Doc

That's why I don't want them framing my responses to my legislators for me. I have already taken care of that in my own words.

I understand all the potentials, and I understand all the problems with the NYS Safe Act. Right now I am concerned with the new database ..... only. My investigation is for the composition of letters to legislators, and I am only interested in current facts about the database. When I write to a legislator, I do not like to engage in "might happens", or "Could lead tos". These guys don't want their time wasted with imaginings, or theorizing or other kinds of fortune-telling. I want my letters to get right to the point with documented complaints. I am not saying that all these things that you all are thinking might happen, or the government motives aren't exactly as evil as you all describe them. But I have found that legislators stop paying attention when you come off with the doom and gloom predictions no matter how truthful we feel they are. That is why I have tried to keep focused on only those things that we know are documented and quantifiable. It's the one approach that sets us apart from the emotional rantings of the anti-gun people, and I believe it is the one thing that keeps credibility on our side. So when I ask for downsides to the centralized location of registration data, I am talking about things that are known and proveable. An example is the exhorbitant cost of this database. That is published fact that I can point to and argue about in a letter to those that have positions of power to help do something about it. I have already launched into the litany of reasons for my opposition to the NYS Safe Act in other letters. Now I want to pass on my objections to the centralized database without going through all that other stuff again. And I want to do it with facts not theories and opinions. So far I haven't been getting the info I was hoping for, and I am beginning to believe that it is not really known to the public.

Question: Is this problem only in NYS or is it nationwide?

Ok, so apparently there really isn't a whole lot of info (known to the public) about anything that may go along with the creation of this database, or really any known problems to us that we don't already have with existing registration databases. So, unless some insider comes along I guess we know about as much as anybody. So let's try another question about something that does have a bit of a public track record. Other than proving that a background check has been performed and that you have a legal right to possess your pistol, what other purposes does registration databases perform. In other words, who accesses them and why? That might help me understand the value of these databases and whether it is worth $28 million to improve the data storage system. Are there other purposes, perhaps as an aid to law enforcement in some way? How do proponents of the registration system try to justify the cost of maintaining these databases?

I don't think that is by accident or oversight. I think you are dealing with an anti-gun minded entity who has carefully crafted the poll to make it a no-win situation for any pro-gun respondants. The way they worded that response is exactly the wording that will be sent to legislators in our name. I did not participate because I don't want to be handing them my e-mail address and when I send a message to my legislators, I don't want to word it so that I sound like a buffoon indicating that I oppose common sense approaches to anything.

Well, see this is another one of the details that I was hoping would come out of this discussion. I have not heard one word about whether anything other than the location of the database will be changing. All I have heard so far is that relocation is the only change. I haven't heard about any other changes as to the administration of the permitting system. See, if they are uprooting the whole registration system, they are keeping that pretty quiet. As far as I know the local sheriffs and judges will still be involved in their duties, and the results will simply be inputted to Albany's computer, probably much like we handle car licensing. Without any other facts, I have to assume that the activity is simply moving data from local locations to Albany. If there are other planned parts to it, I am hoping that will be brought out by those that have a more complete understanding than I do.

If it can be imagined, somebody will build it. Actually, I found a couple more versions of U-Tube strange things that they are doing with crossbows ... there seems to be no limit. It may be an old historic weapon, but it just now has received the financial momentum to get some R&D attention. What you are seeing on U-Tube are simply prototypes for a long line of future innovations. It is a wonderful platform to build off of. Just from mechanical curiosity, I would love to see how these things work. It's kind of ingenious.

You know this nonsense is starting to look more and more like a permanent situation. The antis are getting their way, and it appears to be at our own hands. You really can find a better way to get rid of gun usage than getting rid of the ammo to shoot out of them. Really, anybody see any end to all this. It's been quite a few months and no sign of the availability getting any better. What the heck is wrong with these ammo manufacturers. Why aren't they putting on extra shifts and pulling in all the extra cash. If I had a product that I couldn't keep on the shelf, I would raise the price a little and start adding production and "get rich quick".

Sounds like a real good idea, but I can't say that I regularly carry a good safety kit. The only thing that I carry for safety (everytime out) is my cell phone.

That's what I thought. Frankly I am shocked that the information isn't accumulated in Albany already. That's what makes me wonder if there isn't something I'm missing about this $28 million dollar database. What could there possibly be there that would cost that kind of money. There has to be more to the story. The other thing that I find curious is what do they currently do with all the county databases. I'm sure law enforcement must use them in their investigations. Are there other purposes and uses or is it all just gun-owner harrassment .... lol?

I believe there was a little AR, but we definitely have to do the baiting one. Maybe it's time to bring up the tongue-prints on the back of my rolling salt block again. By the way, I got into a mean streak and washed the car off. Poor Bambi will have to find another source of salt.

That kind of mirrors the way I have seen things go, except I have quite a few more years of observations. I can remember back in the 60's, climbing the hill across the road before daylight and watching the cars come down the road. It was like watching a long snake of headlights with the cars traveling bumper to bumper, heading south. Today you will see barely any difference from any other normal day's traffic. State parking lots that used to be filled up with cars also lining the road now have no problems for any late arrivals as far as finding a spot. Farmer's driveways including our own used to have several cars parked in them are now empty except for the residents cars. Shooting activity has pretty much followed the same pattern. That's why I am always surprised at the downward hunter stats. Surprised that the differences are as slight as they are. And yet the deer harvest numbers don't always reflect those observations. Are we getting that good?

Ha-ha-ha, this thread has finally turned into something worth reading. We have covered all the world's ills in this one thread.

But the current system will accumulate that info as well if I understand the law correctly. Permit documentation is permit documentation regardless of where the database resides. Also when the assault rifle registration hits the sytem, that info will be added regardless of which databases are eventually chosen.

I don't care how many databases you have built, if you believe that a database can pass additional gun registration requirements, or change NYS laws or create taxes on firearms, or confiscate firearms, then I simply have to correct you. A database can't do those things. Also, I have lost track of how many times I have mentioned this, but there is no new data being gathered or stored in this database that is not already stored by the government already. We are not trying to decide if a database should exist or not. It already does. Your friendly county clerk accumulates this info along with a whole staff of people (each being a potential leak of info and each drawing a paycheck). I also might point out (in fact I already have several times) that each and every county database is NYS property and owned by the taxpayers of the state. They are all part of the NYS pistol permitting system and currently leak like a sieve. So if you have concerns about being "outed" as a gun owner, the current system is made for that sort of thing with no protections. As far as FOIL leakages, you have already pointed out just how arbitrary the different counties can be on that subject. Did you catch that? The counties can be arbitrary in terms of honoring FOIL requests. On the other hand, it is written into law that it is illegal to release information to the public from the new database. I want you to re-read that sentence since it is now 3 times that I have repeated it. I can't do it again. I share your frustration with this topic. I have asked the same simple question in about as many ways as I possibly can and have read replies that address everything but the database itself. I guess I am about to give up as well and assume that other than the horrible amounts of money that they are forecasting it will cost, there really is no legitimate reasons why this information shouldn't reside in a leak-proof central location.

I believe that when it comes to generalized observation, hunters can say things like: in my hunting area since _____________ (fill in the blank) years ago hunter activity has increased, hunter activity has decreased or hunter activity is about the same as it was. And that may be the only level of info that is really reliable and credible. But, I suspect that if you took a statewide poll of that sort, the results would be heavily indicating less activity. I don't trust license sales as being any kind of a reliable indicator of hunter activity. That may be a good indicator of good intentions, but it is no indicator of the actual amount of use.

Ha-ha-ha ..... did you see the statement that goes along with an opposing vote? Here check it out: “I oppose Common Sense Legislation to End Gun Violence.” Is that a slanted, forced response or what? What a joke. They are forcing pro-gun forces to publicly state that they are against common sense legislation to end gun violence. Never mind that to date there has not ever been such a thing ..... lol.

When those gun owner names showed up in public media, that is when I decided that local control of those records amounted to no control at all. It didn't do us a lot of good to have our counties giving up that kind of data did it? This new database where they will be moving the info to comes with a legal guarantee (built into the law) that divulging any of that info to the public will be illegal. Now regarding the control that you think the local authorities have over any part of the system, let me remind you that those records held by the county are New York State records. They are mandated by NYS. They are defined by NYS. And after a fashion, there is nothing there that they cannot access. They are there by virtue of NYS laws. So where is this local control. The only thing that local authorities have control over is slipping that info to the media. Oh yeah, and each and every county has an entire bureaucracy built around it with untold redundant staffing. As far as expediting confiscation, if you believe for a moment that county level data storage means that the state cannot access it and use it in any fashion that they want ..... well all I can say is that you are mistaken. Having the data stored in counties does not stop any further encroachments .... It just doesn't. In fact it is the lawmaking system that controls that sort of thing not databases , as we have just unhappily found out. Nothing would make me happier than to eliminate all databases, but reality says that is not going to happen. These databases will be maintained and it really is only a question of where. Hence my question: Is there a downside to moving the data storage to the capital? Maybe somebody can come up with a practical reason why that shouldn't be done. The only one that I have heard so far is the cost, and there is even some reason to believe that long term this might even be a cost improvement.

See, this is what I don't understand. I asked a question about moving existing gun permit data to a new centralized database (since that is the topic of this thread). I specifically said that I understand the problems with the new gun law in its entirety, but repeated that I am strictly talking about the database. I can't be any clearer than that. And yet I get answers that talk about additional registration, and confiscation, taxes, FOIL (which this new database is the only one that eliminates that as a problem) and just about every gun law that was ever passed, but nothing about the database. Need I point out again that the issues you are bringing up have nothing to do with a datbase. A data base can't make a tax, confiscate a gun, create registration requirements, etc. etc. I don't know whether you are simply not reading the question at all or whether you really can't think of a single problem that relates strictly to the moving of the database to Albany.

However, with all the attention being given to spelling and grammar lately, I have to point out an error in spelling. The word is spelled: "Kwitcherbitchin". Damn .... my memory is getting so bad, I can't even remember the subject that created that word, but it does still show up periodically .... lol.

Boy! ain't that the truth! When I was a youngster, because I had just come off the trapline, I used to go to school with a rather large hunting knife on my belt. Nobody even thought anything about it.

Well, just like anything, multiple use of the land can be over-done. It definitely affects the quality of the hunt when there are large areas of the woods devoted to nothing but redundant bike trails. There are huge areas of the state land that I hunt that used to be excellent deer habitat that have been laced with trails to such an extent that you cannot get out of ear-shot of them. And during the fall, they are used to the point where you will always be hearing some bikers or hikers going by. It's unbelieveable. Deer still frequent the area ...... at night. What used to be a very pristine area of some very peaceful wooded acreage is now rutted up with bike trails, and trees splotched up with pretty brilliant yellow paint apparently because these people can't see the rutted mud trail thy are on and are in danger of getting lost ....lol. Hikers with their dogs have made good use of this maze of trails so that there always seems to be someone screaming and yelling back and forth to each other. Nothing seems to be done in moderation anymore. Yes, I have found some spots where these trails don't go, but I will say that the majority of what used to be excellent hunting has been essentially taken out of availability for hunting and most of the remaining hunters are being crowded into smaller and smaller areas.

I knew something wasn't quite right about the forum lately. I just couldn't quite figure it out. Welcome back.

Now wait a minute. We are talking about taking the same info they are currently gathering and putting it in a central database ..... right? Where is all this other stuff coming from? I haven't seen anything that is proposing anything other than the relocation of existing data from every Tom, Dick and Harry county clerk to a more secure, location. Hey if anyone can point me to anyplace that says any different, let me know. That is why I was asking the question. I am interested in real documented dangers or problems, not imagined future problems. The way I see it there are none of those supposed problems mentioned that cannot happen with the existing collections of databases. Or am I still missing part of the information? (a) Is there something about centralizing existing data bases that has anything to do with adding taxes on guns? ( Is there something about centralizing existing data bases that has anything to do with expanding registration to include long guns? © Is there something about centralizing the existing data bases that makes the FOIL intrusions more likely, especially since the new centralized database has protection in law from FOIL inquiries? (d) They already have that information don't they? The location of that database is not going to remove the the government from that intrusion. Remember we are not talking about the entire "Safe act". At least I'm not. We're talking about a centralization of information that is already being collected. (e1) This centralized database does nothing to prevent or promote that neighbor from instigating investigations. remember this thread is about the new centralized database only, not the entire safe act. (e2) This new centralized database has nothing to do with making guns, magazines, or anything else illegal. It simply has to do with a database of information that is already gathered and stored all over the state. Sorry to get so lengthy, but I seem to be having a problem being understood as to what my question is. I am not asking the down-sides of the new NYS gun control law in its entirety. I am slowly getting the information regarding all that. What I am specifically asking about is relative only to the topic of this thread ..... The issue of centralizing pistol permit data in one (less vulnerable) location. I hear a lot of opposition to that database, and I am trying to understand why (other than the massive cost, which I can understand). I'm not arguing for or against it. I am simply trying to understand the opposition to it.

Actually, I didn't take your statement as being anything because I didn't, and still don't, have a clue what the heck you were talking about and was asking for a little clarification. You decided not to give any, and that certainly is your right. My solution was easy ..... just ignore the reply and assume that I don't have a need to know ..... lol.