on the NYS law here:

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

 

[r1derbike]

Just because you were told that by a state senator doesn't mean you have to listen to him. Use your own judgment. If something makes sense to you, or doesn't make sense, then point it out.

My own views tend to be unpopular both among most gun supporters, and most gun control people. Oh well. Better to be unpopular than to be dishonest with yourself.

Timster, after reading your posts in various threads, I'll just sum-up my collective "take" on your views (I'll defend your views with my life), "The road to hell is paved with ignorant good intention".

Don't take this personally, it is just another view on these forums!

 

[greenmtnguy]

Timmy - It is also ridiculous to "blame" the NRA or its position for the passage of this law in New York State. Cuomo was simply trying to "one-up" all his liberal buddies and forced this bill through the state congress and senate in barely 24 hours of having it printed and released from his closed committee. There was no time allowed for public comments and virtually no time allowed for debate on the floor. And, the politicians who should have known better failed their constituents that day. Cuomo and Bloomberg intentionally rammed this through to prevent/minimize the opportunity for anyone putting the brakes on the crazy train, and the crazy train took off.

Given the behavior of our government "representatives" such as these, and Feinstein, etc. how can someone not understand that those who are fighting for their constitutional rights do NOT TRUST these agenda-driven fanatics. I've always been a man of my word, as I suspect many here to be. But I also have understood for many many years that ACTIONS speak louder than words. And, by the actions of these politicians, we are rightly concerned to no longer consider their words have much merit.


Maybe we will eventually meet somewhere in the middle, happy or not. But the only way to slow down a strong force in one direction is with an equally strong force in the opposite direction. Nothing else will work when dealing with simple-minded liberals of this magnitude.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Originally Posted by timmy4
The 7 round limitation is stupid. I've spent some time in here arguing for limiting high capacity magazines, but this particular limitation makes no sense even to me.

I also don't believe that anyone should be arrested for having a high capacity magazine. That's just really stupid as well. Even if they became illegal, at worst you should have to pay a fine. Arrests should only take place in our society when you are actively committing a crime, or in possession of stolen goods, etc.

Federal gun law is not regulatory law with regulatory penalties: it is criminal law and starts with fedeal felony penalties even in cases where people honestly believe they were complying with the gun laws. Because that is how the Tim Sullivans and Tom Dodds who write this stuff wanted it. Which is why people liek me have learned to resist extensions to the Title I and Title Federal firearms Laws.

On another thread, Timmy4, you missed the NCIC when proposing stolen gun reporting: since 1967, the National Crime Information Center NCIC run by the FBI has kept records on stolen guns, cars, boats, and other valuables. 1967. I reported a stolen revolver to NCIC in the early 1970s. They take the make, model, serial number, and if the gun shows up and is not needed as evidence there is a good chance it could be returned to the lawful owner.
See FBI - About NCIC http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic
The NCIC also includes federal criminal records and is one of the databases consulted in a National Instant Check System NICS background check.

If anyone is proposing a stolen gun registry in competition to, or confusion with, the NCIC, well that is typical of gun law proponents: they don't know the existing law, or their idea of existing law is stuck at the 1960s level gun control propaganda.

 

[BHP FAN]

Timmy, you seem intelligent, but you keep missing the point, you can't have a compromise, if only one party wants to compromise. we have 9,000 gun related laws on the books already, here in California we have back ground checks, there is no gunshow ''loop hole'', we've had a ten round magazine limit since the 90's, if you have an AK or AR you have to have a ''bullet button'' to release the magazine, and now DiFi has a new ban that wants to take away the handguards on a legal ALREADY California LEGAL nuetered AR 15! WE cannot compromise anymore. The Antis have never compromised ONE BIT.

 

[Texan Scott]

Tim, the 'middle ground' is not level ground. It slopes gently but increasingly to the left.

Giving up something in exchange for nothing is not compromise; it's concession.

We're being asked to give a little more, tolerate a bit more infringement, a little more, a bit more.... what are we getting in return that wasn't already ours?

Giving up some of my rights in exchange for being allowed to keep some of my rights isn't compromise... it's infringment and gradually encroaching oppression.

The real lie, though, is that if we give up some of our rights in exchange for being 'allowed' to keep some of our rights, we aren't really going to be allowed to keep them. Those are the rights they'll want us to give up next time in exchange for being allowed to 'keep' the rest.... and so on.

This is the encroaching nature of progressive infringement, Tim.

Some of us simply refuse to give up any more.

I refuse.

 

[Coop45]

Timmy,
You have convinced me.......to send some more money to the NRA-ILA. There is no middle ground with my constitutional rights.

 

[Skribs]

But on the other hand, I could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted.

New York already had fairly strict laws. It's not like they went from a constitutional RKBA state to this overnight. They already had the laws in place that you consider "reasonable" and then this time they took it an extra step, ignoring their own legal process and granting a temporary waiver so the law could be fixed for LEO exemption. This is why we fear "reasonable" control, because it's just the next step towards the next "reasonable" control.

 

[Redlg155]

But on the other hand, I could argue just as easily that the NRA and their supporters' refusal to compromise on even the most mild of regulations are what's causing more extreme laws like this one to be enacted.

It's fun to feed the sharks as long as you don't run out of fish...