Photo caption [via poughkeepsiejournal.com] : “During a news conference at City Hall on Wednesday, City of Poughkeepsie police Sgt. Sean McCarthy displays pictures of illegal hand guns removed from the streets of the city over the last 10 weeks.”

24 Responses to What’s Wrong With This Picture: Illustrative Purposes Edition

  1. Wait a minute, isn’t a criminal’s weapon of choice a scary assault weapon with an assault magazine and assault black paint?

  2. Too bad they won’t sell any to citizens. The top-break revolver looks nice.

    Speaking of pistols, are you guys going to review the Beretta Nano?

  3. I don’t see any illegal handguns in that picture, do you? It might have been illegal for some people to possess them, based on their previous criminal record or mental health issues, but none of these handguns are illegal. Just another example of a gun-grabber blaming the gun, not the criminal.

    The whole concept of the photo is incorrect. The photo should have several mugshots of the criminals who were arrested for illegal possession/use of guns, not the inanimate tools (the guns) they used.

    • Yup… New York State sets the bar pretty low for what constitues an “illegal handgun.”
      Assault weapon ban with 10-round limit that never sunset, plus an onerous process to procure a “pistol permit” which enables you merely to own (and take to the range) a handgun.
      Let’s say an uncle of yours dies and leaves you his old steamer trunk full of cool stuff. Under some old clothes and bits of bric-a-brack, you find an old 1911. You’re now guilty of “illegal weapon possession” and you could easily get arrested just by trying to “do the right thing” and turn it into the local police.
      Let’s say you’re shooting your Kimber and one lane over is a cute gal firing her Ruger 10/22. During a pause in the firing, she bats her eyes at you and asks, “can I try you out your pistol?” Saying “no” will probably zero out your chances of hooking up, but saying “yes” means both of you are now felons.
      Welcome to New York…

      • Wow. A couple more extreme steps and it is going to seem like NYC is following in the footsteps of how the Nazis demanded Jews turn in their guns.

        • It gets better… my permit to “own” which is also a CCW with restrictions, is invalid in any part of NYC (although valid for basically the whole state)
          That’s right… despite the background checks, four character references, detailed paperwork and fees, I’m still considered as much a crook as any gangbanger, pimp, or Plaxico if I “dare” to carry down there.
          NYC is also capricious about FOPA in the area airports. So when I fly to a place where I can shoot my guns, I simply leave ’em at home, because I don’t want to gamble my freedom with Port Authority police.

        • ** eyes rolling here ** definitely not the America I grew up in. I’ve read comments about gun owners being arrested, while switching planes to another destination, at O’Hare Airport outside Chicago with the guns safely stored in their luggage and everything declared at the original airport they started at.

        • That’s because O’Hare is not outside Chicago. It is part of the City.

          Federal law protects your right to transport firearms if you meet certain specified conditions. Under 18 USCS § 926A you may transport a firearm across state lines if you meet the following requirements:

          (1) You are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm
          (2) It is lawful to possess AND carry the firearm in the place of origin
          (3) It is lawful to possess AND carry the firearm in the place of destination
          (4) The firearm must be unloaded
          (5) The firearm and any ammunition are not readily accessible OR directly accessible from the passenger compartment (if not possible see below)

          The City of Chicago has a history of flaunting federal firearms laws. I will not travel through Chicago when I am bringing firearms on trip. I take the tri-state tollway around the city or go another way if I have the time.

  4. The streets, of that city with a funny name, were holding onto and using handguns without a permit? Perhaps we should now be PC and start referring to illegal guns as undocumented guns or maybe non-domesticated migrant guns or non-citizen pre-voting guns?

  5. How about photos of the criminals ( some may even be illegal aliens, making them illegal criminals) instead of the harmless weapons? That’s right, harmless weapons because unless a criminal is holding the gun, it’s not going to cause any trouble. And I fail to see any gun that could not legally be owned by a citizen. No fully automatic machine guns, no rocket launchers, no nukes.

  6. NYC has had the Sullivan Act since about 1932 (might be wrong) and it was and might still be the most prohibitive handgun law in the nation. My dad was a NYC cop for 21 years and used to speak of this. Then again, he used to tell me that when I was born there was a baby and a turd, the baby died.

  7. The worst thing I see is that they used a color printer at great taxpayer expense to print these pictures. And if they intend to destroy the guns, why go to this expense and time and trouble to display pictures of a meaningless nature.

  8. So is it the caption referencing “illegal hand guns”? Cause I don’t actually see anything wrong with the picture per se.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *