Long Island Shooters Forum banner
21 - 40 of 58 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
710 Posts
Gary- any guess about when this bill will become law? I can see a run up of individuals buying semi automatic rifles before it becomes last.

will this apply retroactively to individuals who currently own semi automatic rifles?

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
when everyone reg's their long guns for the lic, they will have the knowledge of where they are... one step closer to taking away
BUT, remember how well that went last time owners had to reg' their long guns. ( IIRC, about 10% did )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Gary or anyone else that cares to weigh in, What is your opinion of the Florida "Red Flag" laws and min age of 21 to purchase a semi-auto rifle? They were able to retain legal semi-auto without having to redesign rifles and gimmicks (no flash suppressor, bayonet lug, detachable mag, etc., so that the rifles weren't "assault rifles"). Apparently, the law seems to be pretty effective. I'm getting pissed off that every time one of these "mass shootings" occur, there were always signs that the shooter was a nut and potential threat.

I would love to be optimistic with SCOTUS and eliminating "government approval", but in the wake of the leak on the Abortion case and the recent shootings, I really don't think that will happen. I have a feeling they are re-writing decisions before they release them to fit the media and political fervor of the times. I'm optimistic we will "win" in the NY gun case, but I really don't believe it will be broad in its scope. Even in HELLER they clearly stated that a felon did not have a Constitutional right to own a gun...how else can they determine if a guy can Constitutionally own a gun unless they do some sort of a background investigation?

I saw an article recently (I don't remember where) that is suggesting that it was time to ignore some SCOTUS decisions. It was written in response to the abortion case leak and with one eye towards the upcoming decision on NY. It went on about how they don't have an army or enforcement capability. Andrew Jackson did it when they ruled against his Cherokee Indian policies. I cringed when I saw that because every day we are being forced to look upon our Country and our Govt as if it is inept and inferior and for a publication to suggest that we ignore the Supreme Court, means that a movement will grow and our Country will come apart. Good or bad, we can't simply ignore the Supreme Court or this Country's system of government will fall apart.

Every shooting now, even if they are gang shootouts or idiots killing each other, is now a "mass shooting". This new definition of "mass shootings" to raise the impact and sensationalism of the crime, is akin to calling anyone who died who was Covid positive, no matter what the cause, a "Covid death". Died in a vehicle accident but Covid positive? Covid death. Elderly person with a history of cardio-pulmonary issues dies but is positive for Covid? Covid death. The US is considered a failure in the World because we have this extraordinary level of Covid deaths. China whom they want to lead the World, was extremely conservative in their counting of Covid deaths, is billed as a success because they had a low count of Covid deaths and the media ignores their method of counting. Anything to make them look better and the US as a failed state. This is crazy.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
6,825 Posts
Gary or anyone else that cares to weigh in, What is your opinion of the Florida "Red Flag" laws and min age of 21 to purchase a semi-auto rifle? They were able to retain legal semi-auto without having to redesign rifles and gimmicks (no flash suppressor, bayonet lug, detachable mag, etc., so that the rifles weren't "assault rifles"). Apparently, the law seems to be pretty effective. I'm getting pissed off that every time one of these "mass shootings" occur, there were always signs that the shooter was a nut and potential threat.

I would love to be optimistic with SCOTUS and eliminating "government approval", but in the wake of the leak on the Abortion case and the recent shootings, I really don't think that will happen. I have a feeling they are re-writing decisions before they release them to fit the media and political fervor of the times. I'm optimistic we will "win" in the NY gun case, but I really don't believe it will be broad in its scope. Even in HELLER they clearly stated that a felon did not have a Constitutional right to own a gun...how else can they determine if a guy can Constitutionally own a gun unless they do some sort of a background investigation?

I saw an article recently (I don't remember where) that is suggesting that it was time to ignore some SCOTUS decisions. It was written in response to the abortion case leak and with one eye towards the upcoming decision on NY. It went on about how they don't have an army or enforcement capability. Andrew Jackson did it when they ruled against his Cherokee Indian policies. I cringed when I saw that because every day we are being forced to look upon our Country and our Govt as if it is inept and inferior and for a publication to suggest that we ignore the Supreme Court, means that a movement will grow and our Country will come apart. Good or bad, we can't simply ignore the Supreme Court or this Country's system of government will fall apart.

Every shooting now, even if they are gang shootouts or idiots killing each other, is now a "mass shooting". This new definition of "mass shootings" to raise the impact and sensationalism of the crime, is akin to calling anyone who died who was Covid positive, no matter what the cause, a "Covid death". Died in a vehicle accident but Covid positive? Covid death. Elderly person with a history of cardio-pulmonary issues dies but is positive for Covid? Covid death. The US is considered a failure in the World because we have this extraordinary level of Covid deaths. China whom they want to lead the World, was extremely conservative in their counting of Covid deaths, is billed as a success because they had a low count of Covid deaths and the media ignores their method of counting. Anything to make them look better and the US as a failed state. This is crazy.
I'm not happy with any "red flag" laws, as all are an entry point for planned and intended abuse.

Limiting purchase of semi-autos to 21 and over, leaves me with the same negative feeling. If the person is old enough to voluntarily serve in/be drafted into the military, where s/he will get full auto, s/he should not be restricted from semi-auto. Where do we draw the line, on the ability to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right?
Gary
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
6,825 Posts
Gary, I remember chatting with you about the Westchester case many years ago,which you felt the same conclusion.
Yes, you are correct, about the Westchester case. I saw real potential but not the stacked court. Fortunately, this time, the court is not stacked against us and I expect it to follow the law, not a political agenda, as happened in the Westchester scenario.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
I'm not happy with any "red flag" laws, as all are an entry point for planned and intended abuse.

Limiting purchase of semi-autos to 21 and over, leaves me with the same negative feeling. If the person is old enough to voluntarily serve in/be drafted into the military, where s/he will get full auto, s/he should not be restricted from semi-auto. Where do we draw the line, on the ability to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right?
Gary
Gary, some young people are immature and a**holes. If they join the military or are conscripted, yes, they will have access to fully automatic weapons, but they are controlled and under supervised conditions. I do believe that if the age limit were raised to 21yo, that there should be an exception for active duty/honorably discharged veterans. But is it really a big deal if they restricted sales of some firearms to people under 21? I understand that we have a Constitutional right to own a firearm, but for the same reason we wouldn't permit a 12yo to buy a gun (tweens have Constitutional rights too), we might consider that for older teens....maturity and emotional ability to handle stress and problems are fickle in that age group. Notice I'm only discussing "purchasing", not supervised shooting. This is the society we live in.

Look, I agree that how we view things is unbalanced. A toddler can buy a car and drive it all around his/her property. That car is a potential high-tech killing machine, probably even an assault car (since it can easily exceed the highest speed limits in the country) and yes, many more people die in them, than by gunfire. But in this society, we don't view it that way. At the same time, if said toddler wanted to drive that car on the street, he/she would need a license to do so. That is where the line is drawn. Do we want this for all firearms ownership? We can attest to our own NY and how that was used in an arbitrary way to determine who can own and carry a pistol, now we're facing this with purchases of semi-auto rifles. I don't want that for all firearm ownership. I understand that driving is not a protected right, but this is our society and the era we live in. Some countries require a medical certificate to buy a gun. Do we want that here, where some liberal doctor refuses to sign a certificate? I don't. Gary, if they raise the age to 21 for a non-military person to buy a semi-auto rifle, and that was it? Well, so be it if that's it and no more. I'm open to "red flag" laws, but with very limited parameters and solid guidelines, not based on the whims of some activist judge. At the same time, if a guy really has issues, maybe he should not have access to guns.

The Democrats as always focus only on guns and magazines. A real solution is to study the era prior to the 80s when "mass shootings" were very uncommon. Semi-autos were readily available, but people weren't running around leveling medical offices because they had back pain. The REAL problem is whatever changed in this country, causing people to use a gun instead of other means, to solve whatever problem they have within themselves. I will say, that they didn't glorify guns when I was a kid and you can have a fight without arrests and lawsuits. I don't know the answer to all of this.
 

·
Sifting Through the Ruins
Joined
·
8,073 Posts
??
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
6,825 Posts
Leadwipe:

I guess that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree, on this one. The Constitution does not say rights apply only to those over 18 and the 2nd Amendment does not stipulate an age, for the militia composed of the general population, although, as a practical matter, custom limited the top age to 65 and the bottom age at 16, only as a matter of practicality, for militia service. Back then, 15 and 16 years olds were, often, already married, had families and were self-supporting.

Yes, many people, under the age of 18, can be a-holes but I can say that, also, for people over 65. The problem is one of the new societal "norms," which we have allowed to take over our schools, TV programming, movies and video games. Violence is treated as not only acceptable but desirable, to achieve goals, while religion, mutual (as opposed to race-, political- or perceived gender-based) respect, politeness and patriotism are denigrated.

My two cents.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,091 Posts
Reading page one of the bill it t looks like previously purchased items will be grandfathered as not requiring a license/registration. Let me know if anyone disagrees.
and will the seller need said license ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
132 Posts
I sense a resignation on the part of responders. We can't give up otherwise we should just move out of state.
This move by an unelected governor will probably include shotguns also. They're not going to stop at rifles. They want to know everything you own when they come to take them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
It seems like from the wording of the Legislation, that a license will be needed for any semi-auto rifle (shotguns too?) purchased after the Law is in effect, but not for "assault rifles" (I hate that term). SAFE froze the population of "assault rifles" in NY, but it appears that you wouldn't need a license to purchase an antique "assault rifle" which is permitted to acquire under SAFE... just register it under SAFE. So even if you purchased a hunting rifle...such as a Browning BAR 30-06cal. with a pretty stock, maybe even with a deer engraved on the receiver, you'll need a license.

I am wondering how they will go about issuing this new license. They are trying to make the entire State like New York City. All this is happening shortly before SCOTUS decides the NY Gun case. The Governor said they will hold a special session of the Legislature if SCOTUS rules that "proper cause" is unconstitutional. I listened to the entire hearing in SCOTUS and you can tell that NY is going to lean heavily on banning guns in "sensitive places"...another undefined definition like "proper cause". Maybe the Legislature will define "sensitive places" as anyplace hosting an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. You'll be able to carry your pistol under water and that's it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Gary, some young people are immature and a**holes. If they join the military or are conscripted, yes, they will have access to fully automatic weapons, but they are controlled and under supervised conditions. I do believe that if the age limit were raised to 21yo, that there should be an exception for active duty/honorably discharged veterans. But is it really a big deal if they restricted sales of some firearms to people under 21? I understand that we have a Constitutional right to own a firearm, but for the same reason we wouldn't permit a 12yo to buy a gun (tweens have Constitutional rights too), we might consider that for older teens....maturity and emotional ability to handle stress and problems are fickle in that age group. Notice I'm only discussing "purchasing", not supervised shooting. This is the society we live in.

Look, I agree that how we view things is unbalanced. A toddler can buy a car and drive it all around his/her property. That car is a potential high-tech killing machine, probably even an assault car (since it can easily exceed the highest speed limits in the country) and yes, many more people die in them, than by gunfire. But in this society, we don't view it that way. At the same time, if said toddler wanted to drive that car on the street, he/she would need a license to do so. That is where the line is drawn. Do we want this for all firearms ownership? We can attest to our own NY and how that was used in an arbitrary way to determine who can own and carry a pistol, now we're facing this with purchases of semi-auto rifles. I don't want that for all firearm ownership. I understand that driving is not a protected right, but this is our society and the era we live in. Some countries require a medical certificate to buy a gun. Do we want that here, where some liberal doctor refuses to sign a certificate? I don't. Gary, if they raise the age to 21 for a non-military person to buy a semi-auto rifle, and that was it? Well, so be it if that's it and no more. I'm open to "red flag" laws, but with very limited parameters and solid guidelines, not based on the whims of some activist judge. At the same time, if a guy really has issues, maybe he should not have access to guns.

The Democrats as always focus only on guns and magazines. A real solution is to study the era prior to the 80s when "mass shootings" were very uncommon. Semi-autos were readily available, but people weren't running around leveling medical offices because they had back pain. The REAL problem is whatever changed in this country, causing people to use a gun instead of other means, to solve whatever problem they have within themselves. I will say, that they didn't glorify guns when I was a kid and you can have a fight without arrests and lawsuits. I don't know the answer to all of this.
Any restriction that isn't solidly found in facts and rational reasoning but based in public hysteria is an uncalled for restriction. If you can vote, be required to serve in the military (drafted at 19 years old), drive a 4,000 pound vehicle on public roads you shouldn't be prohibited from buying a rifle because a miniscule number of deranged individuals abuse that right. The horrendous act that took place in Texas could have been carried out with handguns or other firearms. This individual could have waited for school dismissal and mowed down a bunch of kids with the truck he stole. We should focus our energy and resources on things that can have a real impact (harden building security, arm teachers, etc.) and not feel good legislation that infringes on the rights of the many based on the evil actions of a few. When the evil actions of a few become the basis for creating legislation all of our rights and freedoms are in jeopardy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
It seems like from the wording of the Legislation, that a license will be needed for any semi-auto rifle (shotguns too?) purchased after the Law is in effect, but not for "assault rifles" (I hate that term). SAFE froze the population of "assault rifles" in NY, but it appears that you wouldn't need a license to purchase an antique "assault rifle" which is permitted to acquire under SAFE... just register it under SAFE. So even if you purchased a hunting rifle...such as a Browning BAR 30-06cal. with a pretty stock, maybe even with a deer engraved on the receiver, you'll need a license.

I am wondering how they will go about issuing this new license. They are trying to make the entire State like New York City. All this is happening shortly before SCOTUS decides the NY Gun case. The Governor said they will hold a special session of the Legislature if SCOTUS rules that "proper cause" is unconstitutional. I listened to the entire hearing in SCOTUS and you can tell that NY is going to lean heavily on banning guns in "sensitive places"...another undefined definition like "proper cause". Maybe the Legislature will define "sensitive places" as anyplace hosting an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. You'll be able to carry your pistol under water and that's it.
In anticipation that Bruen will uphold licensing but throw out "proper cause", making New York a "shall issue" state (meaning that the state will have the burden of showing why an applicant should be denied), legislation already had been introduced that defined sensitive places so broadly that in addition to schools, hospitals, houses of worship, etc, no one with a "carry" permit could carry any place where more than a few people congregated, including on mass transit. A bill also was introduced that would have required applicants to undergo five (?) hours of class training and pass a written and a practical test (and pay the fees) and have to do it all again every two years to keep the permit. I believe that both bills died in committee but the special session the Governor promises to call after the Bruen decision drops may see similar measures being introduced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
1,000% tax is being rumored for ar-15 purchases around Pelosi circle right now to prevent Supreme Court interference on new assault weapons ban
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
In anticipation that Bruen will uphold licensing but throw out "proper cause", making New York a "shall issue" state (meaning that the state will have the burden of showing why an applicant should be denied), legislation already had been introduced that defined sensitive places so broadly that in addition to schools, hospitals, houses of worship, etc, no one with a "carry" permit could carry any place where more than a few people congregated, including on mass transit. A bill also was introduced that would have required applicants to undergo five (?) hours of class training and pass a written and a practical test (and pay the fees) and have to do it all again every two years to keep the permit. I believe that both bills died in committee but the special session the Governor promises to call after the Bruen decision drops may see similar measures being introduced.
In anticipation that Bruen will uphold licensing but throw out "proper cause", making New York a "shall issue" state (meaning that the state will have the burden of showing why an applicant should be denied), legislation already had been introduced that defined sensitive places so broadly that in addition to schools, hospitals, houses of worship, etc, no one with a "carry" permit could carry any place where more than a few people congregated, including on mass transit. A bill also was introduced that would have required applicants to undergo five (?) hours of class training and pass a written and a practical test (and pay the fees) and have to do it all again every two years to keep the permit. I believe that both bills died in committee but the special session the Governor promises to call after the Bruen decision drops may see similar measures being introduced.
I read about that legislation. It ended up with no co-sponsors and died in committee. I think we can expect that similar legislation is introduced should SCOTUS rule against "proper cause". I was glad that it died because if passed, SCOTUS decision or not, it would affect New Yorkers Statewide and those who presently live in Counties that issue Full Carry licenses. I still think it's ridiculous that a person whom resides in a "Full Carry" can carry in Nassau County, but a Nassau County resident cannot. Of course Hochul doesn't blame the real culprit in the Bruen case...the New York State Government. They created a system that made a NYC license valid anywhere in the State, but a non-NYC license not good in NYC, and that a resident in one county, has more right to carry a gun than a resident across the street in another county. If this were honestly explained to the public by this corrupt media, there would be even more support for reform in pistol licensing. You would be surprised how many people are ignorant on the gun issue. I remember after 9/11 a newspaper article reporting now people were "exasperated" when they wanted to obtain NYC pistol licenses and were told it could take up to a year and you wouldn't be able to carry the gun. It's like "where have these people been"?
 
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
Top