NY Gun Control Groups, Pols Double Down on SAFE Act

Or not (courtesy wivb.com)

How’s that “compromise” thing working out for New York gun owners? A press release (after the jump) reveals that Empire State anti-gunners are looking to “build” on the “historic” NY Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act’s (NY SAFE Act) “widely popular provisions.” Specifically, they want to enact MA-style Child Access Prevention (stored guns must be rendered inoperative), Unicorn-based cartridge ID creation (i.e. microstamping), One Gun A Month purchase limits, ten-day waiting period for firearms purchases, immediate firearms confiscation during domestic abuse calls (without due process), a ban on 50-Caliber “Military-Style Sniper Rifles,” requiring gun dealers to call the cops for failed NICS background checks, and background checks for gun dealer employees. Strangely, outright confiscation was not mentioned . . .

On the first anniversary of enactment of the historic NY Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (NY SAFE Act), Leah Gunn Barrett, Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV), Assemblymembers Michelle Schimel and Brian Kavanagh, Co-Chairs of State Legislators Against Illegal Guns-NY (SLAIGNY), and other legislators (below) released a comprehensive state legislative agenda for 2014. The legislation proposed for the new session that began on January 8th is designed to build upon the NY SAFE Act, which was sponsored by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Co-Leader Jeffrey Klein and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo, and to maintain New York’s role as a national leader on sensible gun safety laws . . .

The NY SAFE Act included crucial and widely popular provisions like background checks on all gun purchasers, a prohibition on sales of assault rifles with certain characteristics, a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other measures. As a result of these and other protections in state law, New York earned an ‘A-minus’ grade and ranked among the top 5 states in America for sensible gun laws, according to the Brady Campaign and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s 2013 State Scorecard. Notwithstanding this success, the legislation announced today would represent a significant step toward greater gun safety and raise New York’s rating even higher.

NYAGV Executive Director Leah Gunn Barrett said, “The first anniversary of the historic NY SAFE Act is an important moment to take stock of the great progress New York has made and the important work yet to be done. NYAGV and SLAIGNY will continue to work this session with the legislature and Governor Cuomo to keep our citizens, and particularly our children, safe from gun violence. We are confident that New York will continue to show other states and the federal government the way forward by passing common sense gun safety measures that will save lives.”

SLAIGNY Co-Chair Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh said, “While some seek to go backwards and undo the SAFE Act – and make it legal once again, for example, to sell guns to strangers with no questions asked, or to have guns with 30-round ammunition magazines – we’re taking our next steps forward to prevent gun violence without undue restrictions on responsible gun owners. With NYAGV, Assemblymember Schimel, and our colleagues and allies working together, I know we’ll succeed in building upon last year’s great achievements.”

SLAIGNY Co-Chair Assemblymember Michelle Schimel said, “As long as children and innocents are murdered with illegal guns, we cannot stop. Our moderate voices for sensible gun laws will not be silenced.”

NYAGV and SLAIGNY’s 2014 Gun Safety Priorities include:

- Child Access Prevention: Require the safe storage using a gun safe, trigger lock, or secure gun cabinet when a gun is not in the immediate possession or control of the owner, to prevent improper access and unintentional shooting, particularly by children.

- Microstamping: Require all semi-automatic handguns sold or delivered in New York to be equipped with a feature that imprints a unique code onto the shell casings every time a gun is fired, to assist in solving crimes and deter straw purchasers and gun trafficking.

- One-Gun-a-Month Limit and Waiting Period for Purchases: Limit buyers to one handgun a month to reduce straw purchases and trafficking, and require a ten-day waiting period before a purchaser takes possession of a firearm to give law enforcement officials sufficient time to perform a bakground check and help guard against impulsive acts of violence.

- Protection for Domestic Violence Victims: Empower emergency responders to remove firearms from the scene of a domestic violence dispute.

- Ban on 50-Caliber Military-Style Sniper Rifles: Ban the sale of certain .50 caliber rifles with very high power and long range, in the manner the SAFE Act banned the sales of assault weapons with certain features.

- Better Use of Background Checks. Require dealers to report to law enforcement when failed background checks reveal that people have attempted to buy guns they are prohibited from owning. Require gun dealer employees who handle weapons to pass background checks.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Legal Director Julie Leftwich said, “The Law Center’s experience tracking state gun regulations nationwide has demonstrated that strong gun laws can and do make a difference. The 2014 legislative agenda announced for New York includes a variety of common sense measures that will help reduce the firearms-related deaths and injuries that needlessly occur in the state each year. We applaud the efforts of Assemblymembers Schimel and Kavanagh, as well as those of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, to make the state’s already strong gun laws even stronger.”

Dan Gross, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said, “We look forward to working with our partners from New York to build upon the historic New York SAFE Act that strengthened the background check system and other gun reform laws in New York. New York has earned its ‘A-minus’ grade, ranking in the top five states with the strongest gun laws, but there is more to do to save lives. States like New York are sending a message to Congress that it’s time to pass policies, like extending background checks to all gun purchasers, that the American people overwhelmingly support.”

Senator Ruth Hassle-Thompson said, “The NY SAFE Act of 2013 was unparalleled in terms of its comprehensive measures, and it is imperative that New York State continues passing gun control and safety legislation following in the same path. As members of SLAIGNY, my colleagues and I will continue our vigilance against senseless gun violence in order to better protect the hardworking people of this state.

Assemblymember Amy Paulin said, “Today marks the first anniversary of one of the most important pieces of legislation I have had the honor to vote for, the NY SAFE Act. It is the perfect moment to applaud the work we’ve done and call for further common sense measures to protect our children, families and all New Yorkers from senseless gun violence.”

Assemblymember Carl Heastie said, “Gun violence has been a problem in our communities for far too long. Stronger gun laws will let our children and families live without the fear of random violence taking away everything they hold sacred.”

Senator Daniel Squadron said, “Last year, New York took a major step forward in passing the SAFE Act. But our work isn’t done. This legislative agenda will answer New Yorkers’ calls and fill in gaps with sensible laws – including my legislation to ban 50-caliber military-style sniper rifles and the vital crime-fighting tool of microstamping. Thank you to SLAIGNY and NYAGV, and I urge my colleagues to quickly bring these bills to a vote.”

“Last session we passed one of the strongest gun laws in New York State history, the NY SAFE Act. However, our work isn’t done. We must expand and build upon the NY SAFE Act by closing loopholes, ensuring that our children are safe, and eradicating the prevalence of illegal handguns on the streets of our urban communities. Microstamping, better usage of background checks, and child access prevention are just a few ways to ensure such safety. During the 2014 session I will continue to work with my colleagues to advocate for stronger gun legislation,” said Reverend and Assemblymember Karim Camara.

“While the passage of the NY SAFE Act was historic, it certainly wasn’t the end of our efforts to improve gun safety and end gun violence in New York. Our comprehensive agenda, if enacted into law, will save many lives. Some of these bills have already been passed many times by the Assembly – 2014 needs to be the year that the Senate, Assembly and the Governor all come together in support of these common sense bills,” said Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz.

Assemblymember Ellen Jaffee said, “In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre and the murders of first responders in Webster, the Legislature and Governor Cuomo took bold steps to pass the historic NY SAFE Act. The proposed legislation is a critical next step. As a longtime advocate of sensible gun laws, protecting the public’s health and safety remains a top priority. New York must continue to lead the nation in passing common sense gun laws. We owe it to our children, our families, our communities.”

Senator Michael Gianaris said, “Passing the SAFE Act established New York as a national leader in the fight against gun violence, but there is always more to be done to protect our children and our neighbors from the dangers of illegal guns. In order to continue leading the way on gun safety, we must pass common sense measures that would require stronger, more effective background checks and waiting periods between gun purchases to reduce straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking. I have fought for these sensible gun safety laws for years, and I will continue to work hand-in-hand with SLAIGNY and NYAGV to make our streets as safe as they can be.”

“While the SAFE Act was an enormous victory in the effort to protect New Yorkers from gun violence, and I am proud to have sponsored five of the bills at the heart of that milestone legislation, there is still a great deal more that absolutely needs to get done,” said Senator Jose Peralta. “Thank you to Assemblymembers Schimel and Kavanagh and New Yorkers Against Gun Violence for your tireless work in keeping this critically important issue in the public eye.”

“For too long, the gun lobby has protected gun owners from being liable for unintentional gun-related deaths, including negligent shootings of children,” said Wendy Szymanski, chapter leader of Greater NYC Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. “The NY chapters of Moms Demand Action are proud and eager to work alongside NYAGV and SLAIGNY to push for legislation that will change our culture and protect our children.”

[h/t One If by Land1776]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

179 Responses to NY Gun Control Groups, Pols Double Down on SAFE Act

  1. avatarPhoenixNFA says:

    “Gunn Barrett.”

    That’s like having someone from PETA with the name “steaks slaughterhouse”

  2. avatarTom in Wisconsin says:

    We need to do this for the children.

  3. avatarDrewR55 says:

    Gee, but I though Dick Metcalf said we could find common ground and compromise. That if we’d just give up a few feet the Grabbers wouldn’t take a mile.

    What total non-sense. No compromise!

    • avatarPascal says:

      Someone should send an email to Dick Metcalf showing him how his type of compromise works. This is why there can never be a compromise. They other side does not want it so neither should we.

      • avatarint19h says:

        But it’s okay – you can still have your daddy’s bolt action to hunt with, and that’s the only thing any sane gun owner would want a gun for, right?

    • “While researching existing laws and crime statistics in all 50 states I came to an inescapable conclusion: Gun control had essentially zero effect on reducing crime — for the simple reason that criminals by definition didn’t obey those laws. Mostly, gun control laws created a new class of criminals: ordinary citizens who ran afoul of them. I saw it not as a political statement, just a fact” – Dick MetCalf

      • avatarJacob says:

        So he saw what we all are saying, that gun control laws don’t stop criminals in any way, yet still thinks we need them? Its like he thinks that we all have a right to have our rights regulated, not because they actually help us, but because we just need regulations for some reason.

        And he wonders why we all went apeshit on his ass…

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      These people keep saying “compromise.” What, that they already possessed and had a right to, have the gun grabbers given up in exchange for this law? We know what the citizens of New York have given up that they previously held and had a right to, but what exactly is the gun grabbers’ skin in the game?

      Absent a valid answer to that question, the gun grabbers’ stance is simply “Gimme more! Gimme more!”

    • avatarBlueBronco says:

      Their idea of compromise is to get the left testicle this month, after all you have 2. The will come for the right testicle next month. Then they will be back for the tallywhacker later. After all, without testicles you don’t really need it.

      • avatarLarryinTX says:

        No! No! They will NEVER come for the right testicle, they are firm believers in the second Amendment! Trust me, I am CERTAIN that your right testicle is safe!

  4. avatarPedro Of NYC says:

    Ahh Ahh Ahh Not So fast! QuHomo (Gov of NY) Is Sh#tting on himself because he’s up for re-election. His numbers tanked & are tanking because of the Safe Act & Scretney just said the 7 round limit is arbitrary. Lets see what happens when the Safe Act reaches SCOTUS. Also we have Heller 2 plus Drake v Filko or Drake v Jerejian. Like all libs they want to do the victory dance on the 20 yrd line.

    • avatarDJ says:

      Let’s just hope Roberts isn’t off his meds again when it gets to SCOTUS.

      • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

        Roberts could not have anihilated his credibility any more with that Obamacare vote, than if he had hemmed his robe into a micromini, kicked up his feet up on the desk, and delivered the opinion while going commando.

        The prospect that the NSA already had such or similar footage for use as blackmail material is the only explanation I can come up with for his vote. Either that, or he was sick the day they taught law at Law School.

        • avatarAdub says:

          He switched his vote because he adopted his kids in a manner that would make Bill Clinton proud.

    • avatarJacob says:

      “Hey guys, if we just let them walk to the 20 yard line, they won’t push for the 15. No one is trying to score a touchdown, that’s a conspiracy theory. Why don’t we just use ‘Common Sense’ and give them a few more yards, that’s all they want” -Dick Metcalf on football (paraphrased)

    • avatarPavePusher says:

      You’d find more allies if you dropped the sexual bigotry.

      • avatarLarryinTX says:

        Are we just so sensitive? Get a life, figure what is really important. I am with your goals, but this is not about them.

    • avatarOne If By Land says:

      I wouldn’t characterize it as “Cuomo sh#tting in his pants”. His numbers tanked in “upstate” New York, which means he’s now holding at 53% approval statewide, but 48% of NY’s population resides in NYC and surrounding metro areas (where he has a healthy 70% approval)….when you factor in that NYers have historically elected their Governors to at a least two terms, and there’s no serious GOP challenger…it’s just a matter of whether Cuomo wins re-election by 55% or the 70% he would have gotten before NY SAFE was passed. Either way, he still gets a second term (baring any Spitzer-like scandal)…..he’s essentially a shoo-in

  5. avatarST says:

    The Balkanization of America continues .

    Inside of five years, there will be two Americas .One which respects the Constitution and the principles of true Federalism , and another composed of Morlocks, wandering in the darkness and determined to force the rest of us back to the days of facist despotism.

    • avatarKorvis says:

      To build on that analogy, I’d say the other side will be composed of simpletons ruled by Morlocks and imagining themselves to live in a blissful utopia where nothing bad ever happens (like being eaten by your rulers). That’s actually pretty apt. H.G. Wells FTW!

  6. avatarSteve in MD says:

    Why do they have an obsession with banning extremely expensive, large caliber rifles?

    Can anyone provide data on the number of crimes committed with a .50 cal rifle?

    • avatarRoll says:

      Probably not and if there was data the antigunners would deem the numbers irrelevant or pull a Piers Morgan and change the subject. Remember: the gun ban crowd does not believe in education, logic, reasoning, fact, statistics, government studies, independant studies, and will most likely ignore everything we say.

      They have an agenda and do not care for the Constitution, self defense, or self preservation.

    • avatarKCK says:

      Because they know that their circle of bodyguard protection can’t extend out to 1,000 yards

      • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

        Yes. They know perfectly well that banning “assault weapons” and .50 cal rifles won’t make any difference in crime. The useful idiots, who genuinely believe that it will do some good to disarm law-abiding citizens, see these as useful steps, to get people used to seeing particular kinds of guns banned ["Ban the sale of certain .50 caliber rifles..., in the manner the SAFE Act banned the sales of assault weapons with certain features." see, we aren't doing anything we haven't already done.]. The statists who wish to protect themselves from those they intend to rule also see it as a useful increment toward complete disarmament, but with the bonus of depriving their intended victims of the most effective defensive weapons first.

      • Don’t need any thing more than a .243 to get to 1k…

        • avatarJacob says:

          That will be their next step, banning “High Powered Sniper-style Weapons” like most deer rifles in the US.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          Yup. They’re working on it right now, I’m sure. What’s new with MDAAIG these days?

    • They’re big, scary, and misunderstood by people who have no knowledge about firearms. Therefore, they must be banned.

    • avatarToasty says:

      Because that’s what they want next z they turned your semi auto rifle into an “assault rifle” so they can ban it, now it’s time to turn hunting rifles into “sniper rifles”. First 50 cal then .450 then .416 then .338 and then as far down as they can go… It’s not about anything but banning guns.

      • avatarA samurai says:

        You are completely right. After all isn’t “hunting” just “sniping” targets that happen to be animals.

    • avatarDrew says:

      The bmg is banned in Cali where it has never once been used in a crime. It was replaced by another fifty cal reshaped to be exempt but essentially identical performance….. That has also never been used to commit a crime. AR15s are probably the least popular guns among criminals while revolvers and small capacity semis are easily the most popular. After all when you get to chose the time place and victim, range capacity and even caliber become non issues.

      • avatarNYC2AZ says:

        But, but, but… They saw it in a movie! It must have happened… or a pre-cog said it could happen… or they just want their Venti, two-pump, soy, mocha latte at their Burbank Starbucks without being targeted by a sniper hiding behind the Hollywood sign!

      • avatardrew says:

        @Drew,

        Either you or me is going to need to change their screen name here. Every article I want to comment on, it seems you beat me to the punch.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        The way I remember it, the Barrett .50 was not “reshaped” (that’s what they did with ARs to make them compliant), but instead Barrett started producing perfectly legal .416s. And stopped selling to or servicing rifles sold to California law enforcement agencies.

        Also, I have read that there actually have been two crimes committed with a .50 BMG nationwide–and one of the offenders was a cop.

      • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

        Agreed. That’s why the Mossad often prefers simple .22lr pocket pistols when they need to eliminate someone.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Seriously. Has anyone within the United States ever been killed with a 50 BMG that was not wielded by some arm of law enforcement?

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        I don’t think anyone in the US has been destroyed by a BMG. A hit’s gory enough that it would be all over the MSM.

    • avatarSc says:

      Read this. Seriously. You’ll enjoy all the crimes committed with a 50 cal that the VPC thinks are cause for it to be banned. http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm

      • avatarExcedrine says:

        Even though 99% of those so-called “incidents” weren’t even crimes at all, but weapons that just so happened to be found during a search.

        Most of the other 1% were either egregiously and purposefully misreported and were really much smaller-caliber weapons, or .50ca-liber muzzleloaders.

    • avatarint19h says:

      It goes under the “but terrorism!” umbrella. I suspect that some legislator has read the Wikipedia page on the thing, and found out what “anti-materiel” actually means. Now they have this hypothetical scenario of some guy using it to bring down Boeings and police helicopters with impunity, which they use to justify the restrictions.

  7. avatarcraig says:

    The 50 cal, a 10k gun that no criminal has ever used in the history of criminals

  8. avatarDon says:

    Their protest sign is a parody-worthy example of a circular argument? Good god these people are oblivious.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      I would say the “Sensible Gun Laws Make Sense” sign is very true. And the only gun laws that make any sense are the ones that say, outlaw murder, armed robbery, rape, etc. regardless of the weapon used. Guns don’t really need any special attention, now that just makes sense!

  9. avatarTroutslayer says:

    Maybe some people just don’t want to be free.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      I fear this is true, that many people are perfectly willing to be treated like children their whole lives, as long as they have a few comforts and don’t have to suffer the consequences of their own actions or inaction.

      • avatarNYC2AZ says:

        I would change that from “perfectly willing” to “wanting”. Most younger Progs I know don’t want to grow up. They complain about being tied down by their kids and that they just want to have some fun. My cousin is like this, 3 kids, 3 different fathers, welfare, food stamps, a slew of other gov’t programs “for the children” and she hasn’t ever taken responsibility or stopped complaining about how she can’t have the “fun” she wants to have anymore. I told her once that it seemed like she had plenty of “fun” (while motioning to her kids) and she hasn’t talked to me since. Fine by me.

      • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

        These effete brats, like the “Occupy” crowd, just want to let the good times roll, without ever acknowledging that it takes hard work to generate prosperity and perpetuate liberty. They just want to live the carefree, cozy, comfy college campus lifestyle, without ever having to face the fact that any of it will ever come to an end, or come with a price.

      • avatarMothaLova says:

        What you guys said.

        And, of course, there are a whole lot of lawyers, judges, professors, bureaucrats, and politicians who are very happy to have the power and money that comes with the ever-expanding government necessary to prop up all these adult children.

  10. avatarT-DOG says:

    “While the passage of the NY SAFE Act was historic, it certainly wasn’t the end of our efforts to improve gun safety and end gun violence in New York.”

    Does this sound like they want to compromise to you?

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      It’s never been about compromise.

      These initiatives by the antis and the Democrats in NYS are nothing new; they are taken right out of the CA playbook and almost to the word reflect legislation that has already been effect in this state for some time.

      Stand up and fight it is the only option. Support your pro 2A and gun sports state organizations including 2AF with $$$ donations and opposition contacts to representatives. There is no other option! The people who spout the ‘move away’ mantra lack foresight; there is no safe place – anywhere (well, maybe Wyoming).

      This country has a mobile population; people move for many reasons – work, retirement, climate, family, fear of crime, health, whatever. The anti-gunners amongst them are like a cancer and will infest wherever they go. Colorado is a perfect example. This malignancy is, sooner or later coming to a city and suburb near you. State legislatures are based on population and since cities and ‘burbs are densely packed, they will take over the political landscape, just like has happened in CA and NY.

      Fight New York, fight. Don’t let the malicious antis’ just walk all over you.

  11. avatarJesse says:

    Hey NY, how about keeping your criminals locked up? The ones on the street, & the ones in elected office.
    Restore the people’s rights: No more “Free Speech Zones”, “Checkpoints”,
    Restore the citizen’s rights to protect themselves.

    • avatarLarryinTX says:

      Hey, do we need a new sentencing guideline? Like, if you’re a burglar, you will stay in prison until burglary comprises fewer than x% of criminal prosecutions.

  12. avatarJaxD says:

    This reads like a deleted scene from Brazil.

  13. avatarShire-man says:

    So here’s where the NY pro-gun groups will make their “wins” and their “stand” and get thrown a hollow bone by maybe keeping the stupid .50 caliber ban from passing. That way both sides can keep their nonsense going. The anti’s can bitch and moan about the NRA and the extremists and the pro’s can thump their chests and say “they heard us!” and the state will still be one of the worst tyrannies in the nation for decades to come.

    There comes a point where you are so marginalized the system not only no longer works for you but no longer acknowledges your existence. Take GOAL in MA for example. Endless noise making, letter writing and complaining but since the entire state political structure is opposed to them they are essentially ignored. Have been for a very long time now.

    When the system stops recognizing you even exist it’s time to either change the system or remove yourselves from it.

    “Please sir, would you lift your boot from my neck?” doesn’t work in America in the 21st century.

    I wish them the best of luck anyway. Like the spider climbing out of the toilet bowl. You have to root for him a little right before you flush.

    • avatarJR says:

      Or help him out. Sometimes, the effort is worth getting one’s hands a little dirty.

    • avatarNYC2AZ says:

      The thing is, NYS is hurting. They have serious economic problems on their table and they know it. They have this new “start a tax free business” program to try and lure companies and small businesses to NYS. Will it work? Beats me, but if it doesn’t and you didn’t help fight gun control regulations in NY, eventually you will fight those regulations in your state.

      • avatarLarryinTX says:

        Yeah, and the first time I saw that ad for “Tax free this or that for new investors”, all I could think of was if it’s a good idea, why not for ALL of NY?

  14. avatarmdc says:

    Oh don’t worry. Elected officials win or lose will always do well after voted out. They could care less. This State is in no way shape or form going to reverse. Stick a fork in it.

  15. avatarNLU78grad says:

    Microstamping would be a moot point if we’d develop durable caseless ammo.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      I wonder if microstamping would fail to make useable impressions on polymer casings?

      Even if microstamping fails to make useable impression on polymer casings, the State would probably mandate miniature inkjet printers on the firing pin to print a unique code on even a soft casing. Never mind the fact that it will never be possible to shrink an inkjet printer to fit on a firing pin.

      • avatarBraenen says:

        I believe that one of the technologies uses a firing pin stamp to impring a unique number on the primer when the weapon is fired.

        Ok… anyone want to guess what might be wrong with that techology?

        • avatarMark N. says:

          To be specific, California’s microstamping law requires that the unique identifier be stamped in two places on a cartridge, one being on the primer via a firing pin micro-engraving, and the other on the case itself, I think via an imprint taken from the bolt facing. Since polymer cases have metal at the base, microstamping–assuming the tech actually worked–would stamp the cartridge. The only cartridge that could not be imprinted would be caseless ammo.

          And the tech does exist. The reason for the imposition of the requirement on California semi-authos is that the patent protecting the process has expired, and thus, according to the AG, is “generally available” (notwithstanding the fact that there is not a single manufacturing facility that employs the process).

        • avatarBlueBronco says:

          Reloading?

        • Brass catchers?

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          “guess what might be wrong”
          Do you mean, other than the fact that its only possible use is to advance the gun control agenda?
          How about, it’d be astronomically expensive and accomplish nothing? Or shouldn’t even be in place?

    • avatarST says:

      Technically ,it’s already a moot point because the tech doesn’t exist in a mass production format.

      Which is why New York State wants to pass it.They’re looking at California’s “Blockade the Gun Stores via Microstamping ” stunt with envious eyes. If every firearm-including long arms-requires microstamping tech to be sold, shazam. They just banned guns in New York State.

    • avatarstitch1870 says:

      Or just order a replacement firing pin and then swap it after you’ve committed the crime. Because………ya know….criminals are armorers and know how to do that stuff.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        You would make a “great” criminal. Since the gun, and its microstamp, would be registered to you, a smart crook would want to replace the firing pin committing the crime. Duh. But then, there is still the second stamp on the bolt head to contend with–and obviously defacing the bolt head would be/is a felony. So you are still back to square one. Instead, get a stolen firearm, deface the serial numbers, or gather up someone else’s brass at the range and leave it at the crime scene. Or be real simple–use a revolver.

  16. avatarDisThunder says:

    Is it just me, or do you guys find yourself at a loss for curse words when it comes to these people? I mean, we could always just go historical and tell them “Nuts!” to their compromises, but I’m more inclined to make mean comments about their nuts and how they should remove them from certain openings on themselves and of others.
    But then again, I don’t know that trash talking is the way to go. I really just want to slam their fingers in a car door. Several times.

  17. avatarErrantVenture11 says:

    The verbiage of their release sounds like an example ripped straight from one of Anonymous Conservative’s hypothetical debates. Emotion and out-grouping, absolutely no data and the logic falls flat on its face. But the low-information masses eat this crap for breakfast and come back for lunch, so it becomes law.

  18. avatarRoll says:

    My opinion? Vote with your feet if you want to live in a free country vs. a slave state. When only the criminals(with guns) and delusional(w/o guns) are left and the bodies are stacking up, we can say “Told ya so” and then “FOAD”.

    FU Antigun crowd: you voted for it, you’ve earned it. Stay your asses in your state and stay the hell out of mine.

    • avatarJR says:

      There’s the problem. They, the people and / or their IDEAS, don’t just stay in their own state. We’ve seen it in Colorado and I’m seeing it here in my home SE State.

      There’s the problem, too, that when these things get to federal court in NY, any decision there can have an impact elsewhere (everywhere) in the country. We applauded the Federal District Court decision in Idaho the other day for slapping the Corps of Engineers and little bit…same idea. Federal District decisions have a tendency to become ‘national’ when other districts use them as precedent.

      Further, there are social peer pressures, as well. For some reason, and I certainly don’t understand this myself, a LOT of otherwise reasonable people seem to look to large urban centers that are far away as somehow…desirable and sophisticated. It’s true in education, for example, where whatever textbooks California uses tends to be adopted nationwide.

      There’s a lot of “well, that’s how they do it in X” where X is CA or NY. A lot of say, “Yeah, who cares?” But, there are a lot of folks that don’t understand that response any better than I understand the original statement.

      Like it or not, by shear force of population weight, NY and CA have a LOT of national influence, and that is a cycle that needs to be broken as hard to do as it will be.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        [Off topic, but just so you know, the decision against the Corps in Idaho applies nationwide and to all property managed by the Corps. This is because the party against whom the injunction operates is a national entity, and the language of the order is broad. On the other hand, it is just a preliminary injunction, and things could change after trial. Or on appeal.]

        • avatarJR says:

          Point taken. Maybe that was not the best example of what I was trying to say.

          Federal district decisions do tend to propagate, so it is important for all of us to watch was happens in NY with these cases. We can’t just ignore them because that’s NY and we live in another state.

      • avatarRoll says:

        They’ve made their own little oppresive state, why cant they just be happy with that and leave us alone? Damn them.

        • avatarJR says:

          I agree with you in principle.

          But, they don’t agree. They (those that support stuff like this) think their rules SHOULD apply to everyone, even non-New Yorkers. And, they will take actions to spread their cancerous ideas.

          Better to not ignore that trait.

  19. avataruncommon_sense says:

    So much fail. It would almost take an entire book to refute all that nonsense.

    Civilian disarmament proponents keep telling us that “tough gun control laws” (whatever that means) will eliminate violence. And yet countries like Mexico and South Africa, who have the “tough gun control laws” that civilian disarmament proponents dream about, are horrifically violent nations. Those two nations experience huge numbers of assaults, beatings, rapes, kidnappings, murders, and robberies … and the attackers use firearms quite often.

    NO THANK YOU. I am not giving up my inalienable right to own and possess any personal property of my choosing so that some people can feel better or claim that they are doing something.

    • avatarST says:

      This isn’t about crime.

      This is about what happens when a group of voters decide that civil rights are too scary, and elect a government with the perverse mandate to repeal the Bill of Rights.

      If there were no Federal 2nd Amendment, New York State would have long since outright banned anything above a spring cocked BB pistol.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        You are right. It is all about NYC soccer moms who freak when they open the trunk of a rental car and find a BIG SCARY RIFLE that frightens them so much they want to vomit. The same soccer mooms who succeeded in having open (unloaded) carry outlawed in California because–because MAN WITH GUN OMG OMG CALL 911!!! They don’t care if was totally legal, or that the guns were in fact unloaded–THOSE GUNS ARE SCARY AND MUST BE BANNED. These folks have never handled a gun, much less fired one, and their fears are real and immediate. And they vote Democratic Party.

    • avatarDrew says:

      Heard some more news from the south today. The Mexican Feds have killed one or two towns people who refused to give up their arms. The arms they used to fend off the cartels the Feds did nothing about. At this point would you rather face the Feds armed or retaliation from the cartels unarmed ?

      • avatarMark N. says:

        The people killed–numbers unconfirmed, but possibly as many as four–were unarmed protesters. And after the shootings, the Army withdrew from the towns, which of course was a good thing. It appears that the Army showed up because of “gun violence’ between the town folk and the local gang (sorry, don’t recall which one). The Army stupidly tried to disarm the wrong side. Makes you wonder. ["You can't shoot those bad guys, that's our job. Thank you for your guns, we'll be leaving now."]

    • avatarLarryinTX says:

      Sometimes (usually) “tough gun control laws” are actually referred to as “common sense”…

  20. avatarMediocrates says:

    Woot Woot! Disarm the Yankees! Send your violent felons on free vacation to New York.

  21. avatarErrantVenture11 says:

    I can agree with microstamping on a national level, but it makes no sense on the state level because no gun company is going to capitalize the technology to appease one or two states. Just look at Ruger, basically pulling out of California due to their handgun list.

    Not to mention you can mar the microstamping implement just as well as you can a serial number.

    • avatarSteve in MD says:

      One word: Revolver.

      • avatarracenutz says:

        Not to mention the millions of guns that will be on the market for decades that don’t have this worthless technology.

      • avatarErrantVenture11 says:

        We put men on the moon (or at least a very convincing studio recreation). I think we could manage micro-stamping on revolvers.

        As a former MD resident, I feel sorry for your situation. Last year I took a haunted tour of Annapolis and the only time I felt the presence of evil was when we walked around the grounds of the Governor’s mansion.

        Did they ever change the Annapolis government structure to nullify the new(ish) Republican mayor who won the election by surprise? You know, city manager or whatever they wanted to do…

        • avatarAnon in CT says:

          Um, it’s not that you can’t make the revolver do the stamping, it’s that with a revolver, the casing isn’t automatically ejected for the convenience of the CSI folks.

          Of course there’s always brass catchers, which would suddenly become very popular if stamping were ever to actually become effective.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          You’re missing the point. The problem isn’t whether a revolver could microstamp. That’s as easy or hard as any other gun. The problem is revolvers don’t eject brass, so there’s nothing for police to find and match. A thug could kill someone with a revolver, and dispose of the brass at his convenience miles away and days later.

          Also if you can strip a gun down to the point where you can get at the firing pin, you can destroy the microstamp with a file. Sure, that would be against the law, but if you’re planning on committing murder, what’s one more felony?

        • avatarSarcasm says:

          I think you might mis-understand what microstamping does – it transfers an identifying marking to the spent cartridge. In a revolver, spent cartridges stay in the gun – that’s kind of one of the defining characteristics of a revolver or any other gun that’s not a semi-automatic.

          Microstamping measures are thus quite easily defeated, even without the simple step of altering your microstamping-enabled gun, by 1) using a revolver; 2) picking up your “brass” when you’re done; or 3) attaching a brass catcher to your firearm.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Or, the other favorite, littering the crime scene with someone else’s spent brass.

        • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

          Always analyze the incentives, because those who are taking the actions sure will.

          What happens if the moon landing fails? National embarrassment. Personal disgrace and professional ruin for those involved. Billions in future contracts lost for those who built the craft. Oh yeah, that whole death thing for the astronauts.

          What happens if microstamping is required, but doesn’t work? Guns are made more expensive and, therefore, less obtainable for law abiding citizens, who themselves are rendered more vulnerable. Guns are made more complicated and, therefore, less reliable for law abiding citizens, who themselves are rendered more vulnerable. Again. Still.

          Beyond that, criminals continue to commit crimes, gun grabbers continue to cite the continued crime as justification to continue infringing in law abiding citizens’ God-given right to keep and bear arms.

          But hey, suppose microstamping works, then what happens? All of the same as above because criminals will just work around it.

        • avatarLarryinTX says:

          As in, no one can be that stupid. Microstamping would introduce huge costs without any demonstrable benefits. Thus, it is pretty clear that the huge costs are, in fact, the goal in the first place! How ’bout you tell us what you really mean…

          You tricky devil, how did we ever deduce that you were full of s**t, sly as you were?

          Um, superstitious bazonga does not work with all of us, you sound like an idiot!

      • avatarNYC2AZ says:

        And now we know how they’ll try and ban revolvers.

        • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

          Bingo! They asked for an inch, took a mile and now are looking forward to a 10k….

          Compromise? How about they compromise for a change and admit that their policies are truly one of the causitive factors for the evil acts that they say they’re trying to stop?

    • avatarJosh in TX says:

      I think this is one of those “not one more inch” things. Microstamping (james bond smart guns, et. al.) is stupid, easily defeated, and introduces many more problems than solutions. These people really really need to turn off the TV. Momma always said that stuff will rot your brain. Never knew how right she was till I started listening to these pols arguments

    • I think you might want to think it through. Who commits crimes? Criminals. Do criminals legally purchase firearms? No. So, that microstamped shell casing police find at a crime scene can be traced back to a 70 year-old who had his gun stolen 3 months prior. How does this help the investigation? Further, wait until criminals figure out how to retrieve microstamped shell casings from a gun range and plant them at crime scenes. Shoot someone with a .22 revolver and plant .22 microstamped casings at the scene. It’ll only benefit the defense if the shooter’s ever caught. “Couldn’t have been my client since he’s never owned a gun [he since disposed of the murder weapon in a lake] and the microstamp matches to someone else.” Enough for “reasonable doubt”?

    • avatarRockOnHellChild says:

      I can’t agree with it on any level, national, state, or local.

    • avatarBlueBronco says:

      It only makes since to people with the ultimate agenda of confiscation and tyranny. Diane Feinstein has said that is her ultimate goal.

  22. avatarRockOnHellChild says:

    Again with the micro-stamping…. Some manufacturers can’t even manage to get guns that run ammo worth a damn, let alone stamp the casing.

  23. Its always a “good first step.” Peoples breaking points are a lot tougher than I expected.

  24. avatarBernard says:

    1. Wouldn’t $10,000 worth of snub nosed revolvers do more harm than ONE $10,000 .50 BMG rifle?
    2. Isn’t it hard shooting a moving target (human or plane) from more than a mile away?
    3. From what I’ve read, in WWII it took around 11k rounds of .50 BMG to take out ONE plane.

    • avatarErrantVenture11 says:

      The way I see the “gun violence” problem, and to channel Jay-Z:

      [We] got [12,000] problems and a [.50 BMG] ain’t one.

  25. avatartdiinva says:

    If the purpose of the Safe Act is to make NY safer where is the data that shows crime declining at a faster rate than the trend line? Reminds me of all the articles in Soviet era Pravda that proclaimed that some aspect of life had reached “The Yawning Heights Of Socialism. “

  26. avatarMike says:

    Those goals sound a lot like laws currently in California. What is that saying again? Something about California leading the way in legislation.

    • avatarRick says:

      That’s not gun control; this is gun control!”

      Sort of a legislative version of “Hold my beer and watch this!”

  27. avatarHal says:

    “NYAGV Executive Director Leah Gunn Barrett said, “The first anniversary of the historic NY SAFE Act is an important moment to take stock of the great progress New York has made and the important work yet to be done.”

    If you want a clearer indicator of what “compromise,” “common sense solutions” and “progress” really mean, I’m not sure where to find one.

    The anti RKBA movement will not stop until the right has been either repealed or regulated out of existence. Period. They must be stopped. No compromise, no niceties, no politeness, no common ground, no “discussion,” “dialogue” or “common sense solutions (by their definition, of course).”

    No quarter, no mercy, no prisoners.

  28. avatarBuzzlefutt says:

    It’s scary how they keep saying, “sensible,” “common sense,” and, “moderate voices,” all while they are being emotional, dogmatic, and extremist.
    In the end they produce something dangerous and un-Constitutional and brag about how they plan to continue the trend.

    • avatarNYC2AZ says:

      If they keep saying it enough (and their media lap dogs never challenge their words), then everyone who opposes their view is “an extremist” and therefore irrelevant. Just look at how the Progs are trying to paint Obama as “too Conservative”. If they can convince people that they hold the middle ground, they can negate the continual rise of true centrists and independents (especially the ones who have shown a liking to all civil rights).

  29. avatarShawn says:

    Because how many people have been murdered in the United States with .50 cal sniper rifles???????

  30. avatartommyr says:

    Armed citizens scare the hell out of politicians. Too bad, politicians were the one’s that made it a right for us TO bear arms. Suck it Cuomo. FUAC.

  31. avatarBig Daddy says:

    I’ve had all I can stand, I can’t stand no more. I’m starting a serious job search to get out of NY and into Texas. anybody on here work with a job recruiter? I can do anything from walmart greeter to manufacturing project manager. I’ll take a pay cut to get out of NY.

    First I waited 11 months for a pistol permit that is borderline pointless because I can only carry at home, or “hiking, camping, hunting, target shooting” not allowed to transport it or carry where I really need it to protect myself.

    then I had to desecrate my ARs by removing muzzle breaks, ditching my standard capacity magazines for diminished capacity magazines, and put on a goofy “Featureless” stock all so I don’t have to register it. but then what was the point of that? i’m already on “the list” because my handguns are registered and now i will be on “the list” every time I buy ammo…

    and how long before come genius decides to match up the ammo purchase list with the gun registration and next thing you know there is a swat team at your door with a no-knock warrant on a suspected felony because you bought ammo in a caliber that does not match any of the guns you registered on “the list”.

    the “new” New York sucks !

    • avatartdiinva says:

      Why do people think Texas is firearms nirvana? Other than its permissive sel defense laws it is in the middle of the pack. My hierarchy goes Constitutional carry, full open carry, full open carry with a permit, partial open carry (Texas), no open carry.

      • avatarthe ruester says:

        Part of it is there are just a whole hell of a lot of guns in Texas. Anywhere ownership is through the roof like that will be seen as gun friendly, regardless of the details of the laws.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          There are a whole hell of lot of guns Virginia and nobody ever cites Virginia as place to be despite it being one the top 10 firearms friendly states.

        • avatarthe ruester says:

          Virginians don’t hoot and holler and romp and stomp about how gun friendly they are.
          That would be another part of it, I guess.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          tdiinva is right. Texas talks a good game, but in reality, there are other places that are better. It would be worth the effort to investigate before you made a big change like moving across the country.

        • avatarDave357 says:

          A person from a restrictive State can justifiably consider Texas gun-friendly. Besides carrying, there are purchasing and ownership laws. To my knowledge, Texas has no State purchase permits for any type of gun, no registration, no waiting periods, no restrictions on the types of firearms or accessories owned, etc. If you are from NY, NJ, MA, CA, etc., this is what heaven looks like.

          Even with carrying, Texas is “shall issue”. Those of us from truly free States will still not like the lack of open carry, but really, Texas is still pretty gun-friendly overall. Not the best, as some imagine based on Texas being the favorite butt of progressive jokes, but not bad at all. Now, if only their 30.06 notices didn’t have the force of law, but then, no such luck even in AZ.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          There is always Arizona. Shall issue CCWs if you want one, but you don’t need it as long as you are in state, no restrictions on firearms or waiting periods, open carry, and castle doctrine. And without the winter cold of Montana or Wyoming. Unless you want to go up to Flagstaff for skiing.

      • avatarBigDaddy says:

        True, Texas is no Gun heaven, states like WY and VT are. But when I factor in the 4 things most important to me: General Economic Environment, Weather, State tax burden (NY is highest in the nation) and respect for civil liberties, Texas comes to the top of my list.

    • avatarLarryinTX says:

      I’m an old fart, can’t get you hired, but call on me to help you understand the sea change you just went through regarding firearms.

      lpalm@austin.rr.com

    • avatarLarryinTX says:

      See someone argue with this; The Silencer Shop is in Austin. Not Kansas City, for example.

  32. avatarDanRRZ says:

    Damage control after the 7 round limit was struck down as arbitrary and capricious and the well written “muzzle break” provision was thrown out as well.

    I don’t want to get caught up and celebrate this yet, since pending appeals will take time. If I were dumb enough to believe the courts would rule based on well established precedent I’d be confident the whole law will be struck down.

    • avatarNYC2AZ says:

      That’s why they’re doing this though. They know it will take years to strike down (parts/all?) the SAFE Act. So, lets keep passing more laws that will take more time to repeal. Some of them will stick, some of them won’t. So they’ll just reword the ones that didn’t hold up and pass them again to keep the cycle going.

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        Yup. They’re just throwing crap at the wall to see what will stick. And the poor residents will suffer, as usual.

  33. avatar505markf says:

    I’ve got to think that wherever they are, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are laughing their assess off right now. I really feel for the gun owners in NY. Stay strong, folks. Do what you can and hopefully the rest of us will support your fight by sending money, at a minimum. It may not be much, but it helps.

  34. avatarSAS 2008 says:

    Dan Gross wants to build on the SAFE act. This is my shocked face. He and others at the core of pushing gun control are recidivists with no chance of rehabilitation.  If you don’t understand this and their incrementalist approach you aren’t paying attention.

  35. avatarRockOnHellChild says:

    Safe Act II, Safe Harder!

  36. avatarDave357 says:

    According to an article in Ithaca Journal linked to on the nraila.org website,

    “The Senate, which is controlled in part by Republicans, is unlikely to support any new gun laws in an election year. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a leading gun-control advocate, had for years pushed the state Legislature to support microstamping, but the measure never got through the Senate.”

    Let’s hope they are right, but hope and NY don’t go together very often.

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/1/gun-control-groups-push-for-more-laws-in-ny.aspx

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      We have an election year coming up here in the Formerly Free State as well, and the loons in Annapolis haven’t let up on any of their pet projects. THAT’s the danger of a single-party state.

  37. avatarYoel Grauberg says:

    Does this mean NY is now safe from crime?

    • avatarBDub says:

      Not yet, but just a few more laws should do the trick.

      • avatarBigDaddy says:

        Last week in Syracuse NY, some thugs got into a gang banger shoot out and one of them died in the hospital. 10 gun shot wounds. don’t you know on the local talk radio show someone calls in and says he’d still be alive if the 7 round limit had not just be struck down. ironic. how about he ‘s still be alive if he wasn’t gang banging?

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      Just safer for criminals.

  38. avatardave says:

    Stronger gun laws will let our children and families live without the fear of random violence taking away everything they hold sacred.”

    And taking away all the things WE hold sacred…. ie rights, liberty, self defense, etc etc etc. That somehow balances the equation?

  39. avatarFoRealz? says:

    It would be better to make out of wedlock single motherhood illegal and eliminate no fault divorce, therefore nipping in the bud the vast majority of family environments where the emotionally volatile, mentally disturbed, drop outs, drug addicts and thug culture apprentices are generated.

    That would be more effective than any alleged gun “control” legislation at preventing future violence, not to mention going a long way to win the ‘war’ on poverty.

    We don’t need more gun control. We need Dads and a little social shame directed at those who carelessly misuse their reproductive parts.

    Remember how in the 1950s everything was all messed up when virtually everyone was married before having kids and dads were in charge and divorce was rare? Me either.

    I can probably quote the libtard response “Hey man, you can’t tell people what to do or how to live.”

    Oh’really? But, but…aren’t you guys trying to..nah…they wouldn’t be hypocritical like that.

  40. avatarDuke of Sharon says:

    Compromise. We did that once.

    The existence of the Federal Government, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, are all the results of compromise. We had a meeting. Everyone was there. Everyone got to be heard. Some people wanted a very strong Federal Government. Some people wanted a very weak Federal Government. We compromised.

    Even then, some people said “This government is too strong. We’re not joining unless you put it in writing that this new government will never ever do certain things.” The things were not strange things; they were not things that everybody always thinks are bad. No, these were things that most governments do or try to do at some point. These were things that the ruling class always has an incentive to do. These were things that can easily be made to look like good ideas at the time. Some of these things might even in fact BE good ideas. None the less, many people said, “if the new government can do these things, we’re out.” We compromised. We put it in writing that the Federal Government would never do these things, even if they sound like good ideas at the time.

    We even put together a plan for future compromises. If it turns out we don’t like the restrictions we placed on the government, we can have another meeting, and we can change them. But until then, the rules are the rules. If the rules didn’t mean anything, then we’d be disrespecting our past wise compromises.

    Adherence to the Constitution is not extremism. It is an embrace of compromise.

    • avatarropingdown says:

      What a compact and clear statement of the bargain. Nice.

    • avatarJR says:

      Excellent!

    • avatarMothaLova says:

      Nicely put.

      This point would be wasted on many who learned nothing of political history from ancient or modern times, having gone through our abysmal school system, except that anyone who existed prior to the Progressive Movement was benighted.

      But there are still many who would understand what you’re saying.

  41. avatarSammy says:

    “For too long, the gun lobby has protected gun owners from being liable for unintentional gun-related deaths, including negligent shootings of children,”

    Ah,……….this is so common it needs to be highlighted in legislation? I’d like to see some neutral verification of some stats. BTW the feds are the only ones I know of that use those long forgotten “No more hesitation” targets bearing the likenesses of women and children. Personally I wouldn’t frequent a range that allowed those kinds of mentally conditioning targets, let alone encourage our “peace officers” to train with them.

  42. avatarHannibal says:

    “The NY SAFE Act of 2013 was unparalleled in terms of its comprehensive measures, and it is imperative that New York State continues passing gun control and safety legislation following in the same path.”

    So the first one was very comprehensive (got those dang muzzle ‘breaks’!) but we need more? Why? Aren’t we safe yet?

    • avatarPedro Of NYC says:

      Nooo that is what commie/libs do they ask for something small – eg “take guns away from people who have mental illnesses” since the term mental illness is broad the expand the meaning to – if you went to a pharmacist for aspirin for a migraine, next thing you know stormtroopers are taking away your guns.

  43. avatarJus Bill says:

    Well, well, well…
    Slightly OT,

    Cars don’t kill people, irresponsible drivers do

    Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed in auto collisions. In 2012, there were over 34,000 fatalities in the United States alone. This ad from Pakistani newspaper the Frontier Post puts the issue in context.
    http://greatergreaterwashington.org/image.cgi?src=201401/161111.jpg&ref=21408
    Image from the Frontier Post.

    Over the past 11 years, I have gotten around primarily as a pedestrian and transit user. I’ve had far too many close calls with drivers who are distracted or who are acting irresponsibly.

    Now it seems the DC limo libs are beginning to adopt our tactics for their cause. Interesting…

  44. avatarRich Grise says:

    FWIW, I just donated $25.00 to Calguns

    Like they say, put your money where your mouth is!

  45. avatarBlueBronco says:

    “Sensible Gun Ban Laws Make Sense!” Sounds like a campaign jingle to me.

    Andy Commie-O for President, 2016

    ***Sarcasm Warning***

    • avatarRich Grise says:

      OK, my campaign hasn’t been declared to be sarcasm yet, and I don’t even know if anybody’s considering it a gag or not, but gag works – what the hell, our purpose on the planet is the pursuit of happiness, right? And it’s funner than a rat – I’ve tweeted Sarah Palin asking if she’ll be my veep: http://rich_grise.tripod.com/cgi-bin/Sarah.pl , but I haven’t heard back yet.

      And I didn’t ask anybody for permission or nothin’! :D

  46. avatarC says:

    tautological statements are tautological.

  47. avatarKevin says:

    you bunch of corrupt inbred barefoot money bought politicians, punish the criminals and stop punishing and jerking law abiding gun owners. how far can you push stupid? what is mentally wrong with you politicians? i am done with this corrupt infested state! i am going to take a loss and put my house on the market. i would rather live in an apartment in PA than have a house in NY! my advice to all people is to leave this dirty state!

  48. avatarJohn Miller says:

    Truthfully, the provision that requires dealers to report a failed NICS check makes sense. It is a crime to attempt to purchase a weapon when you are ineligible, and out of the steaming pile of cow manure that is this proposal, that facet stands out as enforcement of laws already on the books.

  49. avatarTim says:

    What ever happened to the newyorkers refusing to register their mag and guns. I haven’t seen anything about it in a long time

    • avatarRich Grise says:

      They’re probably having a Mexican standoff and there’s an LSM blackout because the PTB don’t want the sheeple to know that large-scale civil disobedience actually works.

      • avatarMothaLova says:

        Oh that’s where you’re wrong, Rich. The Nevada stand-off proved that anyone who resists the government is a racist, which therefore justifies everything the government does or will do.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.