The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 9, 2015, 12:48 PM   #1
bandaid1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 114
Safe Act numbers ordered released.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/court-o...against-cuomo/

It will be interesting to see just how many gun owners complied with the registration requirement. The ruling seems to just require the number and not the names or addresses of gun owners, which is ok IMO. I think the release will cause those that where in favor of this dumb law to eat some crow when the numbers come out.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that I read somewhere that the safe act said that the state police could not release those numbers as a matter of law. Does that mean that this section of the law (along with the section that involved the 7 round magazine rule) are removed, while the rest remains or what?
bandaid1 is offline  
Old May 9, 2015, 01:14 PM   #2
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 682
The law says information about the person registering the gun is prohibited from publication, not the number. I'm sure the state will appeal to avoid the embarrassment,
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old May 9, 2015, 06:30 PM   #3
bandaid1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 114
So it's just the Governors office that doesn't want to release the data, not the law. Thanks. So this was a easy one. Do you think the release of this info will help sway the courts to rule in our favor against the Safe Act? I'm not sure if the released data will matter or not. Without knowing how many there are, the number that are registered is kind of irrelevant, right?
bandaid1 is offline  
Old May 9, 2015, 09:40 PM   #4
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 2,306
They will tout it as a success no matter what the compliance rate is.

The failed Canadian registry was a stunning success right up until it's repeal due to being an ineffective waste of public funds and resources. A lot of people up there still think all it needed was more money.

Expect the same here.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 01:16 AM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 7,300
Meanwhile, apparently the gun used recently to shoot an NYPD officer has been traced to a pawn shop in Georgia -- from which it was stolen. Yet the Bloomies are trying to use it as "another example" of how crime guns in NYC are coming from the south because of various "loopholes" in existing laws.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 07:19 AM   #6
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 682
"...because of various "loopholes" in existing laws." Nice to know there's loophole in GA that permits stealing guns,
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 08:24 AM   #7
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 3,994
Gee, surprise.
.
.
.
not.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 09:36 AM   #8
bandaid1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 114
Aguila Blanca,
I see no reason why Georgia couldn't use the reverse argument that New Yorkers need to keep their gun thieves out of Georgia.

With as many problems as they have had, and lost court cases on a multiple of issues with the Safe Act, I don't understand why the state government continues to support this knee jerk law. I've read that there is a discrimination lawsuit now pending from Amish farmers, my last count was that there was something like 7 lawsuits about the Safe Act. Additionally, a bunch of Sheriffs that refuse to enforce it. They should just repeal it and call it a day. Look at the money they would save on legal fees alone.
bandaid1 is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 09:55 AM   #9
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 7,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandaid1
They should just repeal it and call it a day. Look at the money they would save on legal fees alone.
True. But then they would have to admit that (a) they made a mistake in passing it; and (b) it can't possibly address what happens in other states, and thereby could not possibly accomplish its stated goals.

Remember, the two most draconian laws passed in the aftermath of Sandy Hook were the NY SAFE Act and a comparable piece of legislative excrement from adjoining Connecticut. Both are now awaiting a decision from the federal appeals court. Both states enacted the laws by secret, backroom procedures, and both had the avowed intent of "serving as a model for the rest of the nation."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 11:02 AM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 13,070
Quote:
I don't understand why the state government continues to support this knee jerk law.
Because they absolutely HATE to admit errors and look like the fools they are.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 12:29 PM   #11
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,315
Quote:
apparently the gun used recently to shoot an NYPD officer has been traced to a pawn shop in Georgia -- from which it was stolen.
That shop is in a somewhat rural area two hours south of Atlanta. I doubt people are commuting from New York to there with the intention of procuring guns. It's more likely the shooter has prior residence there.

The gun used to kill two NYPD officers in December was purchased at another Georgia gun shop. Everytown/MDA are going to try and prove that there's some "pattern" there. Bloomberg coined the term Iron Pipeline to describe the so-called phenomenon.

He used this meme to justify wildly illegal sting operations in Atlanta from a few years back. The 2AF asked the ATF to investigate, and they were stonewalled. Lawsuits by the affected dealers have been fruitless as well.

I'm afraid Bloomberg's going to keep hammering this angle.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 08:14 PM   #12
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 7,300
Money talks.

Big money talks louder.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 10, 2015, 10:16 PM   #13
bandaid1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 114
I saw the head "Everytown" guy on CSPAN a few days ago. He's an idiot. He knows nothing about firearms and less about criminal activity. As for "Moms Demand Hot Action" well there name says it all. There leader is a despite house wife that refuses to discuss the issue with anyone not in her own camp. So they don't really any leaders, just leaches.

I haven't herd either group explain how anything they propose in these laws will fix anything. The Safe Act doesn't make any citizen safer. Nothing is focused on the criminals element or their activities. It's like going after bike thieves by outlawing bolt cutters. then getting upset when the thieves start using hack saws. Criminals adapt. Nothing is truly safe and secure unless make it so. That's life.
bandaid1 is offline  
Old May 11, 2015, 11:00 AM   #14
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 13,070
Quote:
I doubt people are commuting from New York to there with the intention of procuring guns. It's more likely the shooter has prior residence there.
I think its even more likely that the gun was stolen by a local resident, and sold to a "gunrunner" who either took it to NY or sold it to another runner who did, then sold it to the shooter, or whom ever it was the shooter got it from.

NYC, and all other places with similar laws have been complaining about this since at least the late 60s when I first became aware of it.

Essentially, they pass a law that says "people under our thumb cannot have guns". Then they complain that this doesn't stop the "flood of illegal guns" because people NOT under their thumb do have guns, and they "somehow" find their way into their fair city. Their "solution" (and their deepest desire), is to have everyone under their thumbs.

Smuggling something the people want, and the govt doesn't want the people to have is a tradition older than the United States. As long as there is a profit in it, people will do it, no matter what the law says.

And trust me, there will always be a profit, as stolen goods are never sold at a loss. Even the most terrible punishments do not eliminate the trade. Death to anyone caught & convicted, or even "shoot on sight" to anyone caught in the act has not ever totally eliminated this, in the different places and times it has been tried. Because with the most severe penalty, well, "business" costs just go up, and that gets passed on to the consumer. Fewer will take the risks, so it is reduced, but the ones who do make even more profit. No one embarks on a criminal enterprise expecting to be caught. Just the opposite, usually.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 11, 2015, 05:17 PM   #15
NY'er
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Posts: 14

I see no reason why Georgia couldn't use the reverse argument that New Yorkers need to keep their gun thieves out of Georgia.


Brilliant!

I suspect the number to be embarrassingly low and I expect them to call the low number a monumental success, proclaiming it as a huge victory that so many so-called "AW's" must have been removed from the state....
NY'er is offline  
Old May 14, 2015, 09:10 AM   #16
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 17,761
It makes me wonder if storage facilities saw a boom in business as New Yorkers rented small rooms, placed gun safes in them and stored their naughty black rifles out of state?

Regardless of the number of arms registered, I concur that New York will declare the law a success and then tout it as a shining example for the rest of the nation. Of course, it will then follow California's example and began confiscating them from owners who are subsequently determined to be unfit to possess them.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old May 14, 2015, 11:14 AM   #17
NY'er
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Posts: 14
^^^

I believe that's already happened using their secret database of "prohibited persons" due to information in their medical records and prescriptions etc, and IIRC there's already been lawsuits filed.

Also, it's not just California- NYC did the same thing years ago after making residents "register" their "AW's" and then later prohibited them....
NY'er is offline  
Old May 14, 2015, 12:19 PM   #18
LancelotLink
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Posts: 26
Here's a nice summary as to what happened in NYC and how registration led to confiscation.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of another site that has this same information that is not so partisan. Its sufficient for the pro 2A side library, but not to help convince those on the fence.

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-34.html
__________________
Lancelot Link Secret Chimp at your service
LancelotLink is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10566 seconds with 9 queries