Doc

LOL ..... That can work both ways because it also says that a smart thief will stay away from that house because it says, "Hey thieves, there's guns in my house!" The thought just might cross their minds that a homeowner that is armed is a problem that no crook in his right mind needs.

Well, I know that stuff makes great novels. I mean who can resist the theme of the government run amok and bent on the violent take-over and enslavement of the masses. And yes any such story has to begin with the dis-arming of the citizens .... lol. But believe me, the real purpose of gun control in the legislature is purely vote gathering. Yes they have calculated that the recent episodes of violence against school children has provided exactly the proper issue to yield a good harvest of votes. This is how they look at these kinds of issues. What better way to get votes than to appear to be a protector of our youngsters. If it wasn't so transparent, it would be comical. I have absolutely no respect for these idiots, but as long as I want to be taken seriously in the gun debate, I probably will not be spouting conspiracy theories about how these people are positioning for future removal of Democracy and the implementation of dictatorial powers. I will agree that these guys want to "remain in power", and pandering to issues that get them the most votes is exactly the way to do it. And that is really what's behind gun control. The other side of the coin are the Sarah Brady types and the average non-gun owner who are just simply are duped into believing that violence can be solved by banning guns. They are the ones that have no ability to use logic or actually reason out the failures of further gun laws. Politicians like Cuomo and Bloomberg and others of their ilk are simply students of voter behavior and have learned how to use hot button issues to create and maintain a base of simpletons who cannot obtain reasoning beyond basic knee-jerk reactions to emotional stimuli. Believe me they are not organizing their storm troopers ..... they don't have to.

I hope the use of the word "Herd" instead of "heard" was some kind of play on words (even though it wouldn't really make any sense) and not a mis-spelling. I am not a fan of the AR movement, but something like that could cause people to not take the guy's opinion with a whole lot of seriousness. But, give the an "E" for effort .... lol.

As of 6/24/13: STATUS: S3929 NOZZOLIO Same as A 5574 Kolb Environmental Conservation Law TITLE....Authorizes hunting in the county of Ontario until October 1, 2015 02/27/13 REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 03/12/13 1ST REPORT CAL.184 03/13/13 2ND REPORT CAL. 03/14/13 ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 04/23/13 PASSED SENATE 04/23/13 DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY 04/24/13 referred to environmental conservation 06/19/13 substituted for a5574 06/19/13 ordered to third reading rules cal.422 06/19/13 passed assembly 06/19/13 returned to senate

No, I won't give them the ammo to call us a bunch of raving conspiracy looneys. The fact is that the people that truly believe in gun control really are stupid. They lack logic and reasoning skills. But the more intelligent, cold-blooded legislators understand what a wonderful emotion charged issue gun control is and how it can be converted to votes. Legislators exist only for votes and will do whatever it takes to get them. For most, getting votes at any cost has become their sole function. There is nothing "principled" in their choice of issues. It really isn't anymore complicated than that.

I wonder if there are any organizations that are developing a game-plan for organizing a "boot the clowns out" activity during the next elections. I am looking to the NRA to spearhead such activities as always, but I am wondering if very many gun clubs or state pro-gun organizations are starting to get geared up for communications campaigns with gun owners and other stakeholders to create an organized push to unseat as many of these legislators as possible ... as well as reward our supporters with our votes. It seems to me that there should be some organizational activities going on right now to lay out an effective assault on these creeps who consider our rights to be disposable. Has anybody heard of any plans being worked on or drawn up yet? It might just be a good subject to raise with any organizations or clubs that each of us belong to.

Here is a case where perhaps the wronged student should have pressed the case even further and gone for punitive awards and perhaps the dismissal of the principal for abuse of power. Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether there were really legal grounds for that, but it seems to me that this principal dodged the bullet and escaped punishment for a very alarming personal vendetta against a student. That man should no longer be entrusted with a position where he can negatively impact so many people.

I would suggest that until things change a bit, it would always be a good idea to phone ahead and check on availability before hopping in the car. This fiasco is by no means over with. And by the way, a phone call with mail-order outfits to check availability may save you a lot of waiting on back-orders and such. Don't just fill out the order blank and mail it in. You may be in for a long wait .... lol.

If you are still talking about Livingston County or Ontario County, to date neither of those two laws have gone through yet. And as far as Ontario County is concerned, that requirement about south of 5&20 seems to have been dropped from the current bill that is on the verge of finalization. I am not familiar with the Livingston County bill as to whether there are any qualifications involved in that one. So as of this date, shotguns are still the required deer hunting firearm. That may change any day now, but has not happened yet.

Now there is a statement that I would have to have proven to me. I know you have repeated it several times, but it really does defy logic. I have to believe that once you drop down that bipod and get that scope zeroed in, there is no vertical bow that could even come close to that kind of accuracy (assuming that your crossbow didn't come from some toy store .... lol).

Yes, and I suppose that same line of logic could be used for inclusion of just about any weapon. How about a class for rifles ...... lol. I just find it hard to believe that anyone would try to seriously compare the disciplines and form repetition of archery with that of shooting a crossbow, but I suppose anyone can say anything if they think somebody will buy it. I shot NFAA for years, and don't ever recall anyone even suggesting that crossbows be included. Frankly, I think they had the right idea and knew exactly where the line should logically be drawn.

Why would that be of any surprise to anybody? Archery competition is all about mastering the disciplines and rigid repetition of form that cross bows by design have totally eliminated.

Ever wonder how this stupid situation is affecting youth shooting programs such as 4H camps, scouts, FFA activities, gun club youth shooting activities and other youth organizations that feature shooting programs. These hoarders and scalpers think it is only fellow gun owners that they are screwing, but it goes much farther than that.

I think that like so many of our laws the only enforcement will be "incidental" discovery. For example, a guy gets tired of his gun just being an ornament in his closet and decides to take it out for a few hours of shooting somewhere in the woods. If he is discovered with the weapon by police or game wardens he is subject to felony arrest. Or if he happens to be showing it to someone who has anti-gun leanings, he may find police at the door that afternoon with warrants. Or if some neighbor that he has been having difficulty gets wind of his possession of such a weapon, it is possible that there may be a problem. Or there may be other accidental exposure that could lead to arrest. There will not be random door to door searches. So those that do not abide by the law are simply testing the odds, and gambling that there will never be one of these accidental discoveries. However it must be remembered that the stakes are a felony conviction and whatever bad situations come along with felony convictions.

No, I don't think anyone is saying that the court cases are a lost cause. At least I'm not. I am just saying that there are things that can be done individually to keep the issue alive, and keep politicians from believing that our resolve is faltering. I see this SAFE Act as just the first round of attacks on our rights. I'm thinking this is mostly a test case just to see how far they can bend the Constitution and just what kind of teeth are in the threats of gun owners to take revenge in the next election. Also, I guess I do use the internet chatter as a kind of measure of our resolve and the amount of concern that we have over the issue. If we're not talking about such things here, then its probably a pretty good assumption that no one is talking about it outside of here. These politicians are watching and I have to believe that right now they feel a whole lot better about their "aye" vote for the SAFE Act than they did a few weeks back. And then too, I wonder how our allies in the legislature feel about sticking their neck out without a lot of consistent and frequent positive feed-back. It could all pay dividends the next time king Andrew and his merry band of gun banners get another hot-flash up their arse about expanding this so-called SAFE Act or coming up with yet another whole new attack on gun owner's rights.

So-o-o-o-o ........ everybody having fun yet?

Done

Anybody have a bill number on this yet?

By the way, just out of curiosity, how is the rifle law coming for Livingston County? Does anyone have the bill number?

That 500' rule needs a bit of tweaking to add a clause that says that it is illegal to shoot in the direction of a visible structure of any kind. As pointed out by jjb4900, the distance is no where near as important as the area behind the target. Let's face it, for most weapons (including rifles), 500' is not that much of a safeguard if shots are taken directly at buildings. Making a shooter responsible for what is visible in the background is a whole lot more meaningful. Also, I think all buildings should be included in that law. Trying to guess which class of buildings may have someone inside is not what I would call very responsible shooting.

Hopefully court battles are only one prong of our battle against this law and any subsequent ones that legislators may have in mind. There is no need to stop holding our legislators feet to the fire on this issue. They need to understand that if they voted for this law, they screwed up and it will cost them votes. Also, the ones that voted against the law need to be reassured that they have won our support for the next election. The last thing we need is to quietly shrink back in our corner and make them think (or know) they have successfully bull-dozed over us. We should not be putting all our eggs in one basket. The court cases are fine and hopefully will yield positive results, but there are other actions that can be effective for the future. I want to see the furor over this law maintained right through the next state elections. I'm afraid I am not seeing this as was noted in the original post. That's scary that we can so easily be silenced. Even the reactions on this forum seem to have died down and essentially been silenced. I have been sending messages to my State Senator, Ted O'Brien on a very frequent basis reminding him that I will be working vigorously during the next election to have him unseated and that it is due to his anti-gun vote on the SAFE Act. I don't want to let this issue calm down, but I'm afraid that the majority of gun owners are content to let the whole issue rest on a roll of the dice in the courts. I want the politicians to once again fear the gun lobby. And like Steuben Jerry, I don't think that is happening.

You wouldn't do that on public land would you? It wouldn't be a problem on private land where you don't really have to worry about going deep to avoid other hunters, But when I am hunting public land I generally go the "lean & mean" route and travel as light as possible. And on state land that generally means carry in and carry out. Lol .... I already donated a trail-cam, thinking that it was located in a place on state land where nobody would ever think of going. Bad move on my part.

You ain't seen anything yet ...... ha-ha.

The only problem with patience is that we slowly get lulled into a sense of "acceptance". I am definitely getting the impression that almost all of the gun owners have given up and the pressure on legislators is definitely over. I would much more prefer that gun owners remain the loud, impatient, angry people that we were when this attack on the 2nd Amendment first occurred. I kind of think that by the time the next elections come around, everybody will become conditioned to the new law and be primed for accepting the next round of gun laws. In other words it is beginning to look like Andy has gotten away with it and is laughing at us.

I think it all means that this sucker is on the verge of heading for the governor. The process seems a lot more complicated than it needs to be for something this routine. But this sudden flurry of activity is definitely a good thing. At least it got the hell out of that committee where it has been languishing for almost two months.