Proposed gun raffle ban in N.Y.

[E.J.W.]

New York is at it again.
Jo Anne Simon assemblywomen in Brooklyn N.Y. has proposed a bill introduced in the New York State Assembly (A01413) that would prohibit non-profit organizations from holding gun raffles. In the sponsor’s message, she wrote: "Firearm-related violence is a significant public health and safety problem, and weapons should not be given away in games of chance." However, her bill points to no evidence whatsoever to indicate gun raffles contribute to firearm related violence.
Saturday March 9th there is a biannual gun raffle combined with a rally in defense of the event which is being held in Elma N.Y. (outside of Buffalo) at the Jamison Rd Fire company. The fire department board members have invited other fire companies to participate in when it begins at noon Saturday.
"Anybody that might win a prize at our gun raffle has to go thorough a federal background check," a fire co board member said, noting that a federally licensed firearms dealer will be on site to conduct the background checks on winners.

[FITASC]

I guess she thinks the thugs in her district are going to drive upstate to enter a raffle for a gun? SMH at the idiocy of the left.

[44 AMP]

"Firearm-related violence is a significant public health and safety problem, and weapons should not be given away in games of chance." However, her bill points to no evidence whatsoever to indicate gun raffles contribute to firearm related violence.

why should she have to provide evidence??? It's just obvious common sense! These people are selling weapons for the price of a raffle ticket!!Good gracious, this absolutely must be stopped!!!
(scarasm intentional)

It doesn't matter that the duck guns and deer rifles being raffled aren't crime guns, and it doesn't matter that this has been going on, without any public disasters for longer than the good congresswoman has been ALIVE...all that matters is SHE doesn't think "weapons should be given away in games of chance", and so because she doesn't like the idea, she wants to stop it with a LAW!!!!

I suppose its a good thing there aren't more important things for her to be doing..,.

[kmw1954]

Seems that the local Ducks Unlimited uses gun raffles at their fund raisers all the time and are quite successful in raising money for the organization this way. Maybe we just need to outlaw raffles in total!

Also so sorry but the people of NY State knew who this person was and knew her stance on the issue and voted her in anyways. So why the crying? They got what they voted for.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by E.J.W.

In the sponsor’s message, she wrote: "Firearm-related violence is a significant public health and safety problem, and weapons should not be given away in games of chance."

Note that she made certain to include the "public health" buzz word.

And she continues with the SJW-led fiction that "gun violence" is somehow different from all other types of violence. This is because, in their distorted world view, "gun violence" can be addressed by restricting access to guns, whereas when addressing violence perpetrated using hammers, knives, baseball bats, 2x4s, automobiles, or chain saws they don't go after the weapon, they go after the assailant. A rational person might pause to wonder why they persist in trying to make and maintain this distinction.

[5whiskey]

Even in NY, I don't see this going anywhere. Still that it was even proposed... SMH

[ammo.crafter]

Moronic legislation continues as the general public is ignorant of true crime stats and only knows of selected presentations purported by those in control of mass media. We have been denied space in national newspapers and other national media.

We do not have the funds that Blumberg and Soros have to give to political friends (like $500,000 given the mayor of Pittsburgh).

They are well-funded, well-organized and are now implementing their plan that was apparently timed for our current political mess.

How do we logically present our case that the number of nuts and kooks committing crimes with firearms are not law abiding firearm legal individuals?

We have to stop bitching and moaning and work together to make the general public aware of what is going on.

[FITASC]

Also so sorry but the people of NY State knew who this person was and knew her stance on the issue and voted her in anyways. So why the crying? They got what they voted for.

She is from NYC, not the rural upstate portion (which outside of Albany is mostly Red)

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by FITASC

She is from NYC, not the rural upstate portion (which outside of Albany is mostly Red)

Also so sorry but the people of NY State knew who this person was and knew her stance on the issue and voted her in anyways. So why the crying? They got what they voted for.

Perhaps but until popular vote isn't counted anymore..it's still a 'blue' state.

Cuomo Governor election..2018
3.6 million, 59%-Cuomo
2.2 million, 36%-Molinaro

What's pitiful is the 30% voter turnout rate...

[kmw1954]

My point partially, just like Chicago vs. the rest of Illinois, when a city/area just 0.4% can control a whole state I see an imbalance. I see a problem. Also the state of Illinois is turning more blue. Creating more gun control laws and falling deeper into public dept.

Agree that NY is in the same predicament.

Which also is why a number of states are trying to pass laws to eliminate the Electoral Collage. To change the balance of power.

Sorry for the political rant, I'm finished.

[5whiskey]

Perhaps but until popular vote isn't counted anymore..it's still a 'blue' state.

Even when a major urban population like NYC, Chicago, or Southern California seems to set priorities for the entire rest of the state, there are often control methods that prevent the majority in number to run roughshod over the minority in population but majority in land area. Like it or not, all those urban denizens would starve within a few weeks without the rural folks growing food. So "greater in numbers" does not = "morally superior." That's why we have a Republic. I'm sure NY State is set up like almost every other state, and the Nation. There is a senate, a house, and a governor. Land area is usually given precedent in control in at least one of those branches.

So I maintain, this bill will go absolutely nowhere. Even in New York.

[heyjoe]

Joanne Simon only represents one congressional district in New York City. The rest of the city had no say in her election, never mind the rest of the state, so no the vast majority of New York City and New York State bear no responsibility for her actions as a legislator because they never were able to vote in her election.

[USNRet93]

So "greater in numbers" does not = "morally superior."

No, of course not, and that works both ways but until the elections are NOT won by the 'majority', that's the way it is. There are ALWAYS 50% that disagree..The way it is in this here republic. What a person contributes or how much 'land' is involved means nothing.

Land area is usually given precedent in control in at least one of those branches.

How?..land area as it translates to population but a person that owns more 'land' has no more voting power than a person in a studio apartment.

Joanne Simon only represents one congressional district in New York City. The rest of the city had no say in her election, never mind the rest of the state, so no the vast majority of New York City and New York State bear no responsibility for her actions as a legislator because they never were able to vote in her election.

Am I missing something? She is an assembly person who introduced this bill..and thru committee it goes and to the floor for a vote, THEN to the State senate, THEN to the Governor for signing or veto. She's not the final word on any of this..as is implied.

Analogously to the US federal government, NY State Government is composed of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The head of the executive is the Governor. The Legislature consists of the Senate and the Assembly.

[5whiskey]

How?..land area as it translates to population but a person that owns more 'land' has no more voting power than a person in a studio apartment.

Every state gets 2 senators, regardless if they have 50 million residents or 5 million (or less). Most State senates have senators per county or Burrough, which is not tied or proportional to population in that county. This is a mechanism for ensuring that "majority rule" in densely populated areas isn't always thrust upon sparsely populated rural areas without the more rural areas having at least one branch or house of government with which they share equal footing. It does not mean owning more land gives your vote more power. It does mean that you have at least one house of legislature that is on equal footing by region, regardless of population density. And rightly so. What works in LA may not work in northern california. Same with NY city. New York city has the benefit of having a paid fire department. Fire departments based on the all volunteer model often must raise funds at times through fundraisers, a foreign concept to NY city. It is not a foreign concept to rural upstate NY. Guess how a large number of volunteer fire departments raise funds? By raffling off firearms.

And by saying "land area," even today the overwhelming vast majority of land area in America is still rural. As of 2010, 97% of the land area was still rural. Despite that, approximately 80% of the population lived in urban areas. So while it's not fair for 20% of the population to completely control the other 80%, it's also not fair for residents in 3% of the land area to completely control the residents in the other 97% of the land area. That is why we have the electoral college and the senate. It is a means of providing rural citizens with a form of "equal footing" despite having fewer voices. It's also why we have the house of representatives and delegates in the electoral college proportioned by population... to make sure the urban citizens have a say proportional to their number in some areas of government. The whole system tends to have a balancing affect. I am not talking about "your vote counts more because you own more land."

This is also why I am a huge proponent of states rights. Certainly there are some aspects in which federal government control is appropriate. There are many aspects of day to day life where life in upper Wyoming is so vastly different than life in southern Florida, or any other number of other opposite climes and places, that many regulations imposed by an overbearing government have little or no compatibility between the two regions. The same can be said of urban apartment dwellers that have everything they could ever need within a 1 mile radius walking distance, and rural farmers who must drive 20 miles or more just to get to the nearest grocery store.

EDIT:
I do see now that the NY State Senate typically has been split or Republicans held a small majority over the past 70 or so years. Now it appears that there is a large Democratic majority after the election of 2018, but I would still not automatically believe that somewhat left-leaning senators from dairy farm districts are going to knee-cap the local volunteer fire departments from raffling off firearms.

[heyjoe]

USN Retired 93, I was answering post #4.

[USNRet93]

I know, sorry..got swept up in the rhetoric.

it's also not fair for residents in 3% of the land area to completely control the residents in the other 97% of the land area.

'Completely control'..another absolute which isn't accurate. Take a look at farm subsidies, the $BILLIONS that are directed at those poor rural voters.

The system isn't perfect and the 'land area', urban vs rural discussion has been going on as long as there has been Congress. It isn't about 'land area', it's about traditional values of those who are rural vs those who are urban. As long as elections are by people, the 'majority' will make the rules..and many will not like it, regardless of the topic. But 'fair', unless you have a better idea, it is fair.

[kmw1954]

Sorry but I still stand by my response. Voters know or at least should know who is running for offices in their states. With that it is also true that each state has at least both Democrat and Republican Parties.

Just because you do not live in a district doesn't mean you cannot have a say. Sure you cannot actually vote for that candidate but you certainly can mount an opposition to that candidate! Contact the State party Chair and voice an opinion, encourage them to find and run an opposition candidate. Organize fund raisers for opposition candidate even if they are not in your district.

Don't just sit on your hands saying there is nothing you can do. There is plenty you can do. Even if that candidate is not one you can actually vote for.

Right now there are 18 Congressional Districts in Illinois and since the 2016 elections 13 of those Districts are now controlled by the Democrats. Many of which are very much anti-gun. So again, that is the direction that state is going and those are the people the voters are electing. And in large numbers!

[44 AMP]

Despite our Founders setting up a democratic republic, there are times when it comes down to simply straight, direct democracy, and the bigger number of voters, wins.

This in not always the best, or the ideal situation. 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy, but not so good for the sheep if the wolves vote to have mutton!!

I live in a state that has the bulk of the population in a fairly small area. there was a proposed law, defeated in three separate legislative cycles, which was finally taken to "the people" through the Initiative process.
37 counties in the state. That Initiative passed in ONLY 5 counties. But, the number of people voting in those 5 counties were counted enough to make it law for the entire state.


Make no mistake, direct democracy is the biggest possible threat to our way of life. Not because the idea is inherently flawed, but because of what people DO with it. Our system worked pretty well when designed, back when it took a week on horseback for news to go from one end of the Colonies to the other. People had the TIME to get the news, hear not only the lies, but also the truth, and make measured decisions.

Today, 5 million+ people can be told a lie in one minute, and DO get told the lie EVERY minute, over and over until they vote. Control of information and by that, public opinion (regardless of the facts) is running our nation waay too much. And I don't see us getting off that merry-go-round any time soon.
Because of the ease and rapidity of information transfer today, we are perilously close to mob rule, more so than at any time in our past.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by kmw1954

Sorry but I still stand by my response. Voters know or at least should know who is running for offices in their states. With that it is also true that each state has at least both Democrat and Republican Parties.

Just because you do not live in a district doesn't mean you cannot have a say. Sure you cannot actually vote for that candidate but you certainly can mount an opposition to that candidate! Contact the State party Chair and voice an opinion, encourage them to find and run an opposition candidate. Organize fund raisers for opposition candidate even if they are not in your district.

Don't just sit on your hands saying there is nothing you can do. There is plenty you can do. Even if that candidate is not one you can actually vote for.

Right now there are 18 Congressional Districts in Illinois and since the 2016 elections 13 of those Districts are now controlled by the Democrats. Many of which are very much anti-gun. So again, that is the direction that state is going and those are the people the voters are electing. And in large numbers!

What was the voter turnout? Start there.

[5whiskey]

Completely control'..another absolute which isn't accurate. Take a look at farm subsidies, the $BILLIONS that are directed at those poor rural voters

Really? Literally my entire post describes how this was not an absolute... I didn’t say that urban areas completely controlled the rural areas. My entire post described the institution that is in place to ensure that majority voices do have power proportional to their majority, yet the minority has failsafes to protect them from a simple majority rule. A little Reading comprehension goes a long ways. And, by the way, those farm subsidies are just as much to ensure farmers stay in business so the poor urban folk will have something to eat. It’s not just about placating us poor simple farmers. While we talk about $BILLIONS directed, how much has California already dropped on a high speed rail system that connects nothing with nowhere, with NO chance of the original vision ever being complete? Spoiler alert... $BILLIONS

As long as elections are by people, the 'majority' will make the rules..and many will not like it, regardless of the topic. But 'fair', unless you have a better idea, it is fair.

Ehh, yes and no. Some polls say a majority could support an AWB. The House of Representatives has a majority who would support one. Yet I would make a friendly wager we don’t see an awb in 10 years. Why? Because the majority do carry more weight with their voice, but there are failsafes to prevent them from getting everything they want to the detriment of others. If that weren’t the case there would be laws on the books criminalizing all of the speech and actions promoted by westboro Baptist church, a group equally despised by republicans, democrats, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, and straights.


I maintain this asinine bill will go nowhere. A VFD raffling off a Remington 700 or 870 is not the next school shooting in the making. ANY intellectual honesty at all will cede that.

[cptjack]

she should be more concerned with what is going on in her district ,than up state

[USNRet93]

Yet I would make a friendly wager we don’t see an awb in 10 years. Why? Because the majority do carry more weight with their voice, but there are failsafes to prevent them from getting everything they want to the detriment of others

I agree and yes, there are 'failsafes'..called a GOP senate and GOP POTUS. BUT there is little enthusiasm for a AWB from either side.

I really don't like the idea that a senator from Wyoming has as much influence in the senate as a senator from CO tho..BUT House--'failsafes'..

If that weren’t the case there would be laws on the books criminalizing all of the speech and actions promoted by westboro Baptist church, a group equally despised by republicans, democrats, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, and straights.

No laws about this hate group as well as to punish those who burn 'Old Glory'..1A rights which I kinda wish were as emotionally defended as 'other' amendments. BTW-Westboro not despised by all white, straights..unfortunately. 'Some' want to strip US citizenship for burning the flag too..another ignorant and illegal position.

[thallub]

i'm not surprised that a Brooklyn, NY assembly person authored a bill outlawing gun raffles. The New York City area is chock full of anti-gun voters.

80 percent of NY state gun owners supported universal background checks. NY voters supported the SAFE act by a 2-1 margin.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2242083

[5whiskey]

BTW-Westboro not despised by all white, straights..unfortunately. 'Some' want to strip US citizenship for burning the flag too..another ignorant and illegal position.

It is unfortunate that westboro has any support at all. Of course there is a fringe minority who sympathize with them. There are fringe minorities who believe a lot of whacky stuff, on all sides of the political spectrum. Doesn’t change the fact that WBC has like 95% of America whom wishes they would go away. With all that, they do have their 1A rights, same as those who burn the flag or kneel for the national anthem. I don’t support the means of delivering the message, but I support the right to use those means. And we agree with giving equal weight and support to all constitutional rights. Well, I cede the 7th amendment is somewhat antiquated... but by golly the rest of them have stood the test of time.

[44 AMP]

Well, I cede the 7th amendment is somewhat antiquated... but by golly the rest of them have stood the test of time.

I disagree. The 7th establishes the right to trial by jury. You may argue that $20 is a much lower limit today than it was then, but that doesn't change the right of trial by jury, only where the lower limit of its application is.

If you want to look at an Amendment that is "somewhat antiquated", I'd suggest the 3rd.



But we are getting far afield from the OP, so lets head back, if we can...

Raffles with guns as prizes are done all over, have been done for generation, and are done in compliance with all local, state, and Federal laws.

This is a perfectly legal thing to do, but one the Assemblywoman doesn't LIKE, because it involves a gun. Note she is not, apparently leading or involved in any crusade or campaign to CONVINCE people they should not do this "horrible" , but LEGAL thing (raffle a gun), her solution is to propose a LAW, that if passed, would FORCE people not to do that "horrible thing".

To me, this is not the kind of governance we should have. It is, however, all too often the kind we get...