The New York gun control provisions passed by the Senate late Monday and being considered by the Assembly on Tuesday cover several fronts. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the proposals would:(Okay, I'm going to list the proposed "restrictions" and talk about them individually. This severely pisses me off ... and I live clear across the country from this Martinet!)
_Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.
Typically, the term "Assault Weapon" is a bogus means of identifying "offending" firearms by features which are entirely cosmetic. This measure is a proliferation of meaningless identifiers, which include: pistol grip, flash suppressors (which "suppress" NOTHING) barrel shrouds, and the color "Black". None of these
"features" have anything to do with the efficacy of the firearm; they're just talking points which Liberal scare-mongers use to justify their unconstitutional tactics. BTW .. if these ARE features which have nothing to do with shooting geese and instead increase the efficiency of Military Weapons? Military weapons are the MOST protected versions under the provisions of the Second Amendment.
Reducing the 'number of features" which allows gun-grabbers to impose more regulation is not more effective; it's merely more egregious.
_Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.
This refers back to the definition of "assault weapons". Cosmetic differences do NOT define an "assault weapon", which is properly defined as "a rifle-caliber shoulder-fired firearm capable of full-auto functionality". It does NOT define, for example, an A$-15 or its antecedents or derivations. Further references to "Assault Weapons" will fall under the same logical rebuttal by the statement: "See Above"..
_Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.
See Above.
_Establish a state registry for all private sales, with a background check done through a licensed dealer for a fee, excluding sales to immediate relatives.
Registration IS the first stage toward confiscation. California established a "registration" program in 1999; this quickly resulted in 'registered' firearms being confiscated without compensation to the owners. This was a wake-up call for every legal firearms owner. They didn't take guns owned by criminals, they took ALL guns. And New York is using the same play-book now.
_Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally to report the threat to a mental health director who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
This sounds reasonable, even laudable. But it opens the door to subjective interpretation. We don't know who's "crazy", and who demands their rights under the constitution. This kind of legislation is subject to interpretation by health-care providers ... who are not regulated to the same extent as are firearms owners today.
_Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.
Already illegal .. only black-powder firearms are legally available for sale by ANY means other than in-person visits to a registered firearms dealer, who MUST perform a background check under federal law which has been in effect since 1995. This "feature" is cosmetic only!
_Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
This has absolutely no effect on the effectiveness of a firearm in a 'mass murder' situation. Even a .45 caliber 1911 "army pistol" can accept magazines capable of holding eight or ten rounds. "Requiring" a murderer to conform to this kind of law presumes that the fine would dissuade his evil intent. In truth, he is already contemplating the murder of innocents; if it is intended to assuage the effects of murderous intent, it is shamefully ineffective.
_Require that stolen guns be reported within 24 hours. Otherwise, the owner would face a possible misdemeanor.
What if the owner is not aware that he has been burgled? This makes the victim appear to be either irresponsible, or commiserate with the person who has stolen his property.
_Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property.
Actually, there are justifications for 'taking a gun on school property' .. including (for example) a teacher who is aware that schools are often "Gun Free Zones", which is a euphemism for "Kill Me Her Zones". Murderers love areas where they can be assured that nobody is armed, because it is illegal! Only law-abiding persons are likely to obey such ridiculous laws. Murders glory in the fact that they are the only people who recognize that these laws are unenforceable, if their intent is to kill innocents.
_Increase penalties for shooting first responders, called the "Webster provision." Two firefighters were killed when shot by a person who set a fire in the western New York town of Webster last month. The crime would be punishable by life in prison without parole.
Oh? And if 'shooting first responders' constitutes MURDER, then how much more punitive can this law be? Redundancy serves no purpose other than the glorification of the grandstanding politician.
_Limit the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. The provision would allow a handgun permit holder a means to maintain privacy under the Freedom of Information law.
This is 'almost' the single legitimate proposition. Concealed Carry License holders have infamously been 'outed', to their detriment, for years. Forgive me if I suggest that this provision serves no purpose except to imprint the patina of legitimacy on a series of otherwise useless proposals.
_Require pistol permit holders or those who will be registered as owners of assault rifles to be recertified at least every five years to make sure they are still legally able to own the guns.
I don't know how it is in YOUR state, but in MY state (Oregon), this is already a feature of Concealed Carry legislation. I don't have to go through the entire process of finding three non-felons to certify that I am a 'good citizen', and I don't have to give them another sample of my fingerprints, but I do have to pay a fee and they already do a State Database Search to find out whether or not I have committed a felony in the recent years.It is my understanding that New York is one of the most restrictive states in the country, when it comes to firearms ownership.
As a Concealed Firearms Permit holder, I accept and approve of these laws; I do not want to be grouped with people who may have committed a felony.
And please note, in Oregon the process is restricted to people with Concealed Firearems Permits. We don't heed no stinkin' bahdges!
3 comments:
It has just become even more restrictive. Obviously the state feels that it needs to gain more control over its citizens.
It was passed in order to save the children.
I'm aware that this bill has been passed. The (state) senators who voted on it had slightly over an hour to read the bill before they needed to vote on it. This is the result of pressure on a legislator. See the (later) article at:
http://jerrythegeek.blogspot.com/2013/01/dumb-and-dumber-gun-control-and-sandy.html
Post a Comment