NY seeks ammo sales cap

NY

I have already written my congressman about the stupidity of such a law.
We will see what the response, if any, is.
I do not see the two women who sponsored these proposals as evil. I do not see them as part of a plot to deny citizens their rights.
That does not mean that I do not see them as dangerous. They are. Very.
They are, also, not particularly bright. I am fairly certain that the ramifications of such a law...how it would shut down all legitimate competitive shooting throughout NY.....never was part of their thoughts. They don't think that far afield. People who don't think things out are just as dangerous as people who plan and plot extensively.
if you look at the way the proposal was written - one can purchase twice the capacity of the firearm every two months. What firearm? I shoot a lot of trap. My BT-99 has a capacity of one shell. So I would be allowed to buy two shotshells every 60 days. Some one with a pump gun can buy ten. And the guys who shoot 20,000 shells a year? Keep track of that will ya.
Pete

Pete D. said:

I have already written my congressman about the stupidity of such a law.
We will see what the response, if any, is.
I do not see the two women who sponsored these proposals as evil. I do not see them as part of a plot to deny citizens their rights.
That does not mean that I do not see them as dangerous. They are. Very.
They are, also, not particularly bright. I am fairly certain that the ramifications of such a law...how it would shut down all legitimate competitive shooting throughout NY.....never was part of their thoughts. They don't think that far afield. People who don't think things out are just as dangerous as people who plan and plot extensively.

Pete

Click to expand...

This is, or at least should, not be about competitive shooting.

These laws aren't dangerous because they hamper sports, even sports that use firearms.

On the contrary, I view any politician - of any party affiliation - coming up with such utterly ridiculous laws as being FOCUSED on denying citizens their rights. Regardless of whether they attempt to rationalize their sponsorship of such bills through claims of being evil spawn, mentally retarded, or in the interest of public safety - they ARE intentionally trying to deny constitutional rights to their constituents. And this, above all, means that they are not fit to serve.

I would think like many here that this bill is so ridiculous that it could not pass, but so are (were) many restrictions included as part of the infamous NY "SAFE" act, so I would not take for granted that there ought to be enough intelligent people in Albany to prevent bad bills from becoming terrible laws. All NY residents should write their reps to stop this cold, immediately, IMO.

from WARP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by plodder View Post
Wait a minute! Aren't these characters and their ilk the ones who are claiming there are too many people in prison now and we should let thousands of "innocent pot smokers" out on to the streets? I guess that way there will be room in the prisons for all of us

Getting off topic. But the ones you are referring to, no, they should not be in prison, that is yet another thing we need to fix

Click to expand...

You may have missed my sarcasm. I doubt whether 10% of the general public would recommend someone caught smoking pot be imprisoned. The point is, I have a lot of skepticism that any of these purported pot smokers who are languishing in prison are there because they were smoking pot. If the charge they were convicted of or pled to was possession of 5 grams of marijuana, their actual deed was probably armed robbery, grand theft or similar.

How, just how do they come up with these hair brain ideas with arbitrary numbers? It's like they think the only shots gun owners ever take is at a deer or a home intruder. Target shooting? Trap and skeet? Defensive pistol practice? Nah, never heard of those...

Click to expand...

As NYPD has many times demonstrated, you do not need to practice shooting to become proficient, specially for self-defense.

So if you shoot skeet with a double-barrel 20 gauge, it'll take you 19 months to acquire enough ammo for one game?

Warp said:

This is, or at least should, not be about competitive shooting.

These laws aren't dangerous because they hamper sports, even sports that use firearms.

Click to expand...

There are multiple separate reasons why this proposed law is bad. Competitive shooting is certainly not the only reason. But it is one reason. And the competitive shooting angle may be an ice-breaker to start a discussion with fence-sitters on this issue, and then follow up that ice-breaker with discussion about the need for regular practice for defensive purposes as well as sport purposes, etc.

Mitlov said:

There are multiple separate reasons why this proposed law is bad. Competitive shooting is certainly not the only reason. But it is one reason. And the competitive shooting angle may be an ice-breaker to start a discussion with fence-sitters on this issue, and then follow up that ice-breaker with discussion about the need for regular practice for defensive purposes as well as sport purposes, etc.

Click to expand...

I think we do a significant disservice when we frame the issue as being about sporting purposes. I don't like telling people that, or implying that, infringements on the Right to keep and bear arms are bad 'because it interferes with games and sports'. Too many people already think the Second Amendment is somehow about target shooting, games, or hunting. But it's not.

I think we do a significant disservice when we frame
the issue as being about sporting purposes.

Click to expand...

As do I.

When the subject comes up "in the cocktail circuit," I stop the conversation to state that 2A
had absolutely nothing to do with target shooting, hunting, or even last-ditch self-defense.
Rather, it was all about the basic Infantryman's weapon and his mission: defense of the
Constitution and against Tyranny -- both foreign and domestic -- as my oath specified. .

That usually stops everything in its tracks while people cough.

Whole thing about magazine limits. If they can limit how many rounds your gun holds then why not how many you can possess?

Let them make their "reasonable" restrictions law and they will demand more.

Don't tell them NO, tell them HELL NO.

Deaf

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. These liberals are like mice. If you give them cookies, they want milk. Instead of cookies and instead of thinking "well if I give a little on this or that, then maybe they'll back off," give them legislation that promotes gun rights, absolves the 1986 registry, and punishes those who try to take away gun rights.

They won't back off and they won't stop trying to take away guns. The whole San Bernardino TERRORIST ATTACK was originally portrayed as a mass shooting that could have been prevented had there been tougher gun control in place. Give me a break... CA gun control is ridiculously restrictive, yet the liberals tried to use the incident as a spring board on which to push for even more gun control instead of admitting that gun control legislation is ineffective. And then when it was substantiated through investigation and proof (not assumptions like the president used when addressing the nation), the fact that the incident was a TERRORIST ATTACK was merely presented by the media as an afterthought and miniscule , erroneous error.

Let's ban pipes and pressure cookers since they can be used to make bombs. Let's ban forks so people can't get fat. Let's ban cars so people can't speed or drink and drive. Let's ban water so people can't drown. It's such an illogical way to think. Only people can control how inanimate objects are used. Instead of controlling objects, let's instead hold people responsible when they kill others whether it's through the use of drugs or drinking and driving or guns. How about we execute people sentenced to death immediately after the sentencing instead of allowing them to sit around for years living in prisons provided by taxpayer dollars?

On the one hand, this sounds like a typical antigun urban attitude begrudging OK a gun for self defense, but only allowing two magazines of ammo every 90 days. Yes, for a gun left in the bedside table in case of home invasion, that makes sense to some of them.

But other antis like to claim defensive gun owners need the same training and experience as police. A lot of us do train same or more than police qualification training. But how do you get experience by firing and replacing only two magazines every quarter year?

Don't kid yourselves, the liberal NY politicians may be ignorant on how we use our guns, but they certainly are not stupid. They are deadset on this issue and relentless. They will make these outlandish proposals, then "settle" for something that is less restrictive, leading us to believe we won something. I started reloading about a year ago because I firmly believe that they were concentrating on limiting our ammo as a way of implementing gun control. It is simplistic to say "just vote 'em out". We in Upstate NY are virtually powerless against the downstate (NYC) political machine. 2 more years til retirement then looking forward to relocating to a free state.

Semper Fi