Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
Like Tree47Likes

Thread: It's started in NY - Refusing to Register Guns

  1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NW Ohio
    Posts
    3,123
    Quote Originally Posted by jannino View Post
    Yea, until the state police get a list of firearm owners from the FFLs or ATF.

    Smart thing is to register the firearms you actually plan to use for self defense and keep the other ones off the books.
    Running all that down could be tough, the Canadians registered nail guns, staple guns, junk guns....and completely buried the registry system with entries. Some FFL's who have been in the business for years have literally thousands of "junk guns". My dad was a pack rat, he died in 86 but I still find gun receivers in boxes of other parts he had squirreled away. I remember seeing a hardware store where up on the wall near the cieling behind the register they had what must have easily been 1000 rusty pump action 22 rifles...on broomsticks sticking out of the wall 24" stacked like kindling....somebody ily 3 generations ago started putting them up there when they could buy one cheap, and they kept up the tradition.

    MG were controlled in 1934, with an amnesty in 1968 that a lot of people did not know about, and guns never registered still show up here and and there.
    beachcop05 likes this.
    Just pay your dues, and be quiet :-)

  2. #27
    Opionated
    stormz5192's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    NEW JERSEY
    Posts
    2,722
    Welcome to NJ.We've had to register our handguns for years. Hell, we need an additional permit just to purchase one.
    safetyallday likes this.
    Being a good street cop is like coming to work in a wet suit and peeing in your pants. It's a nice warm feeling, but you're the only one who knows anything has happened.

  3. #28
    G-14 Classified
    Rudy8116's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    3,694
    Quote Originally Posted by stormz5192 View Post
    Welcome to NJ.We've had to register our handguns for years. Hell, we need an additional permit just to purchase one.
    And yet Gov Crispie Creme doesn't need a permit to buy more donuts and ice cream.
    I yell "PIKACHU" before I tase someone.

    According to Bob Costas, Sandusky's penis raped those boys, not Sandusky.

  4. #29
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    940
    This thread is another fine example of "here's why Texas rocks and your state doesn't".

    From the Constitution of the State of Texas:
    Quote Originally Posted by Texas
    Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
    Rudy8116 likes this.

  5. #30
    Student of Gerbil Voodoo
    RR_Security's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    2,680
    I visited TX three times, courtesy of my old Uncle Sam, and thought it was pretty cool. (Except there was some "not cool" weather my first time there, from late May into August '74.)

    But Maine rocks, too:
    Maine State Constitution, Article I, Declaration of Rights.
    Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

    I was all set to write "'National Guard' that, Senator _____," and went looking for a name to fill in the blank. In the process, I found something very interesting, which concludes with "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
    Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session (1982)
    <http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html>

  6. #31
    G-14 Classified
    Rudy8116's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    3,694
    Quote Originally Posted by BigMyk View Post
    This thread is another fine example of "here's why Texas rocks and your state doesn't".

    From the Constitution of the State of Texas:
    effin a
    I yell "PIKACHU" before I tase someone.

    According to Bob Costas, Sandusky's penis raped those boys, not Sandusky.

  7. #32
    Forum Member
    GangGreen712's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Between Boston and DC
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by RR_Security View Post
    I visited TX three times, courtesy of my old Uncle Sam, and thought it was pretty cool. (Except there was some "not cool" weather my first time there, from late May into August '74.)

    But Maine rocks, too:
    Maine State Constitution, Article I, Declaration of Rights.
    Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

    I was all set to write "'National Guard' that, Senator _____," and went looking for a name to fill in the blank. In the process, I found something very interesting, which concludes with "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
    Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session (1982)
    <http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html>
    Unfortunately, Connecticut has the same right in our Constitution, and I believe Massachusetts does too, but it hasn't stopped any politicians from ignoring that right. And knowing what kind of justices were appointed to our Supreme Court, the ruling on any challenge would probably be that the right was only for a time when there was no standing army and thus has no relevance today (ignoring the fact that our constitution specifically states self defense and defense of the state as reasons to keep and bear arms) or at best they would say that limiting people to single shot black powder weapons is not violating the right to bear arms. The whole "common use" ruling isn't in force in Connecticut. It's going to take a national ruling to change things here.
    "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
    -Chris Rock

  8. #33
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by RSGSRT View Post
    Gun laws like that, miserable weather, and 60% income tax... Why the eff anybody lives in NY confuses me.
    Gun law sucks but it will be overturned hopefully and is nearly impossible to enforce! I love the weather we get snow for christmas and sun for summer the way its supposed to be. We have high property and school taxes but that directly reflects my high salary so I cant complain. My income tax is around 6% no where near 60% not sure where you got that number. We have every type of land from NYC, mountains, lakes including lake ontario a great lake. Our Addarondack park is bigger then most of the national parks combined. There really is nothing you cant do recreationally in NY (unles they do take my AR-15) which I use for coyote hunting.
    beachcop05 likes this.

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    1911user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    706
    Quote Originally Posted by jannino View Post
    Yea, until the state police get a list of firearm owners from the FFLs or ATF.

    Smart thing is to register the firearms you actually plan to use for self defense and keep the other ones off the books.
    You are joking, right? Although in part technically possible, it is ridiculous. First....never mind if I have to explain it.... Do you even know the process involved?

  10. #35
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by beachcop05 View Post
    When will anyone see your gun, if you keep a low profile and keep it in your house?
    Question: You can't pull over every car on the road just to see the registration. There has to be some other reason to stop the car.

    Would it be the same with firearm in NY, or is mere possession of a firearm sufficient cause to check?
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  11. #36
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    southern CA to the northeast
    Posts
    1,716
    Quote Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
    Question: You can't pull over every car on the road just to see the registration. There has to be some other reason to stop the car.

    Would it be the same with firearm in NY, or is mere possession of a firearm sufficient cause to check?

    Good question, I think it would depend on officers personal training and experience on various firearms, and if they can articulate the difference between varying firearms...I also think it might depend on whatever case law that might arise....but hopefully a court will strike down this ridiculous law and all this will be a moot point.

  12. #37
    Forum Member
    GangGreen712's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Between Boston and DC
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
    Question: You can't pull over every car on the road just to see the registration. There has to be some other reason to stop the car.

    Would it be the same with firearm in NY, or is mere possession of a firearm sufficient cause to check?
    Not sure about New York, but in Massachusetts, the answer is no. It's been ruled that the mere possession of a firearm is NOT reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk. HOWEVER, the law does state that a police officer can request anyone they reasonably suspect or know to carrying a firearm to produce a license to carry and if they cannot, they will get frisked and arrested for carry without a license. However, if the person produces an LTC, they can't be searched because there's no reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Thus, it's nearly impossible to enforce high capacity mag laws unless it's connected to another crime.
    "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
    -Chris Rock

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1
    The Opinion page in today's Idaho Press-Tribune published side-by-side op-ed columns by Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue and Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney on the subject of proposed civilian disarmament measures. (The essays are hidden behind the paper’s ridiculous paywall.) The comparison is quite instructive.

    Sheriff Donahue, who has played to his constituents by joining the ranks of Second Amendment Refuseniks, condemns Barrack Obama’s civilian disarmament as “political posturing,” while professing his confidence that “Congress would not be so foolish as to let anyone strip us of our Second Amendment [sic] rights.” He also regurgitates the long-stale and always-unedifying talking point that the country deserves a “meaningful dialogue” on gun-related violence.

    Donahue adroitly misdirects the reader from what should be the central question: What would he do in the event that Congress were so foolish as to enact gun confiscation laws?


    The astute reader will notice that Donahue gives the game away in this statement from the first sentence of his third paragraph: “Law-abiding citizens have every right to own legal firearms….” Here he takes refuge in a familiar statist tautology: Our “Second Amendment [sic] rights,” on this construction, consist of the freedom to own whatever firearms the government permits us to have.


    Later in the essay, Donohue – succumbing to the irresistible temptation to boast about his supposed accomplishments – describes how he has “worked for years with dedicated ATF agents and other local law enforcement officers to keep illegal guns, like sawed-off shotguns, off our streets and enforce laws prohibiting felons from owning or possessing firearms."

    Sheriff Donahue’s message to gun owners is: You can trust me not to help the Feds disarm you, because I only work alongside the Feds to seize "illegal" guns – which actually means that I will disarm you as soon as they outlaw possession of whatever guns you happen to own.

  14. #39
    "Retired"
    pulicords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,724
    Quote Originally Posted by GangGreen712 View Post
    Not sure about New York, but in Massachusetts, the answer is no. It's been ruled that the mere possession of a firearm is NOT reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk. HOWEVER, the law does state that a police officer can request anyone they reasonably suspect or know to carrying a firearm to produce a license to carry and if they cannot, they will get frisked and arrested for carry without a license. However, if the person produces an LTC, they can't be searched because there's no reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Thus, it's nearly impossible to enforce high capacity mag laws unless it's connected to another crime.
    Unfortunately in some areas (such as NYC) certain politicians (ie: Bloomberg) advocate that officers conduct unlawful "stop and frisks" without particular concern about whether the case results in criminal filing. In his view, taking the gun away from the person possessing it is more important than whether or not the case is filed criminally. It's a total violation of both 4th and 14th Amendment prohibitions against unlawful search and seizures, but since the only "harm" done to those encouraging this behavior is the exclusion of evidence, the violations continue.

    Note too that those arrested are kept in custody until bail/bond is posted or the case is officially rejected by prosecutors. If NYC is like most places, it costs the arrestee 10% of the posted bail required to obtain a bond. The victim of the unlawful arrest is penalized by "out of pocket" expenses in addition to whatever time he or she spends in custody. Worst of all, this experience occurs completely outside the purview of any judicial authority.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

  15. #40
    Forum Member
    Dinosaur32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Suffolk County, New York
    Posts
    3,606
    Pulicords........Sorry but you are way off-base. SQF is not in violation of any part of any constitution. I doubt that any case where a "weapon" was seized was not prosecuted.

  16. #41
    "Retired"
    pulicords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,724
    Dino: Actually "Stop-Question-Frisk" detentions have the same constitutional restrictions as any "Terry Stop" and pat-down. Reasonable suspicion has to be present and specific articulable facts must exist to justify the search. Mayor Bloomberg has repeatedly endorsed a policy that not only has been rejected by prosecutors and the courts as failing to meet standards set by "Terry vs Ohio", it's resulted in numerous cases involving weapons as well as other contraband being rejected outright.

    In the mayor's mind, case rejects aren't as important as weapon seizures so he directs his police administrators to continue the practice. There was another post on the subject several months ago (I believe we discussed it at the time) and I'll try to find that or another link to prove my point. As a police officer yourself and speaking as a former LEO, I believe both of us should recognize that violating constitutional protections against illegal search and seizures can't be justified under the guise of serving the public. It's no different than lying under oath to obtain a search warrant or conviction of someone we "know" is a criminal. The first obligation of any law enforcement officer is to obey the laws (including the Constitution) that he/she was sworn to protect and uphold.

    Edited to add from a previous post: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/07...arp-criticism/
    Last edited by pulicords; 01-31-2013 at 03:00 PM.
    Carbonfiberfoot likes this.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    822
    I'm wondering if I need a search warrant to check someones magazine for the number of rounds??
    beachcop05 likes this.

  18. #43
    Banned

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tri-State Area
    Posts
    1,129
    Any one want to take a guess as to what started the American Revolution? Gun confiscation!

    History, if we are not careful, will repeat itself, and that scares me.
    beachcop05 likes this.

  19. #44
    LOW SPEED, HIGH DRAG...
    WillBrink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    2,395
    Quote Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
    In NY state? Not sure. Other places: plenty.



    Those doing the visiting need to decide what their oath requires, and those disobeying need to decide what liberty requires.

    Depending on the decisions made, where those two requirements meet could get messy.
    I'm an avid 2A supporter to be sure, but I don't want to see any of the good guys harmed by being caught in the middle. Per usual those that wrote law don't care a bit about putting either LE or citizens in harms way, and that sucks all the more.
    beachcop05 and RR_Security like this.
    - Will

    Performance/Fitness Advice For the Tactical Community

    www.OptimalSWAT.com

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

  20. #45
    Forum Member
    Dinosaur32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Suffolk County, New York
    Posts
    3,606
    Pullicords....Nice link to an absolutely irrelevant newspiece. There has been no finding as yet that SQF is unconstitutional. as long as the Police officers adhere to section 140.50 of the new York State Criminal Procedure Law the stops are valid. As you read all the bitching about SQF, read the writings carefully. You'll find that the biggest complaint is the number of stops and that most of the stops are of black and hispanic "youths". Of course, you will also have to note that the great majority of crimes are committed by black and hispanic "youths". You will also note that the victims of these crimes are again by a vast majority black and hispanic. I guess I could easily post that you are racist, in that you do not care about the black and hispanic children caught in crossfires or the minority grandmothers walking home from the bodega hit by a stray round. SQF is doing a job in protecting those people.
    beachcop05 likes this.

  21. #46
    Forum Member
    Catfish56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    318
    I took an oath to uphold the constitution. I am under no obligation to follow any order given by a superior that is illegal or unconstitutional.
    "Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
    Watch your words, for they become actions.
    Watch your actions, for they become habits.
    Watch your habits, for they become character.
    Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

  22. #47
    Forum Member
    Highwaylaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northeast
    Posts
    872
    Throw in Cuomos proposal to cap salary arbitration awards at 2%, and I'm just about packing my bags....
    "The wicked flee when no man pursueth
    but the righteous are bold as a lion"

    Proverbs 28:1, inscription beneath NLEOM lion.

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South
    Posts
    692
    Quote Originally Posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    SQF is doing a job in protecting those people.
    Do you have data supporting this?

  24. #49
    "Retired"
    pulicords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    You'll find that the biggest complaint is the number of stops and that most of the stops are of black and hispanic "youths". Of course, you will also have to note that the great majority of crimes are committed by black and hispanic "youths". You will also note that the victims of these crimes are again by a vast majority black and hispanic. I guess I could easily post that you are racist, in that you do not care about the black and hispanic children caught in crossfires or the minority grandmothers walking home from the bodega hit by a stray round. SQF is doing a job in protecting those people.
    Dino: I didn't post this link because I wanted to get into a racial debate about stops, arrests or victimology. I posted it because NYPD has enacted a policy that appears (to some prosecutors as well as the courts) to fly in the face of the 4th and 14th Amendment. Rationalizing that on the basis of "protecting those people" just doesn't cut it. If you want to see where that kind of attitude will take you, look South of our borders and examine how frequently death squads appear to deal with crime problems like those in Rio. We don't need that kind of stuff here and we don't need cops creating "PC" for stops and searches because they don't have the real thing.

    When literally a thousand or more people are searched for every gun recovered due to policies like this, it doesn't a statistics genius to figure out that cops are being pressured to conduct as many searches as possible with or without real justification. If the search is justified, no problem. If it isn't (and no doubt a huge percentage aren't), that becomes a major problem to anyone that believes in the rule of law. If the mayor, the chief of police or members of the department feel that violating the law for the "greater good" is something LEOs should be doing, they're sadly mistaken.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

  25. #50
    Forum Member
    Dinosaur32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Suffolk County, New York
    Posts
    3,606
    First no court has yet determined SQF to be unconstitutional. Since thousands of stops are made and few guns are recovered, one coud make the argument that due to SQF, fewer perps are carrying guns today. Also, far fewer black and hispanics are being killed than in the period before the increase in the number of SQFs. And always keep in mind that the policy is not new. SQF has been in placefor decades in NYC. It is only in the last few years, after the city caved in to racial demagogues and had cops make a written report of all stops, that the same demagogues have raised issues about the nature of the stops.
    beachcop05 likes this.

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register