Mr VJP

It's all part of the agenda of the Left. It's not just gun control they want, it's just complete control. There is nothing you do they don't want to be in control of. It's a free country. You're free to do what ever they let you do. And like adkbuck said, when it comes to gun laws that infringe, or confiscate and ban, it's not the GOP, Independents or Libertarians that are proposing, and passing, these laws. This proposal, by this crazed Democrat woman, (and there are many of them) to ban children's clothes from having an NRA logo on them, is actually mind control and tyranny. But, they're OK with that.

But no longer legal to own unless you registered it. The 6.8 is a great round for deer. The only drawback compared to the .223 & .308 is the price and availability of ammo.

If you support Democrats at all, you support this by default. http://www.guns.com/2014/07/18/congress-going-after-kids-shooting-sports-branded-clothing-and-colorful-youth-guns/

The words on the statue say nothing about coming here "illegally". That's one thing that's changed. Nobody considered doing it illegally during the Ellis Island days. And they certainly weren't encourage to do so by "diminishing" the immigration laws. There is plenty of outrage about people not getting their children vaccinated. There are also laws that mandate it. Of course there will always be people that will argue with it because somebody says the vaccines cause problems, even when they have no evidence to support the claim. But since we already have that problem, would it be wise to knowingly allow sick people, or never vaccinated people, into the country while using that argument as a defense? Seems that would also be diminishing our immigration laws. Too many Americans seem to be of the mindset we should just open the borders and let anyone who wants to enter America come in and stay. That's a mindset based on emotion, with no regard for the law, the reasons for the laws, or the safety of the citizens of this country, which is supposed to be the government's primary reason for existence. These same people also seem to be the ones who often call for bigger government and regulations for everything. I can't figure their logic at all.

A few years ago a hunter was too close to a home, shot at a deer he had already wounded with a 300 WM and the bullet went into the house killing a toddler. It was a terrible thing, and he was sent to jail. What I found scary, was the big debate about his choice of firearm, the .300 WM. The prosecutor, judge and press all seemed to be saying it was a choice that proved he was irresponsible in his choice of a "Magnum" rifle for deer hunting. They were playing on the minds of the jury there. I never agreed with any of that, but I think it bears keeping it in mind when choosing a hunting rifle. If anything puts you under legal scrutiny, you can be sure the legal system will look at all of your choices to see if they can use any of them against you to convict you of being irresponsible. I absolutely disagree with all of that, but I am very much aware of it in today's anti-hunting society. Just putting it out there as an aside on this thread. For me, it's hard to forget stuff like that.

So, if I'm out in the woods looking for deer and deer sign, putting up trail cams, stands and reflecting dots, but not carrying a firearm, I have to have my license on me because according to the DEC that's hunting. If I'm doing it before the season opens I guess I'm hunting out of season too. Seems the law is being very broad in it's interpretation of hunting. What's the purpose?

I agree. There are also people who want to keep all Americans clueless and distracted by their escapist pursuits. They are succeeding. I have a very low tolerance for stupidity. It's a birth defect that I cannot help.

A lot of people are also rabid supporters of the Leftist regime and will stay lockstep with their agenda no matter what they do. They've accepted all of the propaganda they've heard for years and refuse to even consider other opinions. They are told what to think, because they don't know how to think.

Belo, do you even read any of my posts? It sure as hell looks like you don't. You seem to have a compulsion about telling everyone what to do though. That's all I have to say on that subject.

Actually, no. Not at all.

And a lot of them will be old enough to vote in the next Presidential election. How nice!

What's any of this got to do with hunting? You guys are clogging up the recent post feed! (sarcasm)

I think that picture shows the effect of the bullet hitting a little too high in the ribs with that round, as well as the deer being small. But at close range, when this happens, a faster moving round is going to do more damage, even if it's a lighter bullet. Many magnum shooters have a harder time controlling the recoil and putting that bullet precisely where they are aiming, especially if they flinch, or the deer moves. I'm not saying you can't use a 300 WM. It's your choice, but it's not mine. When I want something bigger than a 30-06, say for Elk, I go to the 325 WSM. It the shots are expected to be long, I may even go to the 375 H&H. Every hunter has his reasons I guess.

The Left is the side that wants to ban all forms of hunting and are always blocking hunts for bear, cougar, etc. They are also the ones who hate your gun rights, align themselves with anti-hunting groups and PETA. They are looking to control all of your liberties as much as they can. Or just eliminate them. That's why I post the things I do. But it seems not many understand the reason for them. I respond to many posts about hunting, and that's what I prefer to do. I've been a hunter for 45 years, but don't usually see anything worth posting that I find to be new, unless it's about people trying to take my hunting and gun rights away.

Saw this today and had to post it here. A deer taken with a 300 Mag @ 50 yards.

Great article about outdoorsmen raising kids. Written by the wife of one. http://goodmenproject.com/families/five-reasons-my-children-are-lucky-to-have-an-outdoorsman-for-a-father-gmp/?ct=t%28Newsletter+07%2F16%2F2014%29 "I take pride in the fact my kids are being raised by a hunter, because there are things they learn from him, and other hunters in their life, they might not get otherwise"

For your information, firearms and hunting are two of the most attacked freedoms in America today. Those attacks are coming from the party of the Left. Too many hunters and gun owners support that Leftist party. Those posts are meant to enlighten the low info voters, who don't seem to be able to make the connection between Liberty, and Tyranny by the party they support. Apparently, you are too short sighted to see the connection between what is going on in this country and your freedom to hunt or own firearms. Maybe if you actually opened your mind and read of few of those posts you might get a clue. P.S. I also post many replies on other people's posts.

But a ringer, who will be just like him, has already been hand picked to run. Watch the video.

I like the way she thinks

There's one of those non civil debate, low intellect posts right there. Just an insult, that actually makes Papist's point perfectly. And we aren't even in the political forum.

I believe having a license when you hunt with a jr hunter is the only way a warden would know you are qualified to be hunting with him as a mentor. If you are stopped, just telling the warden you have 40 years of experience isn't proof that you do. The warden only needs proof you have a license, which shows you are qualified, even if you've only had it for 1 year. I see your point, and it is a good one, but unless you are willing to bring it to the DEC and have them make a change to the law, you have to go with what's required at this time. Perhaps the law could be amended to say all you need is an old license to show a warden and you would be OK. I would make my case to the DEC and see how far I could go with it. I think your grandson would admire you for that, even if you never succeed.

I have to agree with you guys. Many on here are just childish bullies. If they don't like a post, a person's past posts, his general life philosophy or his politics, they won't argue the facts of the post, they will attack the OP personally. That is not what is called civilized debate. Some members think they elevate their status on the site by attacking others and looking to see how many will side with them. It's a gang mentality. The Politics section is just the place where this happens most. IMO, that is what moderators are supposed to control. Anyway, it matters not to me what is decided about the recent posts feed. If I think I should post something I believe is important for the outdoor crowd to know, I'll post it. I just have to get better at ignoring the rude comments from those who cannot debate the post from an intellectual standpoint. It's too tempting and easy to stoop to their level with a reply.

http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/Alabama-amicus.pdf

http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/Alabama-press-amicus.pdf

While the gun rights community is focused on the National Rifle Association-backed New York State Rifle and Pistol Association lawsuit challenging New York’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act, a lesser-known complaint has also been filed that is not without both promise and controversy, especially considering NYSRP has specifically pleaded “We ask that no other 3rd party legal action be taken without prior consultation. We realize that this law impacts a very large number of people, but this is an extremely important case and must be handled properly with the best lawyers.” The point is well taken, especially as judicial recognition of what controls are considered “lawful” can be established that other courts throughout the land will then rely on. That’s assuming there is no conflict which the Supreme Court can later rule on, or as importantly, a ruling they will decline to hear on appeal. Add to that NYSRP’s legal team, which includes scholar and author Stephen P. Halbrook, and even the most well-intentioned of independent challenges can raise fears that they’re going to mess things up and force bad precedent on us all. So what do we do when such a challenge happens anyway? For starters, we do ourselves no favors by ignoring it. And examining it, we just may gain valuable insights, both in terms of legal points and in terms of how gun owners, as a community, can best ensure our rights are protected and advanced when a surprise plaintiff enters the fray. The case is Razzano v. Cuomo, filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York by “Gabriel Razzano, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated,” by attorneys Robert J. La Reddola and Steven M. Lester. What’s immediately noticeable, is while the NYSRPA suit has been filed for various associations, companies and residents, including a currently-serving assemblyman and two federal firearms licensees with physical disabilities, the “class members” in the Razzano lawsuit include “all persons who own long arms and are or may become ineligible to obtain or maintain a pistol license or own a newly defined ‘Assault Weapon.’” In terms of who is being sued, in addition to defendants unique to each, both lawsuits name Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and Superintendant of New York State Police Joseph A. D’Amico, although the Razzano complaint specifies “individually” in addition to in their official capacities. Still, it’s fair to ask why a second lawsuit is needed, and whether it should be supported or discouraged. There are parallels in rights both actions invoke in terms of violations, as well as substantial differences between the NYSRP complaint and the Razzano action, the main one being, for Gabriel Razzano, it’s personal. His rights, and those of others like him, are at unique risk for reasons his lawsuit explains. That’s because he’s already been through the legal process in Razzano vs. County of Nassau (“Razzano I”). Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s office sicced the cops on him after an animated meeting over immigration issues, and they confiscated his legally registered weapons--nine rifles, 15 handguns, and his fiancée’s handgun. They revoked his pistol license three weeks later over his “suitability.” In other words, an American citizen, with no criminal charges against him, no convictions, no mental health diagnoses, no adjudication of any kind, was stripped of his supposedly Second Amendment-guaranteed rights essentially because he exercised those promised in the First. “The Court ordered the return of Razzano’s long arms [but] after years of litigation ... Razzano is still ‘ineligible’ for a Nassau County pistol license, and thus under the SAFE Act is subject to having all of his ‘weapons’ confiscated, including hunting rifles and shotguns for self-defense in his home,” the current Razzano lawsuit explains. “Upon information and belief, there are many in New York State who, like RAZZANO, fail to meet the standard of local pistol administrators for non-criminal reasons, and are thus ‘ineligible to possess a handgun license’ or “no longer a valid license holder,” it elaborates. “Therefore, the SAFE Act promulgates the same unconstitutional policy rejected in Razzano I: the seizure of all legally-owned weapons without notice, administrative review or judicial finding.” That would seem borne out by the law, which states “The Division of Criminal Justice Services, upon determining that an individual is ineligible to possess a license, or is no longer a valid license holder, shall notify the applicable licensing official of such determination and such licensing official shall not issue a license or revoke such license and any weapons owned or possessed by such individual shall be removed...” “By registering an assault rifle under Penal Law § 400.00(16-A), an individual is forced to provide information to the State Police which will be used in conjunction with the Database created by N.Y. Penal Law ... to ultimately arrest the individual for being ineligible to possess a ‘weapon,’ ‘firearm,’ ‘shotgun’ or ‘rifle,’ seize the weapons and firearms, and prosecute the individual for possession of such weapons,” Razzano’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order explained, as it attempted to keep the April 15, 2014 deadline from placing him and others in similar situations at risk. That effort suffered a setback last week when the District Court turned that motion down. “The Judge said that this needs to be dealt with in the state court until I have been ‘injured’ (having all my firearms taken away again),” Razzano explained by email. “We will be bringing the state action forthwith and then return to federal court,” Razzano’s attorney, Robert Redola promised. While some may view this as a critique of Razzano’s case, NYSRP has encountered stumbling blocks as well. "The Court ruled against us on guns, but dismissed [the] 7 round limit,” they announced in December, noting they are appealing the District Court decision and order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The questions that remain, at least as far as supporters of gun rights are concerned: Should Razzano defer to the big guns and take one for the team, or should his action be welcomed and supported? Don’t both cases pose risks? Is there no room to embrace and advance both? And if not, what would those inclined to discourage Razzano’s case advise he do? For its part, one statewide group has already expressed support. “SCOPE [the Shooters Committee on Political Education] is fully in support of the Razzano case,” the group posted on its Facebook page, linking to and quoting an April 9 Washington Free Beacon article. “It rightly presents issues that we have been raising since the passage of the so called NY SAFE Act,” said Stephen Aldstadt, president of SCOPE.” For his part, NYSRPA president Tom King weighed in on Razzano’s troubles back in 2008, when he wrote“Congresswomen McCarthy should resign, the police chief should be prosecuted for a civil rights or RICO violation, the entire Nassau County Board should apologize and the residents of Nassau County should hang their heads in shame for not immediately coming to the aid of Mr. Razzano. And by the way where was the ACLU?” Does that mean support will now be forthcoming? Is a right delayed a right denied, and if one man’s rights can be violated, might we all be in danger? Gov. Cuomo doesn't care. He's had taxpayer-funded armed bodyguards for years. Not that it's made the public he's intent on disarming any safer. The Examiner.com