New York State published Q&A for gun grab. - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > New York State published Q&A for gun grab.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-21-2013, 11:39 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SSGN_Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,688
Liked 2451 Times on 1437 Posts
Likes Given: 559

Default

Actually the fact that they failed to exclude law enforcement is a good thing. It will most likely make them revisit this law.

Otherwise it would be nice to see law enforcement unions shut down and let them see what it is like with citizens in the vulnerable position they left them in along with the upper hand they gave to criminals.
SSGN_Doc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 02:09 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
charlesmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 109
Liked 61 Times on 32 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonM
the police in new york shouldnt have guns. the private citizens cant have em neither should they. the politicians, entertainers, leftists etc who all have bodyguards should have unarmed body guards.
Hear hear! I agree! If laws on paper stop criminals and make it all safe and cozy, no one needs guns anymore. We can all relax, drink free bubble up, eat rainbow stew, with a silver spoon, underneath those sky's of blue!
charlesmar is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 02:44 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mosin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,536
Liked 4690 Times on 2336 Posts
Likes Given: 1110

Default

LOL!!! Stupid New York...gave the criminals 60 days to comply with the law, but made the law abiding citizens comply instantly....

That's not a joke either. They gave the criminals a 60 day amnesty...
__________________
Arbitrary enforcement of the law is the mark of tyranny. Citizens will always fight against it.
Mosin is offline  
dog2000tj Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 02:52 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9211 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

I did actually see something in there I liked.

Safe storage. If you live with a convicted felon, you can still own guns as long as you comply with their safe storage laws. In most places you have to choose between the felon and your own rights.
trip286 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 03:14 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mosin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,536
Liked 4690 Times on 2336 Posts
Likes Given: 1110

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trip286 View Post
I did actually see something in there I liked.

Safe storage. If you live with a convicted felon, you can still own guns as long as you comply with their safe storage laws. In most places you have to choose between the felon and your own rights.
I knew a girl that got busted for pot with her boyfriend, because of the amount, they were both convicted of a felony. She had to marry him, as North Carolina (or south Carolina) wouldn't let two felons live together. She ended up hating the guy later on...
__________________
Arbitrary enforcement of the law is the mark of tyranny. Citizens will always fight against it.
Mosin is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 05:23 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1
Default

I'm new to this forum, but I figure this is a good place for this question.

As we know the NY SAFE act further restricts the definition of a assault weapon from 2 or more banned features down to one or more. I'm sure on this forum there is no need to list them. So the question is, any AR-15 is now a "banned" assault weapon because of the pistol grip, so what keeps you from changing the upper to one that contained a flash suppressor and bayonet lug?
It's already "banned" because of the one feature, what is going to be now, more banned with 3 or 4?

I'm curious on others thoughts, is that a legit loophole or not? According to the SAFE FAQ website it seems so.

Of course you really need a lawyer to read the full SAFE act legislation for a legally correct answer, but I'm just curious on opinions.

Last edited by Magooch; 03-21-2013 at 05:41 PM.
Magooch is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 10:55 PM   #17
JAD
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Washington State
Posts: 79
Liked 52 Times on 26 Posts
Likes Given: 9

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magooch View Post
I'm new to this forum, but I figure this is a good place for this question.

As we know the NY SAFE act further restricts the definition of a assault weapon from 2 or more banned features down to one or more. I'm sure on this forum there is no need to list them. So the question is, any AR-15 is now a "banned" assault weapon because of the pistol grip, so what keeps you from changing the upper to one that contained a flash suppressor and bayonet lug?
It's already "banned" because of the one feature, what is going to be now, more banned with 3 or 4?

I'm curious on others thoughts, is that a legit loophole or not? According to the SAFE FAQ website it seems so.

Of course you really need a lawyer to read the full SAFE act legislation for a legally correct answer, but I'm just curious on opinions.
Hi and welcome to the fourm, you should stop by the intro fourm and say hi.

For your question I think We'll see how it pans out in Ny, where's one for you on the limit issue. How about 7 in the magazine and 3 in the perp?

Last edited by JAD; 03-21-2013 at 11:00 PM.
JAD is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Police state New York City KalashnikovJosh Politics, Religion and Controversy 17 08-10-2012 11:43 PM
new york state compliancy wrightbuiltarmory Gunsmithing Forum 4 07-03-2012 12:19 PM



Newest Threads