Escape from New York: Moving out of gun unfriendly areas

I wouldn't live anywhere near New York or in it I should not be punished for someone else's mistakes that's like me saying a drunk driver killed a family last night you can't drive now because of it :banghead:

Voted yes because I did it years ago and have never looked back.

Just made me wonder how many people want to or would be willing to move from a gun unfriendly area.

Click to expand...

How about counting people who've actually done it, like me? There's a surprising number of us who might be categorized as "internal political refugees". I used to have a couple of long blog posts on the topic, but that's all taken down.

In summary:

I awoke to find that the America I thought I lived in does not pertain to the Dark and Fascist State of New Jersey

I did my citizens duty of forthrightly going about changing the matter, for a number of years, using the traditional and socially approved democratic methods.

After long and sober consideration, I determined that NJ was too far gone for reform, and that exodus was my only viable option.

I packed up my business, family and belongings and fled.

It's 10 years ago this spring, and I've never looked back.

It was a major factor in my leaving California,,,

It was a major factor in my leaving California,,,
I had a good job and could have stayed after my divorce,,,
But after I considered the benefits of a gun friendly environment,,,
I was across the state line, headed to Oklahoma, and I never once looked back.

I have no problem with standing and fighting,,,
But I knew that in California it would be a losing battle.

I feel sorry for the people who aren't able to move away from a 2A negative state.

Aarond

.

I voted yes. I've never had to make a decision like that but given the political environment in states like New York or California I would do what ever I could to get out.
You have more reasons then gun control to get out of New York. People and businesses are fleeing the state.

I voted Yes but do have some reservations about that. It would not be the gun laws standing alone but the environment that allowed them to get to where they are. That overall environment would be why I left, not specifically the gun laws.

The one exception to that would be Colorado. I have never lived there but would and would not leave becasue of the gun laws.

I could also imagine living in Hawaii for the right opportunity as well as NYC. Both would have to be short term though and, well, profitable.

I also turned down a long term opportunity a few years ago in Chicago because I did not want to raise my kids in such a liberal environment. THe gun laws again are just a symptom of the bigger problem.

I voted yes.
And even if guns aren't an interest for some, there are countless other reasons to do so.

I did moved out of Michigan in the late 70's went to Fla ..Wow I loved it > was not thrilled with the move to NC but things are getting better lately. A bunch of stupid laws still remaining

geekWithA.45 said:

How about counting people who've actually done it, like me? There's a surprising number of us who might be categorized as "internal political refugees".

Click to expand...

And me.


I refer to myself as a Maryland refugee often.

Escape from New York (sounds like a movie title by the way): you can physically escape from New York, but can we escape from Bloomberg?

I've known several people that declined promotions because it would cause them to have to move to an ubber-liberal state. It cost some their job.

Problem with Colorado and similar western states and some southern is the liberals leave the economic cess-pool states they created but once they get to moderate or conservative states they want to change the gun laws to match the states they just left.

Again...Colorado as a case in point.

I moved out of Apartheid Chicago in '86. I would no more live there or NYC than I'd live in Pyongyang or Teheran.

Gun control is ALWAYS a symptom of a deeper rot.

I did.

Arguably this balkanization and self-organization along political lines directly contributes to states like California passing more and more onerous laws. There is less need for compromise when one side ceases to have a voice (because they have moved to another political jurisdiction). I think the long term results will be bad for everyone.

Not only did I vote with my feet to move to an area more friendly to my values, I'm turning down job offers to relocate to areas less friendly to my values.

I make too much in NY to leave now and figure I have 5 years until I retire. But I've told my wife to start thinking about moving when I do retire.

I did it. I took myself, my business, and my tax revenue from one of the least gun friendly areas of the USA and moved 1000 miles. Better quality of life, lower taxes, and my RKBA is respected.

Life is good.


Willie

.

I wanted to vote "yes," but I voted: "Gun laws aren't important enough for me to make a decision like that." Reason being that I am far more likely to move because of job or family related factors. All other things equal, I'd vote yes. And perhaps I will have opportunity to make that decision in the future.

I did move from NY State to PA some years ago, and benefited from the move. But my position on guns was not a factor in the decision to move.

When I divorced in '11, I ran from IL as fast as I could. I ended up in CT, of all places. Now CT will be in my rear view mirror when it works for me. My fiance lives in NYS, 2 hours north of the city. I can easily move there and have been offered work there but I won't even consider it. Too much government interference.

The gun laws play a large part in it but they are a sampling of how the state government likes to run all aspects of your life. I can't leave here soon enough. I believe how a state treats their gun owners is how they treat all of our rights. Some states just want to tax us into oblivion and in the process, run our lives the way they see fit. They don't care about the individual, just some agenda a politician has on his plate. Politicians will rot in hell for what they do to the citizens they represent.

Escape From New York

From New York to Californie,
Somewhere in between,
That's the place I want to be.
Welcome to the scene,
That is "The Land of Sanity".
And nothing in between,
No Sullivan Act for me.
My abode is to be seen,
With no NY or CA for my residency.

Wow. Regardless of the sacrificial 'nobility' felt by willing sufferers, the poll results should be a wake up call for those who linger beyond the event horizon; any converts you win will flee immediately, leaving only your few numbers (plus 4% of your converts) and an increasingly hardened and resolute opposition supermajority. Getting the laws fixed so converts will stick around and join your fight is the only way to turn the tide, but you can't often do that with small numbers. It seems hopeless.

Luckily, we aren't a democracy, but a republic, and the presence of courts offers the oppressed just enough of a 'wild card' to make their otherwise pointless struggle worth fighting. Otherwise, anyone remaining behind truly would be the fool of fools; sacrificing their way/quality of life in a pointless Quixotic struggle that ultimately accomplishes nothing. Luckily, that is not the case in America, and the courts are increasingly finding it hard to ignore or contradict the laws underpinning the nation in this The Age of The Internet & Mass Media.

"Plissken...I heard you were dead"
Nah, I heard he became the Duke of New York, "A" Number-One!

I move we rename the thread "Escape from New York and/or Los Angeles"

TCB

Wow. Regardless of the sacrificial 'nobility' felt by willing sufferers, the poll results should be a wake up call for those who linger beyond the event horizon; any converts you win will flee immediately, leaving only your few numbers (plus 4% of your converts) and an increasingly hardened and resolute opposition supermajority. Getting the laws fixed so converts will stick around and join your fight is the only way to turn the tide, but you can't often do that with small numbers. It seems hopeless.

Click to expand...

I believe in staying to help the fight BUT there are a few bastions that will never change. New York has been one of them for what, 100 years? If it hasn't changed in 100 years then I say it's time to pick a different battle.

MA is rooted in blue and still bleeds Kennedy drivel. You can't change laws that a majority of the people don't want to change. Same with CA. It's a very liberal state and those who choose to live there know, up front, what it means for gun ownership. NJ? Enough said.

IL and DC have moved forward. CT is a NYwannabe state. They are stuck between NY and MA. Their blood runs blue and will for generations. CT is stuck in the middle. We may change our laws back to the way it was but all that means is 100% handgun registration and, more than likely, 100% "assault weapon" registration if we can ever get the "right" to buy them again.

CO and IL showed that progress can be made but if this country allows up to 20 million "new residents" who will feel it's their civic duty to vote blue to join us, we may be headed for battles we've not begun to imagine, as a nation. I don't mind having a few states have their way with gun laws as long as we have a majority of them where they respect our rights. Those states will get my tax dollars. I find it really hard to pay taxes to a state that uses my money to oppress my gun rights. I am fighting myself. No thanks.

I moved from one gun friendly state to another 5 yrs ago. I wanted to move away, the location was not extremely important, BUT lax gun laws were important in my consideration.

larryh1108 said:

IL and DC have moved forward.

Click to expand...

Not to nitpick, but the only reason those two states moved, really inched, forward is because the United States Supreme Court made them do it. It certainly was not a result of the will of the people in DC or Illinois that made it happen.