Doc

What I heard was that there were quite a few individual sheriffs that claimed they would not enforce this law. They were of the opinion that the law was unconstitutional. I suppose that after they calmed down and thought about it a bit, they realized that they were hanging out there without a legal leg to stand on. Hopefully their original opinion of the constitutionality of this law will eventually turn out to be the case, but most likely they were reminded that the constitutionality of this law has not been ruled on by any court yet. They kind of got the horse before the cart.

What I like most about all this stuff is that it keeps the issue alive for the gun owners. What scares me most is that there will be a quick flurry of activity from the gun owners and then it will slowly fade away to be replaced by acceptance. I think this is what Cuomo and his kind are hoping too. These meetings help keep the issue alive and flourishing in the headlines. That's good stuff! They are trying to break the gun lobby and the gun owners. We've got to make sure that they fail.

LOL .... Always willing to listen to any sane alternatives. Laws? .... Who needs them? .... Right?

What I was getting at is those who insist on blatently resisting the registration law will eventually reach a point of confrontation where they either will back down and give up their gun, or they will have to shoot those that come to take it (that's exactly what I am talking about). Because sure as hell the cops are not going to say, "Ok, as long as I see you are serious about keeping an illegal gun, I guess we'll make this one exception". It's very obvious that you will give in or escalate to some unacceptable level, meaning eliminating the source of confrontation. So obviously someone who is serious about never registering their gun and those who vow that they will under no circumstance do so, basically are saying that they are willing to accept the ultimate outcome of that choice. I am simply pointing out exactly what that outcome can lead to. I also pointed out another potential outcome involved with resisting compliance with the law which is jail time, and a loss of all guns due to a felony conviction. Also, please do not ignore the fact that as I pointed out, establishing constitutionality of law is for judges..... not law enforcement or individuals in the armed forces. I don't think too many of us are schooled in constitutional law. The constitutionality of this new law has not yet been ruled on. I understand that "tough talk" sounds good until you get to a point where it becomes you against the law. But in reality, none of it means anything until you reach that point and have to actually act on your decisions.

Yes, in a perfect world, that's exactly how it might work. But then I'm not in his shoes, so I'm not going to judge his business ability. However, I remember that back in ancient times when I used to be on the craft show circuit, there were certain big shows that had to be signed up and paid for quite a bit in advance, and the incomes from those certain major shows had no other significant alternatives available. If anything had happened to them, it would have just plain been lost revenue. But at any rate, if the guy wanted to vent, I probably would have set him straight as to who the real culprit was, if it really was bothering me. I'm just saying that I agree the guy was out of line blaming the outfits that pulled out of the show. As far as his quality as a business owner, I don't think that's even the point.

Actually, I have been in the Naples area since I moved there in the 4th grade (that's a whole lot of years folks ...... lol). I have seen many huge vinyards ripped out, and a whole lot of farms go out of business taking with it huge acres of all kinds of cropland. Almost all of the marginal hill-side and hill-top farm land has been deserted or sold off to vacationers and city transplants. A lot of the brushlots are sporting a fairly mature over-story now, and much of the land that I used to hunt is now posted up tighter than a drum with only small groups of landowner friends hunting there. So yes, things have changed big-time over the 30 years since you were in Naples last. Habitat and land use is entirely different from what you saw 30 years ago. And by the way, those ugly whirley-gigs that now decorate the hills are in Prattsburg and have pretty well wrecked the viewscape for surounding towns. In fact you can see a whole bunch of them while you are driving south down Mainstreet Naples. Not really on topic, but since you brought it up .........

Well folks, here's the deal. Last time I knew, the constitutionality of a law is not determined by Sheriff's Associations, or the Sheriff's Departments, or the individual sheriffs and deputies. So they may have an opinion, but until the law is officially judged as being unconstitutional by the appropriate level of the Justice, they still have a duty to uphold the law as it appears on the books. They have one other option and that is to quit the force, and it may be asking just a bit much to ask that of them. You people can threaten what ever you want, armed stand-offs, or shooting every LEO that shows up at your door, or wall up any illegal guns in the walls of your house, or insisting that law enforcement officers willingly give up their livlihoods, but the absolute only sane and rational answer available to us is to abide by the laws, and fight this law in the courts and support those organizations with the resources to offer up court challenges.

Well, here's the question: You don't comply with the law, so what are you going to do with these guns? Are you going to board them up in the wall, or bury them in a strongbox out in your yard? I mean lets be realistic. You'll have a very expensive weapon that you can't shoot or even show anybody. Now, I don't know what the penalty is going to be for not complying with the law, but if it turns out to be a felony, ALL your guns could be at risk (no convicted felon can own any kind of gun).The only chance you have of fighting this law is through the courts and through the support of the gun advocacy groups that have the resources to challenge this law. Just simply refusing to comply poses risks that I believe most people have not seriously thought through. make your actions count, and don't be relying simply on tough talk.

Well, just remember that they are the one's with the camera, and how does it look when they approach some gomer that starts saying goofy things and then you try to jump in to stop that conversation from showing up on the news. What do you say while you are being filmed? ..... "Ok that's enough. We don't want you talking to this guy". That would look good on the evening news. No, you can do whatever you want on an organized, planned, one-on-one interview in another venue, but I agree with the decision to exclude cameras from gun shows. It really isn't all that smart to provide them with means and opportunity to do a hatchet job on guns and gun ownership. Now you happen to know, and can vouch for, this one reporter. Apparently those running the show could not. Tell me, would you let a Piers Morgan in with his camera crew? Think how well that would go. Well, if these guys didn't know your reporter friend, then in my opinion, they did the right thing by barring them from the show. There are many other reporters who are just as rabidly anti-gun as Piers Morgan. They just aren't as easily identifiable. Yes, safety first. Handle the PR activity in some other more controlled and coordinated fashion.

I have a 4' high welded wire fence around our garden. Then I have two strands of electric fence .... 1 at 4" off the ground and one along the top of the welded wire fence. The deer have figured out that that is not an area to even go near. The squirrels and chipmunks, well, they only get one chance if they want to try. That's their last.

I'm not sure why the knife guy should have shared in any of the responsibility of what was happening to the show. Certainly he was just another one of the victims of situation. Even the ones that pulled out were victims. His problem was blaming other victims of the decision to not allow the display or sale of modern sporting weapons. His anger should have been directed at this Reed guy. He wasn't thinking clearly on what was the cause and what was the effect.

First of all, it would never be ME that was in such a situation. I'm not going to say that perhaps the penalty does not fit the crime, but if that is what the penalty is, then that is what it is. Also, there was nothing to say that they were going to or had to get jailtime. We have no idea how much discretion will eventually finally be used. However, some of these out-of-scale penalties might very well be reserved for those who get involved in multiple violations, or may serve as additional charges for those that are getting involved in market activities. But the fact is that we don't even know if the government intends to prosecute, and we certainly don't know if they would apply the maximum sentence.

These are Cuomo's meetings! What else did you expect? They are intended to dictate the terms of the new law, not to request input from constituents.

Excellent question ... lol. I'm sure they have some super magical computer model that is fed by a bunch of COs and biologists (who should really be doing something more productive) running from deer processors to taxidermists to hunter's camps aging a few deer. That's how the reporting rate is done. That seems to be the answer to all those questions where real hunter input is not available. Throw it in a computer and let the program make up the answer.

If you use a shotgun and eat the little critters, eat very slowly and carefully. Those pellets can crack a tooth pretty easy if you aren't careful. However, if you don't get too oinkish, there shouldn't be a problem. If your used to eating fresh-caught, un-filleted fish, you already have the technique down ..... lol. The shotgun has been my weapon of choice for squirrels for decades. When I go for squirrels, it is always with the intent of limiting out. The shotgun will do that a whole lot more reliably than rifles and such.

As I said in the last thread that contained one of these "invites", these are meetings to tell you how it is, not meetings asking for input. These are Cuomo meetings. He's not interested in hearing your opinions. He is dictating the terms of his law ...... period. Anyone being too persistant or boistrous with asking the wrong questions? .... Well, he has the muscle at the meeting to take care of that situation too. Regarding the fact that they don't know much about the details of the law, well, that just demonstrates what happens when you ram a half-baked, rushed, ill-conceived, law through the system in an attempt to screw as many gun-owners as possible.

What makes us so stupid that we can't just take a glance to our north and take note that Canada tried the registration of long-guns, and eventually had to give it up?

I have asked this question a few times already and just like this comment, I don't get much of an answer that means much. I may have worded the question slightly different when I asked what good it did to own a gun that you never dared to take out of the house, but it all comes down to the same idea. So anyway, using the scenario quoted above of being caught out hunting with an unregistered gun, let me lay out the possible outcomes. You can simply understand that they have been busted and then either comply, or accept the penalty and probably the loss of a very expensive weapon,. Perhaps you might then engage in a very costly legal battle and probably lose. The other option is to immediately level the gun at the officer and then enter a life as an armed fugitive. What a laugh. The option of arguing with a LEO, or asking him about his guns is not an effective option, and you are not going to talk him out of an arrest. So you have just two options: comply or make the matter much worse with armed conflict. Unless you are some kind of nut-case, I think the armed conflict approach probably is not very realistic ..... lol. So, all you that claim that you will never comply, exactly which option would you really choose in the scenario of the confrontation that waterweasel laid out here? I'm guessing your only recourse is to not take that gun out hunting, and maybe even build it into one of the house walls never to be seen again.

There are established procedures and wildlife rehabilitators for handling such situations. These people ignored the law. I have no idea how much they should have come down on these people, but I do understand the necessity for such laws. Every year people are trying to "help" what they think is distressed, cute, wild creatures, whether they really need help or not. So the government agencies make it illegal to turn wildlife into pets. That sounds reasonable to me. Now these people had a case where the deer was injured, and we can only take their word for how bad the injury really was. But there are legal ways of handling those situations too, which apparently they decided to ignore. So, I'm not really going to waste a whole lot of sympathy on them.

That's a real tough situation, and pretty hard to put yourself in their position. Depending on what percentage of the livlihood these shows provide them, there may be a certain amount of panic showing through in their comments. I mean, if somebody were to pull the rug out from under my means of making a living for that year, I might have some strange reactions too. I suppose it's one thing if this is only a hobby-style side activity for them, but if it comes down to putting food on the table and a roof over their head, I probably would react with a bit of bitterness myself. Not knowing what they really had at stake there I think I will with-hold condemnation. It's hard to put myself in their actual position. This may have been a business risk that they didn't (couldn't) see coming, and they are simply blaming the wrong people.

Wow! talk about a short notice. I suppose it probably should be noted that this sounds like an information issuing session, and not an information gathering session. It doesn't sound like an activity designed for receiving opinions or arguments. Am I wrong on that?

Ok, think about it .... given the media's track record, if you were running a gun show would you cheerfully turn these guys loose with a camera and full permission to interview any loser they can find that can give the biggest black-eye to hunters and gun owners. Can you imagine how that would come out in 90% of the cases. She may have had nothing but the purest intentions, but that whole industry has built up a reputation for for being anti gun, and for doing whatever underhanded, tale-spinning tactics that it takes to do a hatchet job on gun owners. No there is no need to be rude, but there is reason to be firm and not willfully providing them with the tools and opportunities to do what they have shown themselves to be so skillful at. At the very least, I would have demanded known references and adequate credentials. How about this ..... It seems fair that all media-types be subjected to a back-ground check before they can be allowed to enter with a TV camera......lol. Just kidding, but the point is that we have a lot more to lose than win when it comes to reporters that we have had no track record on. What a playground that would be for an anti-gun TV reporter to make her next promotion off the backs of unsuspecting gun show attendees. No, keep it civil, but definitely keep the guard up. If we seem to be a bit paranoid about the news media, it's only because with very rare known exceptions, we have got good reason to be. I'm afraid it reasonably is "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to the media.

8' high? ..... lol. Has anyone ever seen a pig jump 8' in the air or even anywhere's near that. Have they learned how to use a pole vault?

I have to admit that it is truly impossible to determine at first glance what is the intention of any representative of the media. There are a lot of them that will be smiling to your face while they prepare to stick the knife in. The media has made a complete science of taking a single sentence and spinning it into a dozen different meanings. It's done every day. The media has moved from reporting the news, to making the news. So if some are a bit skeptical or guarded, it is only because the media has trained us to be that way. There are certain members of the media that have earned gun-owner's respect, cooperation, and trust through past columns, the rest are going to have to earn that trust. It's unfortunate, but it is a bed of their own making.

Has anyone figured out how much stockpiled ammo is enough? Is there anyway to figure out what a lifetime's supply is? I just finished an inventory of my reloading components and my live rounds for all my guns. I've decided that I guess I have enough. But when it comes to the hoarding mentality, I was just curious as to whether people think that they need warehouse full of stuff, or exactly where and how do they draw the line? Are we arming for casual use, or some form of civil war? I'm kind of ensuring enough quantities of ammo for my normal casual use (hunting, personal protection, and occasional target) throughout the remainder of my life. If civil war breaks out, somebody else is going to have to supply the ammo .... lol.