Doc

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.

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.