Mr VJP

Not to mention the effects it seems to have on one's intelligence. Take Obama as an example.......

Seemed to me to be more of a discussion to persuade the kids of the righteousness of the concept of keeping all firearms locked up with ammo locked up separately. I've seen these tactics used on high school kids before. They pick their brains for opinions, then start pressuring the ones with objection to the proposals so they conform. It's political indoctrination at work in the public education system. Does anyone here think we should be legally bound to keep all of our personal firearms locked up at all times?

I need to vent here. I really take issue with improper nomenclature being used when it comes to rifles and what cartridges they're chambered for. What that chart is showing are "Cartridges" not calibers. Caliber is simply a measure of a bullet's width or the diameter of a rifle's bore. There are plenty of large caliber rounds that are not very powerful. Take the .44 Special and .44-40 as examples. There are also small caliber cartridges that are very powerful, like the .220 Swift or the .240 Wby Mag. When discussing what to use for hunting specific game animals, the discussion should be about the cartridges that will work well, not specifically the caliber, or bore diameter of the rifle or round being used. This is an issue about proper terminology that I feel is being corrupted more and more as time goes on. It tends to confuse the discussion and the importance of it's subject matter. Just my opinion.

"HUDSON FALLS -- Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner turned to local students Friday to get their thoughts on a gun control bill before the Legislature." Why choose kids to discuss this issue with? She claims she wants to know what her constituents think. Then why hasn't she had a discussion with eligible voters about it? Afraid she might get more informed opinions? NY gun owners should HAMMER their elected officials with comments and especially flood her office with comments.

Could've just slapped her and then told her you're a Muslim and don't take that kinda crap from women. Then let her know she should be glad you're not gonna cut her head off. LOL!!

Cuomo's motive was to buy votes. It had nothing to do with logic or public safety.

I have many firearms that were bought strictly as collectibles. I also have owned many firearms that, over the years, have become safe queens that don't get used anymore. Many of these firearms have been sold eventually. Sometimes to get money for new ones, sometimes simply to let them go. I have never sold a firearm for less than I paid for it. Some have sold for considerably more than I paid for them. New firearms always go up in cost, so used ones don't go down in value unless they are not in good condition when sold. I have a handful of firearms that have sentimental value and will probably never be sold, but the majority of them are simply tools to me and I have no hesitation about selling them if I no longer need them, or they are being upgraded with something better.

All active duty police officers in NY State are exempt from the SAFE Act regulations, even if they are Federal officers. Firearms they buy while on active duty for their own use, which is not defined as being different from personal or official use, as all active duty police are considered to be on duty all the time, are exempt from any SAFE Act regulations. When they retire, if they had at least 10 years of active service and retired in good standing, an amendment to the law allows them an exemption for life, as long as they register the weapon and magazines they owned while on duty. Once retired they cannot buy any new ones, but can keep any they owned while active. From a daily News article in 2014 "Retired cops no longer have to worry about getting rid of any high capacity magazines or assault weapons they acquired while working on the force. Gov. Cuomo, as expected, has signed legislation granting retried law enforcement officers in New York an exemption from the state’s new gun control law, his office confirmed Monday. The exemption for retired cops was approved by the Assembly in May and adopted by the Senate in June during the final week of the Legislature’s session. Cuomo, during a news conference last week, had signaled his support for the measure. “It was our amendment,” Cuomo said at the time. “They are retired law enforcement officers. They have different training, they have different experience. They are different.” The gun law – known as the SAFE Act - was adopted by the Legislature in early January. Among other things, it expanded the state’s ban on assault weapons and set a seven-bullet limit on the number of rounds New Yorkers could load into a magazine. Gun-rights advocates, who have blasted the law as an infringement on their Second Amendment rights, opposed the new exemption, saying it would create a separate class of citizens in New York. “We feel because of our background checks and the training that most of us have in pistol craft, we should be afforded the same privileges as retired police officers,” said Thomas King of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which has filed a federal lawsuit against the SAFE Act."

A good friend of mine has one in his collection. He calls it "The Queen". It's in great condition too. Everyone I've ever seen for sale was selling for top dollar though. I'm hoping my friend decides he wants to sell it someday because he would give me first shot at it.

With the warm weather and sun the past few days, the snow on the ground in the open is only about 6 inches or less now. In the woods, especially the north facing slopes, it's still about a foot deep. That's as of noon today though. I expect much more will melt by the weekend.

I have a hankering to own a .416 Barrett someday, just for fun.

All part of the new Police State attitude. You are free to do whatever the government let's you do. Laws that make off duty agents of the state entitled to things the citizens are never entitled to, are clearly unconstitutional, and any judge who decides they're not, is clearly not defending the constitution.

Maine has recognized the problem with ballot initiatives and referendums. Even though they won the election, the anti hunting groups that they fought were national organizations with lots of cash and volunteers. These groups are determined to control hunting in America on a national scale. State initiatives were thought to be a good idea because they would best indicate the feelings of state voters on a given issue presented to them on the ballot. Unfortunately, many uninformed voters can be swayed politically by massive propaganda campaigns by special interest groups that do not have a vote in that state. What works for wildlife in California may be totally destructive in Maine. Allowing a national organization to influence the wildlife laws in a particular state may lead to disaster. Maine is just trying to insure it's voters are aware of who is paying for influence in their state on ballot initiatives so it's informed voters can spot the national agenda being pushed and question if it is a good thing for their state. National organizations are also very involved in ballot initiatives that target the 2nd Amendment. Considering laws can be won through what basically amounts to a popularity contest regarding constitutional rights and liberty, it becomes a danger to our entire system as a representative republic. Initiatives are true Democracy power. Unfortunately, true democracy is not in the best interest of preserving the liberty of any minority opinion. Gun owners and hunters could very easily lose all of their rights eventually if popular opinion turns against them. One only need to look at initiatives on same sex marriage to see how some state voters put a stop to that. Initiatives were passed against same sex marriage in many states. Many were then overturned in court as unconstitutional. It remains to be seen if the final outcome will favor the voters in the end. When it comes to hunting, and even gun rights to a large extent, we cannot expect courts to be so quick to say the law passed violates our constitutional rights.

Maybe they'll come up with a compromise, which Democrats seem so willing to do all the time. I expect it will go something like, "If we can ban all handguns, we won't need to ban any of this rifle ammo." I can hear the clueless gun owners, who don't own any handguns, saying that would be a good compromise.

Now they want the BATFE to ban any rifle ammo that can be fired in a handgun. Your .30-30 and .35 Remington, 7mm-08 ammo, etc., etc., is now in danger. Do these Democrats realize that? They haven't shown any concern for cops getting shot while they pump up the Ferguson hate, why should anyone think this ammo ban is about protecting cops? After 90,000 comments and condemnation from congressional Republicans, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives backed away from its proposal to ban the 5.56 M855 "green tip" ammunition. But congressional Democrats have taken the idea, expanded the breadth of the proposed ammo ban, and run with it. In a letter to the ATF, Democrats encourage the bureau to move fast and use its "existing authority" to limit any rifle cartridge that can be fired from a handgun. Democrats wrote, "We hope that the Bureau will swiftly review comments on the proposed framework and issue a revised proposal that will address the danger posed by handguns that fire 5.56mm and other rifle ammunition." They have introduced legislation in the House to ban the green-tipped rounds, and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said she would introduced a broader bill to ban even more forms of armor-piercing ammunition. Because cops wear light body armor and there are some unique pistols out there (Thompson Contender pistol chambered in 30-30, anybody?), Democrats are opening the door for potentially banning all center-fire rounds. And the ATF welcomes this lobbying. Its director, B. Todd Jones, said "any 5.56 round" threatens the safety of police officers -- a distorted fear if ever there was one.

The only thing in Alaska that really requires a magnum is Brown Bear. They can be killed with a bow, but the archer is backed up by someone with a magnum or a 12 gauge slug gun. The biggest problem with bow for Brownies is, once the arrow hits, if the bear spots you, it's going to charge you for sure. Most areas don't require anything in a magnum, but they do help when long shots at decent size animals occur. Something like a 270 Wby or a 300 WM might be preferred.

"Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework [emphasis added]. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework." So it really isn't over.

The BATFE has taken the ban off the table, but has also stated it needs further study. You can be sure they will be coming back to this ban again soon. The big question is, when did a regulatory agency acquire the power to write laws that infringe on Constitutional rights?

Keith Richards continues to confound all life insurance actuarial tables.

Other interest groups are trying to get their hands on it now. http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3726922.shtml?cat=565

Just an FYI for any who might not be aware, the Elk in PA are Rocky Mountain Elk that were transplanted from the west. The Elk that once inhabited the eastern US were Eastern Elk, which was a different species of Elk. They were more suited to the terrain in the eastern states than Rocky Mountain Elk. Although the Rocky Mountain Elk can survive in the east, it doesn't do so on a scale that could be considered thriving. If the Eastern Elk was not extinct and could be repopulated in NY State, that would be something worth doing. Rocky Mountain Elk require a great deal of baby sitting when released into eastern environments.

Ives Goddard, a Smithsonian Institution senior linguist and curator emeritus, asserts that the term was originally benign in meaning, and reflected positive aspects of early relations between Native Americans and whites. It emerged at a specific period in history (1769–1826) among a small group of men linked by joint activities; this provided its context. Goddard cites historical instances of Native Americans identifying as red men, or RED-SKIN, and redskins.[15] However in an interview Goddard admits that it is impossible to verify if the native words were accurately translated.[16] Johnathan Buffalo, historic preservation director of the Meskwaki Nation, also known as the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, said tribal members in the 1800s used “redskins” as a simple term of identifying themselves — just as they identified others as “whiteskins” or “blackskins” — without any derogatory intent.[17]

I've been to the areas in PA where the Elk are. Many people, especially farmers, hate them being there. They really do a number on crops, some live in heavily populated towns, hanging out on the lawns and have been known to rip siding off houses and do other damage, cause so much traffic from tourists in some areas residents can't get out of their driveways to go to work, hunting permits are very hard to get, hunting them requires a guide and is expensive and the guides know exactly where the Elk are so they take you to it and simply say, "Shoot!" If you are lucky enough to be guided to a big bull, you get a nice head and rack and lots of meat, but it isn't anything like a real Elk hunt, say in Montana.