Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Yorks new reality.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by lilguy, Mar 12, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    There has to be many thousands of effected firearms that have to be removed from the state now. Also shops,ranges and gun clubs have semi autos used by customers and members. How do you remove all those from circulation? How does a person dispose of his collection? You can't sell them in state so no shop
    will buy them. Could you sell them to Cabelas or Gander mountain with their national base of outlets? As time passes, deadlines will creep up and decisions will have to be made unless a court steps it. How is this going to effect values with these guns being forcibly dumped on the market?
     
  2. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm not from New York and I haven't had a chance to read about any new laws passed yesterday yet this morning. Please provide pertinent facts.
     
  3. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  4. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    Sell or consign them to an out of state FFL.

    Right now I'm looking at NY and CO and shaking my head...
     
  5. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Michigan
    Grandfather clause in effect.

    What guns are banned in New York? The NY Safe Act of 2013 bans semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols purchased after Jan. 15, 2013 that have one prohibited feature – such as a pistol grip, a folding stock or a flash suppressor. This is the state’s new definition of an assault weapon. The ban does not cover pistol grip shotguns.

    While they do require prior purchased weapons that fit the laws description of an assault weapon to be registered and for the person who registers them to submit to a background check, Those weapons can still be legally owned..

    The real question is, Why would a RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER have to worry about the outcome of a background check?
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  6. akv3g4n

    akv3g4n Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    428
    Location:
    Hiram, OH
    The issue isn't the background check (I mean it is, why do they need to run another background check if you already own the firearm legally) but more the need for registration with the state police. Once they have a registration of the owners of these firearms, it won't be long before they remove the grandfather clause and ban them all together.
     
  7. docsleepy

    docsleepy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,023
    No the real question is why any non-indicted gun owner would have his rights infringed by such a requirement. Second Amendment.
     
  8. gym

    gym member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,903
    It should be a sanity clause, I don't think more than half the people with guns that require registration, will actually register them. Just my guess, but they may wait for the law to be ruled unconstitutional.
     
  9. Black Butte

    Black Butte Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    888
    Because it's not about doing a background check. It's about building a database.
     
  10. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    Free men don't need to prove their right or justify their decision to engage in legal activities, even if the background check weren't the bait, and the database the switch, as akv3g4n and Black Butte pointed out.
     
  11. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2013
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Michigan
    Please read the whole constitution

    Why do we seem to forget that Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution states that Congress is delegated the responsibility of creating the militia.

    "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Amendment 2 describes regulating that part of section 1 article 8.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that's one sentence, not four separate parts

    So do you belong to a Congressional militia???

    Remember the 2nd amendment is not the entire constitution for without the rest there is no United States of America, just an armed lawless land.

    Many states require fingerprinting for a CPL, Most require with background checks to obtain a handgun , some require a background check to buy any weapon. a few even require some types of weapons to be registered.

    None have had to change those laws due to second amendment constitutionality issues

    It is going to have a 2nd amendment case make it all the way to the US Supreme Court before they provide a written opinion regarding the current gun laws. A New York case regarding this new law, may be the case that brings this issue to an end.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  12. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    Do you have a feel for how this court may rule given recent history? My concern is an outright ban, having to breakup a collection that's taken 40+ years to form.
     
  13. pseudonymity

    pseudonymity Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    NY
    Wow, that is an astounding amount of misinformation in that link.

    The shorter list of bad news in NY: semi autos with detachable mags with one or more features can not be sold in NY any longer. Existing rifles are grandfathered, but you can not sell them in state or pass them in inheritance.

    Mags purchased after 3/15 have to be 7 rounds or less. Mags that are owned pre-3/15 are limited to 10 or less.

    After 3/15 FTF sales/transfers are gone.

    Ammo sale background checks go into effect next year.

    There are at least two separate lawsuits going after different parts of the law, with a few more on the way.
     
  14. psyopspec

    psyopspec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,193
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    Why would a responsible citizen have curtains on their bedroom window? After all, we'd all be a lot safer if DHS could verify at any time and place that we weren't up to terroristic activities.

    If the goal was to protect the militia's arms, why is the object of the sentence fragment "shall not be infringed," "the people" rather than that militia? Article 1 makes clear that the militia is meant to be an armed force. If that's the case, why bother creating 2A at all? It would be silly to have an unarmed military force, in the 1700s or today.
     
  15. tkaction

    tkaction Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    226
    The 2nd amendment and article 1 section 8 are not completely in alignment nor are they meant to help interpret each other. There are states rights of militia formation and regulation and there is the individual right as expressed in the 2nd and verified by the supreme court. Please do not justify registration with a states rights versus individual. There is a lot of interpretation left open.
     
  16. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    You appear to be reading this as "A well-legislated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    If the militia needs to be well-legislated, then why is it that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Additionally, why would the Bill of Rights, which is all about restraining the federal government, include a preamble that argued the federal government should legislate the protected right heavily? Does that make ANY sense to you?
     
  17. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    Here IMHO is why Universal Background Checks are a really bad idea:

    1. Let's talk about gun show loopholes first. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

    2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to for 20 years. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

    So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be executive branch mandates and policy directives that all firearms be registered, without which the congressional law will be impossible to enforce.

    Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
    So, the only reason for registration is keeping tabs on legal gun owners, and if needed, confiscation of firearms.

    Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
    Just my 2 cents.
    :)
     
  18. RPRNY

    RPRNY Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Front Range, CO
    I get the impression there are people suggesting that one of the dread "military " features disqualifies a s/a from ownership or future purchase. One feature (pistol grip thumbhole stock flash hider etc.) in tandem with a detachable magazine will require registration. Two of these "dangerous military features" are required for a firearm to be banned from sale after entry into force of GODA (Gun Owner Discrimination Act) 2013. No previously legal firearms will have to be disposed of, only magazines in excess of a capacity of 10.

    The Brady Bunch, or whoever wrote the law, because it wasn't the bumbling incompetents in Albany, was smart. Semi automatic rifles are not banned. AR15/10s are not banned. AK47/74s are not banned. "Features " are banned. This is much more likely to withstand challenge under Miller (common use) . The rat weasels in Albany aren't clever enough to have come up with this and it is clever. I think most of it will withstand challenge and will be imposed elsewhere in due course.

    At least as worrying are the tax proposals surfacing around the country. Again, not obviously unconstitutional but harrassment and measures that constitute infringement.

    There is no compromise with the advocates of such laws. They have no intention of stopping at some reasonable point. They do not want civilians armed. The 1994 AWB gives them precedent and any new restrictions passed will create further precedent. Zero tolerance for infringement has to be the position of all those who value individual liberty. I don't have a semi auto. I have zero interest in poodle shooters, chicom spray guns or EBRs. I think they are stupid and ugly. But my fellow Americans have every right to own them as long as they use them responsibly and I will fight for their right to keep and bear their stupid, ugly rifles!

    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  19. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Could you elaborate on this theory? I'm having a difficult time envisioning how firearms that are in widespread common use (AR15) can't be banned; but you can ban features commonly possessed by those firearms? As a logical argument it is nonsense...

    However given that 3 Justices have already indicated in McDonald that they don't consider logical consistency or stare decisis to be a major issue, I can see where it might make a nonsensical political argument.
     
  20. psyopspec

    psyopspec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,193
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    You're a credit to the force, RPRNY. For a long time this wasn't the prevailing attitude at all, and in the long run gun owners as a collective have allowed the antis to run roughshod over us with each new "reasonable compromise" that some gun owners support because, hey, it doesn't affect them. Keep fighting the good fight.
     
  21. RPRNY

    RPRNY Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Front Range, CO
    We are talking about politics and the law. Where do logic and (un) common sense come into it?

    No firearms have been banned. You may own and you may purchase semi automatic firearms in common use such as the AR15. Some of them will have to be registered. Some s /a firearms such as the VEPR Hunter model will not have to be registered. Prior to GODA 2013, the NY legislature banned features (it was more than two such features in tandem with a detachable magazine) . So, in argument, the State will say such regulation has already existed and such regulation does not remove commonly used firearms (such as the AR15/10 AK etc) from the market. It only requires their registration or "modification ", modifications similar to those already regularly made by manufacturers - see "CA NY NJ etc compliant " language in ads for such firearms on Gunbroker, for example. The fact is that the firearm in common use has not been banned. Features, already regulated in several States, have been further "regulated ". Indeed, I can't see how SCOTUS would rule against this. The 1994 AWB set important precedent and Miller won't apply IMO to the regulation of "features " when the firearms themselves are not banned and when manufacturers have shown themselves willing and able to comply with such regulations.


    I am not advocating this. I'm explaining what the framers of this law were trying to do and how IMO it will see the law withstand challenge in SCOTUS. The only way around it is comparative utility. That is by showing that the alleged benefits to society from the regulation do not outweigh the infringement of gun owner rights. Since the "regulation" of features other than magazine capacity have zero bearing on lethality I don't think the Statr can show net benefit but I don't know enough about the law in this area to venture an informed opinion on how the SCOTUS might view this.

    Psyopspec - I have seen that attitude among my wingshooting friends. Their fine double guns will NEVER be at risk (well at least not as long as Shotgun Joe as VP) so they turn a blind eye to AWB type legislation and throw the EBR crowd under the bus. But the simple fact is there is no compromise with the collectivists and totalitarians. Their search for control knows no bounds. Plus, I kind of would like an S&W MP Sport....secretly.
    Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  22. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    Dang right. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote:

    Somehow I doubt the fed.gov will share your enthusiasm for militias.
     
  23. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    If you were a member of the underground in WWII France, and the occupying German army ordered all such people to declare what guns they have, would you comply?
     
  24. Sheepdog1968

    Sheepdog1968 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,518
    Location:
    CA
    Get safe deposit box at bank in neighboring state and store there. I don't think this breaks any laws. If you eventually leave NY you can be reunited.
     
  25. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,698
    Location:
    Virginia
    One sentence...a million sentences, it doesn't matter. No matter how you read it..." the right Of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

    Where exaclty are you getting from that that one must be part of the militia? Nothing in that sentence at all indicates what you are suggesting.

    It says " the right of the people". It does not say " the right of those organized into a militia" by congress
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page