2011 Anti-Gun Owner Agenda for Albany

[golocx4]

Be sure to watch for another run at microstamping too. The new A.G., was pushing hard for it when he was in the legislature, and I'm sure he will use the power of his new office to try again. Should be an interesting season in Albany, lots of calls to make and letters to write.

Yup The microstamping bill has been reintroduced in the State Senate as S-678 by Jose Peralta on January 4th.

[nogods]

I totally agree and the whole catch 22 situation created by that law was no accident. These anti gun groups are tricky to say the least and they got $$$.

Just as I believe that the 50 caliber ban is no accident. Your 20 gauge shotgun or larger can fall into that bill.
Not only that but this bill requires that anyone in possession but turn them in.
Once this bill gets in their foot is securely in the door.

I see at the SCOPE website where this bill is supported, but in the OP it reads as if it is an anti-gun proposal.

And let's be clear, section 265.20 does not prohibit anything - it allows. It contains exception to the general firearm laws.

Repeal 265.20 and there would be no exceptions.

I'm not in favor of untrained "just got my gun" nuts passing around a firearm to all their "watch this" pals.

What NY should have is a must issue permit system for target practice and home defence upon successful completion of the basic 3-hour course that is presently required, and then a must issue concealed carry permit upon completion of an appropriate firarm handeling course.

That would eliminate the problems with arbritray permit denials, reduced the time to obtain one, and at least give us some assurance that our fellow law abiding citizens have had some exposure to firearm safety and handeling.

I don't buy into the logic that because people will break the law then there should be no laws.

[Heifer]

Nogods,

You hit the nail on the head regarding training to obtain the desired license. I had a conversation about this subject two hours ago.

[Unfettered Might]

Yeah you guys are right;

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the trained People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Oh wait, that's not what it says.....silly me.

Your ideologies are no better than someone who is completely anti-gun. There is no middle ground, this is a constitutional republic and you abide by the constitution, period. If you don't like it, get 2/3s of congress and 3/4s of the states to agree with you or accept what the law of the land is and get on with your life.

[6shootercarry]

I see at the SCOPE website where this bill is supported, but in the OP it reads as if it is an anti-gun proposal.

And let's be clear, section 265.20 does not prohibit anything - it allows. It contains exception to the general firearm laws.

Repeal 265.20 and there would be no exceptions.

I'm not in favor of untrained "just got my gun" nuts passing around a firearm to all their "watch this" pals.

What NY should have is a must issue permit system for target practice and home defence upon successful completion of the basic 3-hour course that is presently required, and then a must issue concealed carry permit upon completion of an appropriate firarm handeling course.

That would eliminate the problems with arbritray permit denials, reduced the time to obtain one, and at least give us some assurance that our fellow law abiding citizens have had some exposure to firearm safety and handeling.

I don't buy into the logic that because people will break the law then there should be no laws.

The statement in red gives me reason to pause... You support restriction and regulation to what extent? I'm not in favor of the 2nd Amendment being interpreted. There so we differ of opinion.

If the 2nd Amendment stood unabridged and was respected not reinterpreted and bastardized as it is with every restriction and regulation, none of these "what laws we need" and "what stipulations and conditions we should have" discussions would be necessary... The exceptions would not be required.

Yes we needs laws, not having law is understandably a bad idea. Why should it not stand that the amendment was written as a law? Its become a thing of debate and it should not be.. The laws should protect the freedom, not jeopardize it...

Do we really need all of this to take a friend, co-worker, child, or other individual not possessing a license, to the range to experience shooting a pistol?

7. Possession, at an indoor or outdoor shooting range for the purpose
of loading and firing, of a rifle or shotgun, the propelling force of
which is gunpowder by a person under sixteen years of age but not under
twelve, under the immediate supervision, guidance and instruction of (a)
a duly commissioned officer of the United States army, navy, air force,
marine corps or coast guard, or of the national guard of the state of
New York; or (b) a duly qualified adult citizen of the United States who
has been granted a certificate as an instructor in small arms practice
issued by the United States army, navy, air force or marine corps, or by
the adjutant general of this state, or by the National Rifle Association
of America, a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws
of this state; or (c) a parent, guardian, or a person over the age of
eighteen designated in writing by such parent or guardian who shall have
a certificate of qualification in responsible hunting, including safety,
ethics, and landowner relations-hunter relations, issued or honored by
the department of environmental conservation; or (d) an agent of the
department of environmental conservation appointed to conduct courses in
responsible hunting practices pursuant to article eleven of the
environmental conservation law.
7-a. Possession and use, at an indoor or outdoor pistol range located
in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization
organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in small
arms or at a target pistol shooting competition under the auspices of or
approved by the National Rifle Association for the purpose of loading
and firing the same, by a person duly licensed to possess a pistol or
revolver pursuant to section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter of a
pistol or revolver duly so licensed to another person who is present at
the time.
7-b. Possession and use, at an indoor or outdoor pistol range located
in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization
organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in small
arms or at a target pistol shooting competition under the auspices of or
approved by the National Rifle Association for the purpose of loading
and firing the same, by a person who has applied for a license to
possess a pistol or revolver and pre-license possession of same pursuant
to section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter, who has not been previously
denied a license, been previously convicted of a felony or serious
offense, and who does not appear to be, or pose a threat to be, a danger

to himself or to others, and who has been approved for possession and
use herein in accordance with section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter;
provided however, that such possession shall be of a pistol or revolver
duly licensed to and shall be used under the supervision, guidance and
instruction of, a person specified in paragraph seven of this
subdivision and provided further that such possession and use be within
the jurisdiction of the licensing officer with whom the person has made
application therefor or within the jurisdiction of the superintendent of
state police in the case of a retired sworn member of the division of
state police who has made an application pursuant to section 400.01 of
this chapter.
7-c. Possession for the purpose of loading and firing, of a rifle,
pistol or shotgun, the propelling force of which may be either air,
compressed gas or springs, by a person under sixteen years of age but
not under twelve, under the immediate supervision, guidance and
instruction of (a) a duly commissioned officer of the United States
army, navy, marine corps or coast guard, or of the national guard of the
state of New York; or (b) a duly qualified adult citizen of the United
States who has been granted a certificate as an instructor in small arms
practice issued by the United States army, navy or marine corps, or by
the adjutant general of this state, or by the National Rifle Association
of America, a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws
of this state; or (c) a parent, guardian, or a person over the age of
eighteen designated in writing by such parent or guardian who shall have
a certificate of qualification in responsible hunting, including safety,
ethics, and landowner relations-hunter relations, issued or honored by
the department of environmental conservation.
7-d. Possession, at an indoor or outdoor shooting range for the
purpose of loading and firing, of a rifle, pistol or shotgun, the
propelling force of which may be either air, compressed gas or springs,
by a person under twelve years of age, under the immediate supervision,
guidance and instruction of (a) a duly commissioned officer of the
United States army, navy, marine corps or coast guard, or of the
national guard of the state of New York; or (b) a duly qualified adult
citizen of the United States who has been granted a certificate as an
instructor in small arms practice issued by the United States army, navy
or marine corps, or by the adjutant general of this state, or by the
National Rifle Association of America, a not-for-profit corporation duly
organized under the laws of this state; or (c) a parent, guardian, or a
person over the age of eighteen designated in writing by such parent or
guardian who shall have a certificate of qualification in responsible
hunting, including safety, ethics, and landowner relations-hunter
relations, issued or honored by the department of environmental
conservation.
7-e. Possession and use of a pistol or revolver, at an indoor or
outdoor pistol range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a
duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to
foster proficiency in small arms or at a target pistol shooting
competition under the auspices of or approved by an association or
organization described in paragraph 7-a of this subdivision for the
purpose of loading and firing the same by a person at least fourteen
years of age but under the age of twenty-one who has not been previously
convicted of a felony or serious offense, and who does not appear to be,
or pose a threat to be, a danger to himself or to others; provided
however, that such possession shall be of a pistol or revolver duly
licensed to and shall be used under the immediate supervision, guidance
and instruction of, a person specified in paragraph seven of this
subdivision.

Those willing to compromise their freedom for the moment, will have none of it by days end...

[nogods]

Yeah you guys are right;

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the trained People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Oh wait, that's not what it says.....silly me.

Your ideologies are no better than someone who is completely anti-gun. There is no middle ground, this is a constitutional republic and you abide by the constitution, period. If you don't like it, get 2/3s of congress and 3/4s of the states to agree with you or accept what the law of the land is and get on with your life.

So who appointed YOU the interpreter of the Constitution. Last I looked, We the People reserve that right. That's a "WE" not "you" or "me" or "him" or "her".

"We the People" decide, through our constitutional system, the meaning of the Second Amendment rights.

"We the People" may have our disagreements, but we have devised a system for resolving them.

"We the People" don't think the 1st applies to yelling fire in a crowded theater, and "We the People" don't think the second allows anyone to own any weapon as they might please.

"We the people" are willing to have you participate in the discourse over these matters, but "We the People" are not going to allow you to dictate to us with simplistic absolutes emanating from some individual fantasy.

If you find the concept of "We the People" unacceptable, then you should give serious consideration to expatriating yourself.

[6shootercarry]

So who appointed YOU the interpreter of the Constitution. Last I looked, We the People reserve that right. That's a "WE" not "you" or "me" or "him" or "her".

"We the People" decide, through our constitutional system, the meaning of the Second Amendment rights.

"We the People" may have our disagreements, but we have devised a system for resolving them.

"We the People" don't think the 1st applies to yelling fire in a crowded theater, and "We the People" don't think the second allows anyone to own any weapon as they might please.

"We the people" are willing to have you participate in the discourse over these matters, but "We the People" are not going to allow you to dictate to us with simplistic absolutes emanating from some individual fantasy.

If you find the concept of "We the People" unacceptable, then you should give serious consideration to expatriating yourself.

In that statement in red the "We" does not apply to me, nor to any of the others who have written their opinions in opposition to your reasoning that restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are necessary. Therefore you are speaking as the "We" in that statement and are guilty of the very thing you accuse me, Mr. Might, and other individuals of doing. You simply want your way and have no desire to allow us to have our way. Deadlocked in disagreement... The way of the world.

A true patriot would fight for their rights, liberties, and freedoms, not quit and allow others to dictate how they shall exercise them... I think our founders had that in mind when the created the system... Perhaps you should "seriously consider" renouncing your own patriotism...

Lets here from the rest of the "We the People"...

[6shootercarry]

And just in case you were not paying attention...

Anti-gun Advocates In Senate Seek Rules Changes

Here we go...

Nogods,
Please do us all a favor and keep the use of "We" to a minimum..

That would be great..

[Unfettered Might]

So who appointed YOU the interpreter of the Constitution. Last I looked, We the People reserve that right. That's a "WE" not "you" or "me" or "him" or "her".

"We the People" decide, through our constitutional system, the meaning of the Second Amendment rights.

"We the People" may have our disagreements, but we have devised a system for resolving them.

"We the People" don't think the 1st applies to yelling fire in a crowded theater, and "We the People" don't think the second allows anyone to own any weapon as they might please.

"We the people" are willing to have you participate in the discourse over these matters, but "We the People" are not going to allow you to dictate to us with simplistic absolutes emanating from some individual fantasy.

If you find the concept of "We the People" unacceptable, then you should give serious consideration to expatriating yourself.

I'm interpreting nothing, there is no "interpretation" to be had. I believe that you are the one trying to find an underlying meaning. It's plain english and unless one is trying to butcher the english language, the meaning is resoundingly clear.

"we the people" are also restricted by this constitutional republic, many think it's a democracy, it's not.

[lukem]

Settle down here and no name calling. You should be able to discuss things without arguing and name calling.