Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Did anyone here listen to the Jersey City Police Chief yesterday screaming about banning assault weapons after those officers got shot?  The only problem is if you look at the gun in the photo in today's daily news, it was a 12 guage shotgun.  It did have a folding stock but that doesn't make it by any streach of the imagination an assault weapon.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,707 Posts
double post - probably at the same time - yes, but people from Jersey are idiots anyways i - they spend more time looking and acting tough then listening and responding, plus their highway cops are a holes

on another note just proves that states that are anti gun and restrict legal sales face higher crime rates and NJ is among the countries worst!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
It wouldn't even be so bad if these guys that keep hollering for gun control knew what they were talking about but they don't even know the difference between a shotgun and an assault rifle.  Did you see where Carolyn McCarthy was asked by, I think it was NBC news some time ago about one of her proposed assault weapon bills about what is a barrel shroud and why that factors into her proposed assault wepons ban?  She admitted she didn't know what a barrel shroud was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
It's sad when a few wacko's ruin it for everyone by going on these shooting rampages. It's also sad when you see politicians stepping over the crime scene hollering about gun control. I'm surprised Chuck Schumer isn't on the scene carrying on as usual. All this does is disarm law abiding citizens and makes up prey for these lunatics out there. Why doesn't the media ever do any stories on
law abiding citizens or educating youngsters on firearms safety instead of bashing us as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
SteveG said:
Did anyone here listen to the Jersey City Police Chief yesterday screaming about banning assault weapons after those officers got shot? The only problem is if you look at the gun in the photo in today's daily news, it was a 12 guage shotgun. It did have a folding stock but that doesn't make it by any streach of the imagination an assault weapon.
You would think that a police chief would know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle ...

As sad as it sounds, their are many cops who rarely if ever shoot or clean their sidearm except for the annual qualification shoot. If you ask me, their should be weapons qualifications for the department's issued pistol, rifle, and shotgun every 6 months and LEOs should be required to attend a shooting range at least twice a month.

Do LE agencies still issue shotguns to patrol officers? It seems that the majority of officers have nothing but their issued pistols while select officers (usually supervisors) will carry rifles.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,707 Posts
havent you seen blazing saddles - politicians are "the gov" everybody better harumph harumph - they dont do shnit just make noise, idiots keep re-electing them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Sam815 said:
It's sad when a few wacko's ruin it for everyone by going on these shooting rampages. It's also sad when you see politicians stepping over the crime scene hollering about gun control. I'm surprised Chuck Schumer isn't on the scene carrying on as usual. All this does is disarm law abiding citizens and makes up prey for these lunatics out there. Why doesn't the media ever do any stories on
law abiding citizens or educating youngsters on firearms safety instead of bashing us as usual.
Sensationalism sells more stories than the truth.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Besides most people in the Northeast feel that the police are responsible for their safety and they couldn't care less about firearms. I had this debate with my girlfriend and tried to explain to her that the SCOTUS had said that citizens and not the police are responsible for their own safety and she proceeded to basically go on a rant about how she didn't care about she said that she would continue to believe that the police's job is to protect her.. . . . . . people up here do not want to take on the responsibility of self protection and the media plays on this. . . . . I hope that the officers involved in this are okay, and expect the media to go around bashing guns because sensationalism is their forte.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Kevins:
Here is a copy of an article from the NY Times
you might want to show your girlfriend:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - New York
More Articles in Washington > Skip to article

NYT Since 1981 NYT 1851-1980 Google/Web Multimedia NYC Guide
Domestic Violence
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not
have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had
obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an
arrest mandatory for a violation.
Skip to next paragraph

Complete Coverage: Monday's Supreme Court Decisions

Forum: Issues Before the Supreme Court The decision, with an opinion by Justice
Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The
appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle
Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after
her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three
young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the
Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who
was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the
children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife
to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.
Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act
before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun,
with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at
the scene.
The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver
was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by
instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a
warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a
"property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process
guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.
The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the
10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and
the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a
challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.
A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county
social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did
not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of
process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way
around that precedent.
But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and
this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a
"property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said,
adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional
conception of property."
Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so
many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police
discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."
But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said "it is
clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its
fellow states' solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence
cases." Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased
attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest
mandatory for violating protective orders.
"The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes
that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado's law," the
dissenting justices said.
Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and
expressed disappointment at the outcome. Fernando LaGuarda, counsel for the
National Network to End Domestic Violence, said in a statement that Congress and
the states should now act to give greater protection.
In another ruling on Monday, the court rebuked the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, for having reopened a death
penalty appeal, on the basis of newly discovered evidence, after the ruling had
become final.
The 5-to-4 decision, Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, came in response to an appeal
by the State of Tennessee after the Sixth Circuit removed a convicted murderer,
Gregory Thompson, from the state's death row.
After his conviction and the failure of his appeals in state court, Mr.
Thompson, with new lawyers, had gone to federal district court seeking a writ of
habeas corpus on the ground that his initial lawyers had been constitutionally
inadequate. The new lawyers obtained a consultation with a psychologist, who
diagnosed Mr. Thompson as schizophrenic.
But the psychologist's report was not included in the file of the habeas corpus
petition in district court, which denied the petition. It was not until the
Sixth Circuit and then the Supreme Court had also denied his petition, making
the case final, that the Sixth Circuit reopened the case, finding that the
report was crucial evidence that should have been considered.
In overturning that ruling in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the
majority said the appeals court had abused its discretion in an "extraordinary
departure from standard appellate procedures." Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor joined
the opinion.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the majority had relied
on rules to the exclusion of justice. Judges need a "degree of discretion,
thereby providing oil for the rule-based gears," he said. Justices Stevens,
Ginsburg and David H. Souter joined the dissent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Thanks Steve I'll be sure to show her, although I doubt it will change her mind. . . . . keep in mind her goal is to be a lawyer. . . .this is the kind of people we have to convince if we want to win this fight in NY. People who would otherwise have no interest in firearms except for what the media tells them. . . . . . .

I can recall an incident I wont say where. . . . . .but after VA tech a president of a college went to chief of the college PD and asked if there is anything he wanted including weapons. . . . .the chief said no. . . . . .keep in mind this department only had the officers sidearms and I believe 1 shotgun. . . . . . the chief was more concerned with keeping up an image than to actually be prepared, while there is a big city PD that is available to respond, still it just goes to show how even people in positions of power who are responsible for other people's safety are complacent and don't want to prepare for horrendous and "unthinkable" incidents
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
_ said:
double post - probably at the same time - yes, but people from Jersey are idiots anyways i - they spend more time looking and acting tough then listening and responding, plus their highway cops are a holes

on another note just proves that states that are anti gun and restrict legal sales face higher crime rates and NJ is among the countries worst!
Wow, I am from Jersey, a transplant to long island. Not everyone in Jersey acts like a wannabe Tony Soprano. I won't go any further in this thread but to say that making a general statement like above is ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
kevins9145 said:
Thanks Steve I'll be sure to show her, although I doubt it will change her mind. . . . . keep in mind her goal is to be a lawyer. . . .this is the kind of people we have to convince if we want to win this fight in NY. People who would otherwise have no interest in firearms except for what the media tells them. . . . . . .

I can recall an incident I wont say where. . . . . .but after VA tech a president of a college went to chief of the college PD and asked if there is anything he wanted including weapons. . . . .the chief said no. . . . . .keep in mind this department only had the officers sidearms and I believe 1 shotgun. . . . . . the chief was more concerned with keeping up an image than to actually be prepared, while there is a big city PD that is available to respond, still it just goes to show how even people in positions of power who are responsible for other people's safety are complacent and don't want to prepare for horrendous and "unthinkable" incidents
Hey, at least they have sidearms! SUNY Police were unarmed until 1999 and one particular SUNY college (Geneseo I think) was able to resist the orders to arm their force until 2008! SUNY community college public safety departments, including where I attend (Suffolk) are still unarmed. After Virginia Tech, several students did pass around a petition to arm the public safety department and transition it into a full service police department but the college board of trustees ignored the issue and threw out the petition. I do believe one SUNY community college upstate does have an armed public safety department and several others (ex. Rockland County) have the county sheriff's department assign deputies to patrol their colleges so it's obviously not an issue.
 

·
III%
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
I'm surprised no one quoted what that jackass said to the reporters! "We have to get these pump action shotguns off the street" Also that dumb ass reporter saying " So shooting a shotgun is like shooting 9 guns at the same time" Or the cop that said these shotguns are designed to do only one thing..... KILL PEOPLE! After that one I started foaming around the mouth so I went into the garage for a little.

BTW-> I know better then to listen to the local news, but when I heard about this I couldn't help but turn it on to see the spin they where going to put on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Its just a sad issue that people want to be complacent and not allow those who are supposed to guard youth the tools to do so. . . . The Boston school police for example has requested to be armed numerous times and the admin said no. . . . .they had to fight to even be issued body armor. . . . NYC hospital police are unarmed and they deal with a ton of people who walk in. . . imagine if some gang member gets shot and all his friends show up, how many of them do you think are carrying illegally. . . . It just baffles me that people are always stunned at these shootings when they happen in places where the masses are unarmed but yet won't allow concealed carry, or arm the public safety personnel who are supposed to protect them

LIRES I hope 1987 is your birth year. . . . it would be great to see someone else who was born in that great year.. . . .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,947 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I don't think any one of us here is in disagreement when I say there always will be some people who just plain should not have a gun. But also, there are pleanty of people who should not have a car and even more people sho should not drink and have a car. Things like this are always bound to happen. You are never going to completely prevent it. But what gets my goat more than anything is that no matter how many people die from drunk drivers, it is the gun that gets the most attention is is most villified. These politicians just don't grasp the fact that a criminal is a criminal and the only thing that a gun law does is help convict the criminal AFTER he is caught. How many people got hurt or killed BEFORE they catch him is irrelevant.
It is going to take time I realize but eventually SCOTUS will rule in our favor and we will overturn the archiac laws we have here in NY. I only hope I'll be around to see it. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see the look on Carolyn McCarthy, Schneiderman and all the other anti politicians that are sitting so smugly up in Albany and Congress right now when that happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
kevins9145 said:
Its just a sad issue that people want to be complacent and not allow those who are supposed to guard youth the tools to do so. . . . The Boston school police for example has requested to be armed numerous times and the admin said no. . . . .they had to fight to even be issued body armor. . . . NYC hospital police are unarmed and they deal with a ton of people who walk in. . . imagine if some gang member gets shot and all his friends show up, how many of them do you think are carrying illegally. . . . It just baffles me that people are always stunned at these shootings when they happen in places where the masses are unarmed but yet won't allow concealed carry, or arm the public safety personnel who are supposed to protect them

LIRES I hope 1987 is your birth year. . . . it would be great to see someone else who was born in that great year.. . . .
Correct, I am 21 going on 22 in November. Your 21 as well I assume? I do believe there are several others in their 20s on this forum as well.

I fail to see why ANY LEO in this day and age is unarmed. Of course, NYC Dept. of Health and Hospitals Police officers and NYS Office of Mental Health Police officers who are in direct proximity to patients should be unarmed but the officers on perimeter patrol, in the lobby, etc should most certainly be armed. NYC has a whole bunch of police forces some of which are armed and some are unarmed. I think only the NYPD, NYC Sheriff, NYC Corrections (certain assignments are armed), NYC Sanitation Police, and NYC Environmental Protection Police are armed while the remaining dozen or so agencies (schools, parks, CUNY, hospitals, homeless services, admin services, etc) are either totally unarmed or have certain positions/posts armed and others unarmed. The private quasi government forces (ex. Seagate, Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, Co-Op City, Starret City, Hunts Point Markets, Roosevelt Island, etc) are all armed AFAIK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
I saw the report and what I want to know is who was the putz who demonstrated the Mossburg for the reporter! I wanted to reach into the screen and choke the [email protected]@rd! Looking all tough and talking like a lib. What a schmuck!
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top