Doc

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.

Actually, if I remember the wording correctly I believe they specifically included in the law that the database would not be permitted to be accessed via the Freedom of Information Act. Which would make the data more secure than it is now. As for the purpose of a centralized database one might think it would be for consistancy of data, and single point ready access for the benefit of law enforcement. Could it be expanded? ..... I suppose just like the current system could be. I don't know, I am just trying to understand the down-sides of such a database (other than the initial costs of course).

Have they determined if it was an assault-crossbow or not. Crazy-Eyes Cuomo may have some recommendations.

Sounds reasonable to me. Beating up on a wildlife management agency because of the stupidity of politicians is a very misguided notion. Plus lets all get our 2nd amendment rights wrecked and then show them SOBs by giving up our hunting ..... lol. That'll show 'em!

It's even possible he was born that way. It looks like it is missing pretty close to the body.

Well, if you have no interest in being understood, then I guess that's fine. Apparently whatever you were trying to say isn't anything that I need to concern myself with ..... lol. Sorry to have bothered you.

If I was off-topic, it was not by mistake ..... lol. And I believe you are right. diminishing participation most likely is not going to reverse for a whole list of reasons some are reasons of practicality, and some are cultural and social.

Do you really think it is fun? I find it all a bit contrived and redundant, especially given the fact that there are so many new and truly interesting events going on in the world of guns, hunting, and other outdoor activities and issues. Of course, the skill of a troll involves how many people he can continue to draw into these rather unfriendly conflicts, and I do admit to occasionally being the victim of the trolls. They are so skilled at causing conflict and drawing others into it through inflamatory statements. But I do find it interesting that you call it fun. I call it a pain in the butt to have to come back in to the same old crap trying to offset all the BS that people throw out just to keep conflict alive.

I'm probably not fully awake yet, but I am not getting exactly what you are talking about. I don't understand what "certain statements" you are talking about or what it is that being repeated. Sorry for being so dense, but I really don't understand.

OK, I guess I need some clarification on all this. This database is strictly for handguns .. right? And there already is a registration system required for handguns in NYS already .... right? I guess it is currently administered by each of the counties by a jillion different municipalities ..... is that correct? So assuming that I have all that stuff right, why wouldn't it make more sense to have a central database run by the state? It's their law. Yes I can understand complaints about the exhorbitant cost of the project, but I can't see much to argue about other than that outrageous cost. I also have to wonder if there might be savings to the local systems. Their must be jillions of individual databases across the counties that maybe could be trashed with this single-source data collection. I don't know ... I simply am missing something here. I have to be honest, I always assumed that the state already was the keeper of the database. Anybody want to explain what I am not seeing here?

I have never been a big fan of these kinds of boycotts that are aimed at the wrong people. I really don't understand what is hoped to be gained by wrecking your game management agencies. In our case, creeps like Cuomo could care less what we do to game management. Also, there is a correlation between anti-gun people and anti-hunting people, so by boycotting hunting, you are doing the work of both groups for them ..... That's not exactly a brilliant solution. There's just one boycott that makes any sense at all, and that is the boycott of votes for these guys. That's the one that's aimed at the right target and can get us the results we really want without a whole lot of collateral damage.

I think it goes a lot farther than just an argument about license sales. I believe that of the current license holders, the average hunter is not putting in the time that they used to. To me that is more of a problem to the sport of hunting than changes in license sales. It shows that the problems of hunting popularity goes way beyond weapons choices, or hunter recruitment, or season lengths, or any other of those superficial so called cures. Basicly what we have is a social shift away from hunting, and there may not be any cure for that. There is no permanent way to cater to hunter laziness and lack of interest. You can sell all the licenses you want, but you can't force people to use them.

I did hear somewhere (could have been NYS Outdor News), that the DEC was going soft on the enforcement of that law until they finished revising the law for clarity. They didn't want to provide anymore counties with more of these test cases until the law was cleaned up a bit.

So we aren't the only ones having our 2nd Amendment rights messed with. I wonder just how many states are going through these kinds of attacks. What the heck, Obama doesn't really have to get his hands dirty. It sounds like the states are doing his heavy lifting for him.

Okay ..... What do you suppose those cats were looking for when they payed that guy a visit? What do you suppose would have happened if they had caught him outside away from protection? What is making these animals that are supposed to be super-secretive so completely unafraid of human scent and dwellings? I'll be honest, I am very happy that we don't have those kinds of situations around here. Imagine that long walk through the woods in the pre-dawn darkness as you head to your bowhunting stand......lol. Oh yeah, and they are really good tree-climbers.

I couldn't say just who has the right numbers. In fact the licensing structure is so fluid that license sales may not really equate to hunter trends. I don't buy anything but a bow license anymore, so I don't know whether I am being counted or not. If they are counting lifetime licenses every year, I hope they are subtracting the ones that are dead or out of active hunting. The supersportsman's license alone is structured such that you can't tell exactly what kind of hunting is going on by each license-holder. i don't even own a muzzleloader, but according to my license, I am eligible to hunt in that season. I know a lot of those that purchase the sportsman's license don't bow hunt. So, the point is that license sales are a very unreliable way of judging participation. And they aren't through massaging the license structure yet with a huge change coming this year. Perhaps the more meaningful stat would be the number of man-hours spent afield each year. If only there was a credible way of getting at that, you would be getting the most accurate look at the trends in hunting popularity. That is the area where I have noticed significant decreases. Some of these dead quiet opening day afternoons and all of the days afterward when I have heard as many small game shots before the deer season even opened have to be signifying something about deer hunter participation.

Yes, shut you down: Guess what. We didn't go there again. Yes, I shut you down because I assume you don't like arguing with yourself .... even though there are times when I wonder. And I guess, we can shut the forum down now that we have discussed everything there is about hunting, guns, fishing, camping, etc., etc. My gosh do you really think that we are at the point where we have to go back 2 years and dredge up old trash-talk that died back then because everyone finally got disgusted with it? Yes, there are new issues that deal with crossbows. When are we going to start talking about them instead of repeating the same old name-calling and redundant nonsense over and over and trying to "throw gas on the fire".

I don't know whether there is any age that is too young. My feeling is that the sooner kids learn about guns (the safe handling and use) the better as long as when not actively supervised, the guns are safely stored and locked up, which should be the rule at any age. I am not as convinced when it comes to pistols. The amount of time that it takes to turn a pistol in to a hazardous direction is so short that even when in close contact, the parent's reaction time may not be sufficient to avoid a mishap. Rifles are a different situation. When properly controlled and guided, rifles should be safe. On the other hand if you judge that the sound or whatever of a firearm going off may cause some level of trauma such that a young child might become afraid of them, then that becomes an individual one-on-one assessment.

And let me say that I am not into censorship. But it would be nice if people just had the good sense not to go over the same old stuff over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, year after year. We do have a lot of good current and important topics available here without dredging up arguments from 2 and 3 years ago that have already been worn out. I think that was what the "Copy and Paste" comment came from. For those that get a kick out of redundant posting, It might be handy if we had a section labled "Old Issue Rehash" that they could participate in. And yes, it would be a good place to use the copy and paste function ..... just as a timesaver......lol.

Sucked in by the trolls is what you should really say. Yes I did get involved with this thread when there was some negative comments about an organization that I am proud to be a member of. And you will recall that I quickly shut you down when you tried to start in with your ridiculous attempts to discuss the pieces and parts of a crossbow again for the 500th time. I will not get sucked into that kind of repetitive foolishness. We have enough important an dinteresting stuff to be discussed without having to rely on rehashing the same old stuff over and over again.

One of the problems with lugging equipment (stands) is that in the one kind of hunting area that you want to get as far in as possible, is state land. It would be nice if you could feel comfortable leaving all that junk in there once you have dragged it all in. Sometimes going in with a full pack and stands etc. gets to be a little much for allowing you in as deep as is adviseable on crowded state land. Add to that the fact that a lot of state land consists of killer hills, carrying piles of equipment sometimes can relegate you to hunting where everybody else hunts ..... not far from the road or parking lot. For me, state land generally means traveling light. Of course I no longer use treestands, so that is no longer a concern for me. I remember once seeing another bowhunter who had just struggeled his way up the hill. He was lugging a pack, a pretty heavy-looking treestand and a few of those tree-step gizmos, and of course his bow. This guy was breathing like a steam engine, and had literally soaked through his camo. I'm not sure he had an ounce of fluids left in his body. He not only smelled like a horse from the sweat, but undoubtedly he was about to spend a long afternoon freezing from being soaked in the cold weather. That was really a whole lot more stubborness than good sense. But he did get a long ways away from the road.......ha-ha-ha.

ha-ha .... It gets to be a whole different realm when you are dealing with the unlimited souce of taxpayer wealth. budgets for such things have no standards of reasonableness. When it comes to an administration that takes pleasure in trashing the Constitution, why would we expect them to be concerned about financial restraint.

Yeah, the article is truly one of the worst written that I have ever seen. But anyway, these kinds of whiney proposals come along every year, and they never see a day's worth of success. There are all kinds of cases where these contests are really a response to a destructive over-population problem. A good example is one that can be found in the bill itself that whines about crow competitions. I am reminded of pictures on the TV of the crow problem in Rochester where they do not have the contest option available to them. The pictures showed public benches in park areas that were white with crow crap. What a filthy, opportunity for disease spread not only to humans, but within the entire bird population as well. So for Rochester, the solution has focused on making noises, and blowing off fireworks and such which is very expensive and has to be one hell of an irritant to the people that must live and work in these areas. The fact is that a lot of the critters that are targeted by these contests are no longer a species that hunters are actively hunting, and the populations are just running rampant. These contests are the only way to motivate hunters to pursue these species. The contests are serving a useful and necessary purpose.