New York Daily News


  1. avatar Shotgun Sam says:


    Wake me when it’s law.

  2. avatar little horn says:

    “more people carry hidden arms”
    so they are ok with just a few hidden guns? who are these other people and why weren’t they worried about them before this?

    why do i even bother.

  3. avatar Jason says:

    I’m confused, remind me again, which state has laws that “prevent” people from carrying hidden arms, or “prevent” any crime for that matter?

  4. avatar BLoving says:

    *rubs hands together wickedly*
    “Yessss… YES! Make their heads explode, my loyal minions!!! MUAAAGH-HA-HA-HAAA!!!”

  5. avatar Parnell says:

    What the hell do you expect? It’s the NY Daily News! Just another tabloid rag.

    1. avatar Ryan says:

      Nobody reads the Daily News outside of NYC because they are a commuter paper.

      The tabloid style lends itself to reading on the subway because it’s hard to fold a broadsheet without hitting the person in the seat next to you.

  6. avatar HP says:

    Outside of NYC, does anyone buy or read the NY Daily News?

    1. avatar Ryan says:

      Nobody reads the Daily News outside of NYC because they are a commuter paper.

      The tabloid style lends itself to reading on the subway because it’s hard to fold a broadsheet without hitting the person in the seat next to you.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “…it’s hard to fold a broadsheet without hitting the person in the seat next to you.”

        ‘Paperspreading must be the evil twin of ‘manspreading’…

  7. avatar jwm says:

    Wait until constitutional carry is rammed down their throats. I wonder of Canada can hold all the refugees?

    1. avatar Noishkel says:

      I expect New York would just try to succeed instead of allowing constitutional carry. Of course the act of them rolling the entire Marine Corp in there to deal with them would be the best reality TV show ever.

  8. avatar MDH says:

    Plenty of hidden guns in NYC, just not in the hands of the law abiding (yet).

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      There are quite a few otherwise law abiding people in NYC with unregistered firearms. I know a few. Some are a little too open about it (because they still live there) in my humble opinion.

  9. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    No law will ever protect anyone. Laws are just words on paper. At best, they may incentivize someone to engage or not in particular conduct. However, that is predicated on the assumption that the would-be offender plans to survive the offense.

    Once you have a political zealot, religious fanatic, a severe psychiatric breakdown, or anyone else who is unwilling to live until tomorrow, then all bets are off. There is nothing you can do to dissuade such a person from committing murder once they have set themselves upon that path.

    All you can do is allow people to repel such attacks when they do occur. All of the other arguments for or against national reciprocity aside, it does at least allow more people the opportunity to defend themselves against spree killers. That some of those lived saved in the future might belong to blue state weenies defended by a visiting red stater is just something we’ll all have to live with.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      This. Don’t expect the legislature to protect you. It can’t do it. It can only make it possible for us to legally protect ourselves.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “There is nothing you can do to dissuade such a person from committing murder once they have set themselves upon that path.” – I once heard the suggestion that going after their families would do the the trick. (This particular they are the Muslims). The suggestion was from a special forces guy who spent plenty of time with them. I agree based upon what I know about the tribal cultures in many Islamic countries. Their moral system is called “amoral familism.”

      Admittedly, punishing family members for the acts of a relative are largely illegal for the government here in America.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Tell that to the Weaver family.

  10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The real fear they have is that once out of staters are allowed to carry the locals might decide they want to tool up themselves and figure out how heinous their rules are. In which case they’re playing the wrong game here. Surely they know that they’re outnumbered nationally on this. The NY Daily News is not going to sway anyone’s opinion out here in flyover country. So their best strategy would be to shut the hell up and hope the locals don’t notice all those gats hidden under all those out of state coats. Drawing attention to the situation is counterproductive from their viewpoint.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      This will probably be true of the taxes states like NY levy on their “citizens” if the national tax reform bill passes.

      Suddenly without loopholes and deductions folks are going to realize that the guys in Albany are taxing the state to death.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        The people of NY and other Democrats utopias are getting thoroughly hosed with or without the tax ‘reform’ bill. Giving up an additional 10% of your income to save 3% isn’t exactly a bargain. But now those high taxes will be especially appreciated by their loyal Dem voters. Better them than me.

  11. avatar David says:

    Just remember to call every US Senator’s office and leave a quick voice-mail:
    “Support National reciprocity for concealed-carry permits”

    Democrats in particular are known to vote based on constituent input…

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      …that… that WAS sarcasm, right?

      1. avatar Danny338 says:

        It must be sarcasm. The 2 democrat senators from my state always send me nice little replies back, stating that they don’t agree with me and how they are so much smarter than I am. They must be smart if they can figure out how they are abiding by the Constitution by NOT abiding by the Constitution.

  12. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    IF National Carry Reciprocity goes into law, there will be a run on the courts to challenge the law and seek injunctions.
    Some places like NY, NJ and CA will have temporary success.
    Wherever compliant with the act and local laws we should have mass carrying in places like NY, NJ, CA, etc. in the time between Trump signing the law and local courts enjoining it locally.
    Then, we should chronicle it. Maybe TTAG can serve as the “base” for such an operation, hosting or republishing first person accounts, videos, etc. Insofar as blogs allow anonymity in comments, maybe we could have a place where people could go and say “I carried”
    If sufficient numbers participate, that could be presented as testimony that mass concealed carry under reciprocity does not cause torrents of blood in the streets.
    Just an idea……

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Regardless of the outcome of legal action, many Dem controlled areas will simply defy federal law and prosecute people carrying legally under the new law anyway. They do similar now. Even if the law passed, a legal carrier would be taking a big risk carrying in states like NJ, NY, and CA.

  13. avatar Mr Lizard says:


  14. avatar Bob says:

    Scatter sheep!

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    Nothing has happened yet. Wake me up when it happens…

  16. avatar Chris says:

    And here we have New York City’s version of Southern California’s OCWeekly. They’re just as bad, but the good thing is only stoners and idiots read it.

  17. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The S&W 686 Performance Center ‘merican edition. Coming to a cerakoter near you.

  18. avatar Bob999 says:

    New York, if you do not like the Constitution, you have two choices – amend it or secede. Since there is no way you will be able to get enough states on board to lawfully amend the Constitution the way you want it, secede. I won’t stop you. Continue to usurp the Constitution and you may not like the results.

  19. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Last copy of the NY Daily News I saw was at the bottom of my friends bird cage. Seems fitting for it there.

  20. avatar Montana Dan says:

    Since TTAG doesn’t seem to want to cover it I’ll give you the link for GOA.

    HR 4477 is really bad. It isn’t just some funding to make NICS better and shame on Nick for portraying it that way.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      GOA is over playing its hand. If they were telling the truth, they would link to the statute, regulation, or case that says what they claim it says. A finding by a shrink is not an adjudication of a mental defect.

  21. avatar LHW says:

    Oh no, chicken little, the sky is falling.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email