NY starts confiscating guns from registrations

[Carl N. Brown]

New York City has matched characteristics of registered rifles and shotguns and determined that some are "capable of holding more than five rounds". Notices were mailed to registered gun owners in NYC 18 Nov 2013. First option: "Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter." Second option is to have a certfied gunsmith alter the gun to limit capacity to five rounds or less, and demonstrate that the alteration have been done to the satisfaction of the NYPD. Third option is to prove to the NYPD that the gun has been removed from NYC.

Years ago NYC required registration of military style rifles, and after a pause ordered the registered owners to surrender them or prove they had moved them out of the city.

This is what Rebecca Peters of the Australian branch of International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) referred to as an adjustment in reasonable regulation and not confiscation, referring to the 1996 orders to 640,000 registered owners of semi-auto and pump-action long guns (rifles and shotguns) to turn them in for destruction after similar guns were used in a mass murder in Tasmania. Brady Campaign has long been a member of IANSA.

____________________________________________
If they are plotting against you and you are not paranoid, then you are in a state of abnegation (denial or minimisation).

 

[Ignition Override]

It's not a surprise that the New mayor's background was described in a recent Wall St. Journal editorial.

The guy had links to, or was a serious fan of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

 

[50 Shooter]

Tenn,
First off I never said anything about starting or going to war, you're the one that keeps bringing this up. And just as I thought, you think that when people talk the talk they're a tin foil hat wearing nut.

Gun sales are up because of fears of an outright ban on firearms due to Sandy Hook and other recent mass shootings. Not your idea that more people are getting into shooting sports. The same thing goes for the lack of ammo on the shelves and people hoarding. Prices are just now starting to come back to somewhat normal on firearms but ammo is lagging.

Be thankful that Obama and his band of gun banning fools couldn't get enough backing or the fact that he didn't just bypass them with a Presidential order. Which he could've done and your firearms would be rebar right now in concrete.

And I disagree with you that most of America is pro gun, we have pro gun people and a lot of fence sitters. With anti gun politicians getting all the air time they want and basically NO pro gun politicians ever on TV... It's easy to see what side of the fence these people will land on. To add to this, when was the last time you saw a pro gun celeb on TV (an "A" lister) backing up 2nd Amendment ideology?

As far as moving goes, yeah, it is a pain in the butt!!! Why don't you stay and try to vote them out?!

 

[TennJed]

Tenn,
First off I never said anything about starting or going to war, you're the one that keeps bringing this up. And just as I thought, you think that when people talk the talk they're a tin foil hat wearing nut.

So what do you mean by

"I would be one of the few standing there with guns in hand ready to die to keep this from happening. So, where is your line in the sand on gun control? "

Those are your words. Don't beat around the bush. You can't look me in the eye and tell me that is not about fighting the govt. with arms. That is war, you are just not willing to say it out loud, but you obviously imply it. If you can't even admit it, how are you going to do it? Walk loudly and carry a small stick?

The original post I was commenting on said

"are you going to really stand and fight by loading your guns and really excising your 2nd Amendment right in its original meaning when some corrupt politician passes an unconstitutional law that affects you personally?"

Those are his words. Are you going to look me in the eye and tell me that is not about war? Don't talk big and not have the guts to say it out loud. Don't accuse me of bringing up something that is obviously implied, just because you and others are not man enough to stand behind what you say.

.

Gun sales are up because of fears of an outright ban on firearms due to Sandy Hook and other recent mass shootings. Not your idea that more people are getting into shooting sports. The same thing goes for the lack of ammo on the shelves and people hoarding. Prices are just now starting to come back to somewhat normal on firearms but ammo is lagging.

That is proof that what I say is right. Because government pushed fear of outright bans, we have come out in droves to speak with out wallets. Your example shows that we can speak louder than the liberal politicians. They shove fear down out throat, and we respond

And I disagree with you that most of America is pro gun, we have pro gun people and a lot of fence sitters. With anti gun politicians getting all the air time they want and basically NO pro gun politicians ever on TV... It's easy to see what side of the fence these people will land on. To add to this, when was the last time you saw a pro gun celeb on TV (an "A" lister) backing up 2nd Amendment ideology?

There is power in numbers, how are you going to get the majority of people on your side if they are fence sitters? By showing them we are winning right now. That gun laws don't work. Or will you do it by saying, "hey lets form a militia and fight the government?" Which will win the fence sitters? Where do you want the fence sitters? On our side or theirs? You say there is not enough pro-gun people on TV to sway the fence sitters, so your plan is to give up and take up arms against them AND the government? ignorant plan. WE ARE WINNING ALREADY DON"T BE STUPID and sabotage it for everyone else.

If America was like New York in most places, I would be the first to fight. It is not. It is not even close. Talk like yours may get us there though

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

YEA! It's finally happened! Gun control in this country has not escalated to gun confiscation! Oh what a glorious day!

NOW we have more ammunition with which to fight this...it's a clear cut example of exactly what the gun control crowd said would NOT happen, that all they wanted was REASONABLE laws and restrictions and that those who cried out that registration leads to confiscation were just crying wolf!

Hopefully this will lead to a case which we can push to the SC and win a victory over.

 

[gamboolman]

My wife and I have written our Texas Congressmen to ask them what they are going to do about this.

We also have written the Whitehouse.

Can people here please advise us as to what other actions and personnel we can contact to voice our concerns?

Thanks, gamboolman.....

 

[downunderhunter]

Take note to post #26 - we had registration introduced here. Once that was in effect, all that was needed was a trigger - Port Arthur (Tasmania). They knew who had what and where to go to get it. We'll never get them back. Ever. We've now even had new terms added into the Australian vernacular, such as "violent home invasion".

The US media and politicians have already been referring to the "successful Australian model". Make sure you resist this path no matter what kind of "think of the children and register your guns" propaganda they start putting out.

 

[Midwest]

A little background. New York City's long gun registration was signed into law by then Mayor John Lindsay in 1967. The original fee was $3 and it was promised that the fee would never be raised. (Where have we heard that before?).

Those who opposed the registration of long guns in New York City in 1967were called paranoid. (Where have we heard that before?). Just some 24 years later after the long gun registration, in 1991 NYC passed their version of an "assault weapons ban" (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). With that registration list, the city was able to easily track down the owners of those rifles and shotguns on the ban list and were given three options. Surrender the gun (s), make them inoperable or taken out of the city.

From the 'modest' fee of $3 in 1967. The fee skyrocketed to $231.50 in 2013 "The application fee is $140.00. The fingerprint fee is $91.50."
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/rifle_licensing_information.shtml

Certainly what New York City did with registration, confiscation and increasing the fees to a whopping 7616% is not reasonable. In fact it is outright treasonous in my humble opinion . http://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-calculator.html
Put the following figures into the 'compare' query window 3.00 and then 231.50.

If you want more information on New York City's long gun registration, go to
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/firearms-registration-new-york-city`s.aspx

And if you know ANYONE who calls you PARANOID when you mention that gun registration leads to confiscation, you can use New York City's long gun registration as yet another example.

 

[MAKster]

This form letter has nothing to do with the 2013 law. It is referring to a law enacted in 1991.

 

[skoro]

NYPD cracks down on long guns that hold more than five rounds

I have family in NYC and enjoy visiting the city.

That said, I'm always very glad that I don't live there.

 

[Warp]

Fair enough, but would you not consider it wiser to move from New York to somewhere like Mississippi for instance, where it is not that bad, or go shoot up town hall.

Taking up arms is an absurd thing to say. In many places in the country gun ownership is not that bad. If you want action and people to do more than talk, then be rational. Pack your bags and move. That is a lot easier than spending life in jail

What would make more sense and have a higher probability of working. Everyone that is fed up starts killing folks or they all moving to gun friendly places? Heck most of the more gun friendly states have a lot of open spaces and land is fairly cheap. People can act instead of talk, just don't act stupid

The colonists in and around Boston, Lexington, and Concord certainly could have moved somewhere else. Packed their bags and moved. That would have been a hell of a lot easier than dying.

What would make more sense and have a higher probability of working? Standing up and going toe to toe with the greatest army in the world, or running away to somewhere less threatened?

Taking up arms is precisely what made this country what it is today, and is precisely what we celebrate on July the 4 each and every year. The Declaration was made long after arms had been taken up, if you recall. Taking up arms it the reason that Declaration happened. We all know what the actual intent and purpose of the Second Amendment is, and declaring that taking up arms is an absurd thing to say pretty much says that the Second Amendment is meaningless and useless.

That said...Obviously nobody is saying anybody should show up at town hall and start shooting people.

 

[Warp]

Gun ownership is at its peak. National pushes to increase gun laws are failing. We can't keep ammo on the shelf. We have a liberal president but still can't pass any national gun laws. More and more people are buying guns, ARs and so-called high capacity guns are selling like crazy. We are making progress. If you will stay off the fear mongering websites you will realize we can win doing what we are doing. Don't give me this "run out of places to move" crap. Be intelligent and make the right choices and we can win. Don't let some idiot blogger convince you we are doomed because NY is bad and we should start a war. That hurts all of us and shows that you will fall for anything you read.

These are true.

Well, I don't know if gun ownership is at its peak, <50% of households have a firearm, there are a lot of firearms in circulation but there are a lot of people that have 5 or 10 or 60...and an awful lot of people that have 0 or maybe 1 long arm they use for hunting only, but anyway...the overall gist of this is correct.

We've been making progress at the state level for a good while now, on the whole, and the lack of receding at the national level is a great thing.

But all it would take is the elections this fall to go the other way in the Senate and we'd all be screwed. Don't forget that.

 

[goon]

Sorry, but NYC is a lost cause. Unless you've got two million pro-gun voters ready to move in and start shifting the politics there tomorrow, there is nothing I can do to help NYC. It's an unholy land for gun owners - all of NY now is. The best thing they can do is run like hell for PA, NH, or VT. In an ideal world, maybe some upstate counties would vote to secede and join PA or VT instead, but I don't see that happening.

So your choices in NY are sit there and take it or move.

And some of the letters show them demanding the surrender of bolt action .22 rifles. So when they say they don't want your hunting rifles, you should know they're telling outright lies.

The colonists in and around Boston, Lexington, and Concord certainly could have moved somewhere else. Packed their bags and moved. That would have been a hell of a lot easier than dying.

If I misunderstand the point of this statement, I apologize. But you're saying this from Georgia, which is a pretty damn good state for gun ownership. I've never heard of any pro-gun person voluntarily giving up a good thing in Montana, Idaho, Ohio, Georgia, or South Carolina and moving to NY or CA to join the voters there and fight the good fight. And honestly, I'm not planning to either.

But all it would take is the elections this fall to go the other way in the Senate and we'd all be screwed. Don't forget that.

Yep, and I think that underlines a serious tactical error that the pro-gun community has made. We've connected gun ownership and protection of the Second Amendment so much to one party that only one party is concerned with losing votes over failing to deliver. Even then, that party is far from ideal.
The Second Amendment enumerates a right that belongs to everyone. We need to find a way to bring in the groups that we've missed. I'm not sure how to get started but I have been thinking on it. If we don't find a way, eventually the only chance we'll have left will be in the courts, and we all know how finicky they can be.
But consider this - eventually we will run into a situation with Democrats in control of both houses and either a RINO Republican or Democrat president. Maybe not next election, but eventually it will happen. Then we'll lose... unless we figure out a way to swing RKBA out of being such a partisan issue.
And I don't mean this as a criticism of anyone - I seriously just think it's something we need to fix.
As much as some of the guys on here will hop up and down and howl and scream at this suggestion, we need to recruit a lot of liberals. Not convert them to conservatives - I'm no conservative myself - but just get some cooperation on this one issue from the many people on that side of the fence who value the Second Amendment as much as we do. They do exist, and only they can shift their party away from gun control and keep it there.

 

[MErl]

Yep, and it that underlines a serious tactical error that the pro-gun community has made. We've connected gun ownership and protection of the Second Amendment so much to one party that only one party is concerned with losing votes over failing to deliver. Even then, that party is far from ideal.

How/why is gun control a progressive issue anyway?

 

[gym]

Unfortunately most people are like sheep. I had a houseful of them on Thanksgiving, "friends and relatives" and usually stay away from politics, but they were making so much noise I went in and had to shut them all up.
I asked how many wrote letters, "like most here did". Not surprisingly, not one. Then I let them all have it, what good is sitting in the living room eating desert, bitching to each other about what's wrong with this country, if you can't even write a letter of draft an email, or a fax, and send it along to those people we put in office to take care of this stuff?
They didn't think it made a difference. Same as the ones who don't vote. Sitting around complaining and yapping about it doesn't help, you have to tell the men in charge, "if you do this, you are gone". I don't care right now if it's a one issue vote, because when push comes to shove, the public will buckle under to the Government, especially in most Northern states. The welfare and immigrant's outnumber the gun carrying good people of this country, and they are voting for these idiots so they can get a check every month. My guns? I would take to wherever Good men were gathering to stop this Tyranny. We all have to go some day, it's a matter of if you go standing on your feet, or on your knees.
If enough people stand together we may still be able to take back this country from the nightmare that has been this administration. All these old anti gun politico's have to pass away some day, it's just a waiting game. Problem is what will be left.

 

[Warp]

We need to find a way to bring in the groups that we've missed. I'm not sure how to get started but I have been thinking on it.

I'm not pollster or economist or in any kind of a position to accurately identify market segments, demographics, etc, but I'd say that personally I go for:

*Fudds: We probably all know some of them. The angle here can be showing them this precise example (somebody mentioned this very early on in the thread), showing them how even their rifle or shotgun they own and possess solely for hunting purposes will eventually be a target, if the antis have their way. The angle can be discussing with them the true intent and purpose of the Second Amendment, and how it does not have anything to do with hunting, believe it or not.

My FIL is a borderline FUDD. He's an NRA member, FOID holder, handgun owning, standard capacity magazine owning guy who believes extensive government mandated training and lengthy lists of off limits places for carry licenses are good things, who even thinks laws limiting the capacity of magazines are okay too (so long as HIS magazines are grandfathered, of course). So I start there, right in my own backyard. I think most of us can do the same.

*Minorities. Especially blacks. The self-professed "leaders" of this group seem to willfully ignore history. I sometimes point out to them the racist roots to many gun control laws, and ask them if they know anything about the NRA working with the NAACP back in the day. Maybe get edgy and ask them about why disarming blacks is the right thing to do. They'll get mighty offended, but that's what they want. Of course, they see it is disarming everybody, but when we look at the Democrat/anti/liberal centers, and their demographic, and look at who is being disarmed by law and by social engineering and by deception, it's pretty say to say that its blacks. Who are then disarmed/unarmed in the face of the minority of their population who commit crimes. What's one of the reasons blacks statistically are likely to be victims of violent crime? Could it perhaps be because they are much less likely to be armed? All those many many many (the majority of blacks) law abiding citizens disarmed victims. Is that what they want? Surely not.

*Youngsters who simply lack life experience. College students who know nothing other than living with their parents/guardians or living on a college campus, possibly a rather sheltered life, possibly seeing the world through a filter, whatever you want to call it. I show them news articles, ask them about what they've seen on the news, show them numbers and statistics and charts and all that jazz, especially the college students, they are often used to having to digest quantitative information like that. Does disarming people (general sense) REALLY make them safer??

 

[Palehorseman]

One thing can always be depended on, the loudest talkers about what they will do, will be the first no shows if push comes to shove.

 

[armoredman]

USMarine, I hope you don't mind that I "borrowed" your graphic for Facebook.

I would LOVE to see more gun people move here to AZ, counter balance the growing number of Chicagoans and Calirefugees who fled bad laws just to scream for them all over again here in Free AZ.

 

[Palehorseman]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” C.S. Lewis

 

[SilentStalker]

Fair enough, but would you not consider it wiser to move from New York to somewhere like Mississippi for instance, where it is not that bad, or go shoot up town hall.

Taking up arms is an absurd thing to say. In many places in the country gun ownership is not that bad. If you want action and people to do more than talk, then be rational. Pack your bags and move. That is a lot easier than spending life in jail

What would make more sense and have a higher probability of working. Everyone that is fed up starts killing folks or they all moving to gun friendly places? Heck most of the more gun friendly states have a lot of open spaces and land is fairly cheap. People can act instead of talk, just don't act stupid

Originally posted by TennJed

The problem with this is that it is running. At some point down the line you will run out of places to run. Then what are you going to do?

 

[goon]

How/why is gun control a progressive issue anyway?

I have no idea. You'd think that they'd value the final check it puts in the hands of the People as much as we do, but it doesn't work out that way.

I know liberals and even socialists who support RKBA, some of whom are so extreme that even Obama wasn't a "good" enough candidate to get their vote.

There's got to be a way to get ourselves and those people on the same side for this one issue.

The problem with this is that it is running. At some point down the line you will run out of places to run. Then what are you going to do?

Do you live in a pro-gun state or in NYC? I'll tell you point-blank that you couldn't pay me enough to live in NYC. I can't fault anyone who decides that they've had enough and takes a permanent trip across the border and never looks back. That's not just running from control, it's also running to people who think the same way you do and who will add their voice to yours.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Armoredman, go for it. I'm happy you like it. The more that use it the better.
.

 

[TennJed]

Originally posted by TennJed





The problem with this is that it is running. At some point down the line you will run out of places to run. Then what are you going to do?

that is faulty thinking when most places are going the opposite of NY and Cali. Instead of running out of places we have more places to go.

 

[ATLDave]

And pro-gun control moderates think gun rights advocates are being "paranoid" when they express concern about registration schemes. Nice to have such a clean, clear example to give, though.

 

[Zoogster]

Did they change their interpretation of what a gun that can hold more than 5 rounds is?

Is this a gun with a fixed or tubular magazine holding more than 5 rounds?

Is this a sneaky way of targeting most guns with detachable magazines with the logic that a magazine over 5 rounds can be inserted into them and thus any gun with a detachable magazine can hold over 5 rounds as is not complaint?



Holding more than 5 rounds is pretty minute criteria, and potentially able to hold more than 5 even more absurd.
Many typical pump shotguns hold over 5 rounds.

And now we are arguing about 5 rounds.
The number gets smaller all the time.
I can recall when magazines over 30 were considered high capacity in long guns. High capacity drums, or absurdly long box magazines. Then standard 30 and 20 round magazines in popular rifles were 'high capacity'. Then over 20. Then various places said 15 or 10 was the limit. Now New York is on 7 and 5 rounds.