jrm

A friend has invited me on a pheasant hunt in NY. I've hunted deer and coyote in the past, but never any birds. It's on a private preserve. Three main questions: 1. My 12 gauge is a SxS. Is that appropriate for pheasant, or do I need something that holds more than two rounds? 2. How much ammo should I plan to bring for a day in the field? 3. Do I need a NYS hunting license (this is the first year I didn't get one)? I seem to think so, but also thought there was some exception for private preserves. Thanks in advance. Any other tips would be appreciated.

It's a function of the safe act, and a big "FU" to pistol license holders. When your pistol permit is revoked or denied, you not only have to surrender all pistols, you also must surrender all guns, whether or not they are subject to licensing. So, while the certification (and things like "hunting/target") is administrative, the revocation of your license under administrative grounds does trigger an actual law that calls for the surrender of all guns. Oddly, it doesn't appear to disqualify you from ownership of long guns nor is it likely to trigger a NICS denial. Theoretically, you could go out and buy new rifles the day after you surrender the old ones. Who knows, this is uncharted legal ground on a law written and passed by idiots.

Many believe that the NRA has given up on NY. Others argue that they provide support for more local groups that fight the fight here. The courts here do not present a favorable environment. Cuomo's "safe" act was pushed through in the dead of night, is flawed in so many ways (not just being unconstitutional), yet it was essentially upheld in court. Licensing restrictions have been challenged in the past and have be upheld by the courts. The insane disparity from county to county in licensing requirements, rules, process, cost, etc. is inherently unfair - yet it has stood up to legal challenges. Seems the only way to fix anything is to get away from the anti-2A state and federal district courts and get SCotUS to rule. Unfortunately, they have denied most recent challenges. With the current court makeup, it is probably not a good idea anyway. Then again, look at Heller. DC lost. Then re-wrote the law to say the same thing in a different way. These anti-gun locations will fight the courts tooth and nail. Do you really thing NY and/or NYC will stand by and honor national reciprocity? It will take years of court battles and wrongful arrests to actually implement it (if ever passed). We had a glimmer of hope in the last gubenertorial election... Cuomo could have been defeated. It wasn't so much that he was re-elected... simply no one came out to vote against him. What was it... 20% voter turnout. Forget the NRA - if gun _owners_ in this state simply turned out in any numbers, we could have sent Cuomo packing. Voter apathy. We all need to keep fighting the fight. It is a difficult road in this state and organizations like the NRA don't want to waste time and money fighting in an environment where the people continue to elect gun-grabbers.

You are right. It makes no sense. I think they do it just to be a-holes. Pretty sure that NYC restriction is only a few years old. I used to have some friends from the city who would shoot with my on Long Island. Then there was a time when they became nervous about leaving NYC, due to the new rule. Not sure if the rule was new, or if the city just indicated they were planning on enforcing it. Pretty sure the theory is to make it as difficult as possible to buy/own/use the gun. If you can't go shooting at a range or have to jump through hoops to go hunting, maybe you will give up the hobby altogether.

If you can find any other information on this, it would be appreciated. Short version: There was a case about a year ago - Osterweil. He lived in NJ, had a NJ pistol license and owned land in NY. NY does not recognize the NJ license and refused to issue him a non-resident license. He sued and won. The result is NYS must now issue non-resident permits to people with property in NY. I tried this within NY. I have homes in two counties. My main residence is where I have my license, which is restricted. The county where I have my second home is well known for being very pro-2A and issues unrestricted licenses. Their application clearly states you MUST be a FULL TIME resident in that county to qualify. I looked into getting a license in that county using the Osterweil case. A neighbor is a NJ resident and can apply for an unrestricted non-resident. However, I am limited to the administrative restrictions enforced by my county. A perfect example of how screwed up NYS laws/rules are. The pistol license people were nice and understood my logic. They were also very sure the judge would deny my application. That's a big problem because for the rest of eternity I would have to indicated I was denied. I'm not going to pursue it unless I am sure of a positive outcome. Depending on the county, they may be more understanding for a NYC license holder, since that is a premise license. If not, a county is generally going to view your license as a NYS license and not be willing to issue a second license.

Sounds like you are in NYC. Different rules apply there vs the rest of the state. I don't know for certain, but it is my understanding you are very limited. Friends in NYC with a pistol license claim they are prohibited from going to a range in Nassau or Westchester. They must stay within the city. Again, it's hearsay based on what I have been told. Even if true, I have no idea how enforcement works. I know Nassau and Suffolk both have a "handbook" that spells out the do's and don'ts. Check NYC to see if they have something similar. Something in writing from the city is your best bet. if you are just applying for your license, it might be best to leave the question alone for now. Don't make waves and give them an excuse to deny. Keep in mind that some of the NYC uses may be "law." Unlike other NY counties, NYC gets to make its law on this. In the end, it is little difference between law and administrative restriction. Violation of either can result in loss of your license. Defending yourself from charges is expensive and difficult to win in NYC.

Seems it is... from the website: "This system does not process recertifications for New York City, Nassau County, Suffolk County or Westchester County permits. If you currently have a New York City, Nassau County, Suffolk County or Westchester County permit, you must follow the requirements that are in place in your county, rather than use this recertification system." Guess those counties are so far up Albany's backside, that it is felt they can ream us much better at a local level than they can with an Albany mandate.

It looks like all the info you need can be found here: http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/nonrslicform.htm That doesn't sound right (especially for any populous state in the northeast). Based on a document on a NJ State website: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/hunted/chapter_1.pdf "Do not trespass. It is against the law to enter private property without permission, even if the property is not posted or fenced. All land in New Jersey is owned by someone." "Always secure permission before hunting on private land."

I asked this question a few years back at both my hunter ed and bow ed classes. In both cases I was told it is perfectly legal. that was after an odd look and the above question. my answer was "why not?"

Regarding the altitude, what is considered high vs low? I'm not in the valley, but there are plenty of nearby areas which are higher. I'm at about 2100 ft ASL.

Thanks for the info. I was born with a red (opposite of green) thumb so all this is new to me.

I forgot about that late frost. So this would be considered "normal" or expected due to this season's environmental factors?

Hoping some of the knowledgeable folks on this forum can help me out. Two seasons ago, I had several fruit trees planted to start a small "orchard." Plum, pear, apple plus some blueberries. We made sure to plant a few of each for those that needed cross-pollination. The entire area has been fenced in. Last year we saw some fruit. Very little, but we didn't expect any until this year (due to when the trees were originally planted). Still, almost all the trees had something. There were also plenty of blueberries (considering the size of the plants). Fast forward to this year. There is not a single fruit on the trees. Not a hint of anything... I thought I would see at least a small apple or pear. There we a few blueberries, but they never grew to full size or ripened. What is also odd are the several "wild" apple trees on my property. They normally have plenty of fruit growing (most of it higher than an animal such as a deer could get to). It may not be the best for eating, but there is usually plenty of it. This year, I literally found one small apple on one of the trees. This is all in the northern catskill area. I realize the drought may have affected things, but this situation seems very strange. Any ideas?

According to Lucky Gunner (internet retailer): According to Target Sports (internet retailer): According to "Ammoland.com" (2015) From Syracuse.com (July 2015) So it seems that the answer depends upon whom you ask. Retailers are split on the answer. The Gov's office believes the 2015 MOU keeps the internet sales prohibition, while those who accepted the MOU believe the opposite. It seems the memo was like a little league participation trophy. Everybody won, and no one lost. If you find a deal and the retailer will ship to you, go for it. It's been a while since I read the text, but my recollection is that the law put the onus on retailers not consumers.

I have had a mulberry tree at almost every home I lived in. Recently planted one on my upstate property. Was hard to find one as they don't seem to be very common up there. A mulberry looks like a blackberry that grows on a tree. It also tastes much like a blackberry - the taste is simply not as strong. Lot's of uses. My family has always loved them. The trees tend to grow well and need little maintenance. Even a relatively small tree can yield quite a bit of fruit. They can end up being nice shade trees. The one downside is the "dye." The berries can stain skin, clothes - anything. Birds that eat the berries can leave purple droppings. Not an insurmountable problem, but one to be aware of.

The flip side of this is: If you can't keep up with the traffic flow... If you camp in the left lane causing traffic behind you to slow down... If you rubberneck at accidents or activity on the other side of the road... If you find changing lanes challenging... If you feel compelled to slow down to 55 in a 65 zone because you see a cop on the side of the road... If you have trouble staying in the lane because your cell phone conversation/texting is more important... Or one thousand other things that slow down traffic and cause accidents... Then you should not be driving. I am not a complete fan of the self-driving car concept for other reasons. To get rid of the horrible drivers on the road and get to my destination in considerably less time (even when I am tired or want to have a drink with dinner), I think the tradeoff is worth it. Thing is - it _should_ be the Jetson's by now. I want my flying car.

So all the lefties are mindless zombies. And all the righties are jack-arses who get their information from the "only" news source that is always wrong. That doesn't leave anyone who is intelligent enough to run for office or vote for a candidate. We are apparently ALL idiots who deserve to be fleeced by the idiots in charge. When everyone is right 100% of the time and everyone else is wrong 100% of the time, its no wonder nothing gets done. While we are arguing over who is the "stupider" candidate (or party, or voter) the pols are robbing us blind and laughing all the way to the bank. There are no political sides of the aisle. They are in their together. The real two party system is the political ruling class on one side, and the peasants (us) on the other. Frankly, just about all of the pols should be in jail.

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Law_%28Tekken%29 I think it would be great if Obama brought this kick-a$$ video game character to life. We could set him loose on ISIS and not have to risk real American lives. Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

I have nothing to hide either. However, I do not agree that the US Government should have unfettered access to... 1. My health information 2. My bank account information 3. My private texts with family and friends 4. My private emails with family and friends 5. My financial data 6. My confidential corporate correspondence with clients and co-workers 7. My purchase history with Amazon and other online vendors 8. My personal photos and videos 9. Personal information about family and friends (which they have provided me) 10. Credit card details All this and more is on my phone. Now, I will completely agree that with a proper warrant/due process they government should have the ability to get any of that information which relates to their investigation and is covered by the warrant. First point is that opening my phone would give them access to troves of unrelated, but still private and sensitive information. There is, a much bigger issue at play. Let's take a leap and say we have nothing to hide and that the U.S. Government can be trusted to never abuse the power to unlock and that once unlocked your information will not be misused or compromised. The problem is that plenty of other U.S. agencies/DAs are already chomping at the bit to get the same access. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is only a very short time before the "master key" is in the wild. Then, everyone's phone is vulnerable to thieves and other untrustworthy types. Further, other governments are sure to demand the same thing of Apple (and Google). That opens up this exploit to foreign governments, many of which will use this tool for the wrong purposes. I may not have something to hide, but that doesn't mean I want the Russian mob (behind the "Nigerian Scam" and other online rip-offs) to have access to the personal data on my phone. Most people's phones contain more than enough information to make "identity theft" easy enough for a three-year old to perpetrate. Interesting that the FBI director is back-pedling on his congressional testimony. At first he testified that this was a "one time, one phone" situation. He has not corrected himself to say that other agencies are asking for this and that it would be used in other cases. The problem with the digital work is that once that file, program, code, etc. is out there, it is only a matter of time before it is available anywhere and everywhere. It cannot be contained. Edited to add: I just realized I do have something to hide. Since an iPhone tracks your movements with GPS data, I can imagine a slew of speeding tickets coming my way if the government gets access.

Not sure about that. According to Apple, the ability to get the data does not exist. If it does, it is closely guarded secret among hackers. I'm not swearing that Apple is telling the truth, but not even the FBI is challenging them on that point... if there was another way to get the data, they probably would have used it already. Since the local government owns the phone and gave permission, it is not a question of legally accessing the data through a warrant. The FBI already has the legal ability to access the data through whatever means is can. There is also the matter of the password change. Apparently, Apple could have and would have been able to assist with access. However, someone apparently changed the password after the fact and complicated the situation. I don't fully understand this as you normally have to know the old password to create a new one - and you should know the new one you created. Some stories have mentioned this as a change in user name. As is usually the case, news reporting is less than complete and often filled with errors. If the courts are going to issues orders on this, they should prosecute the person who changed the password for tampering with evidence and obstruction. If they were serving a proper warrant on Apple, I would agree that Apple should comply. However, they are asking Apple to create software that allows a third party to hack a phone through a brute force attack. By its very design, such software could be used on any phone at any time. Once it exists, then Apple would be legally bound to release that software to any government in any country it operates (thorough legal court orders in those countries). It the software doesn't exist, there is nothing to turn over. Do we want China, Russia or Nigeria to have that software? Does anyone believe if those governments have such software it will be safe and not leaked? Aside from the privacy issues at stake, there is another important point. A large part of Apple's success rests on the iPhone. One part of the device's popularity is that all your personal information is secure and encrypted. If they were compelled to create a method to defeat their own security, that puts them at a severe competitive disadvantage vs. Google, Microsoft and any other phone OS. One can argue the reality of it, but markets are based on public perception. If Apple is perceived as less secure because governments (and thieves, which are sometimes the same as governments) around the world now have to ability to break into your phone, they will lose market position. Can a court compel a company to invalidate one of its biggest (legal) selling points for one of its top products?

Thanks for the information. Looks like it is more complicated than it appears on the surface. If that's the case, I see your point. Looks like typical government mismanagement. If you collect an amount at the end of 2014 and place it in an interest bearing instrument, you are supposed to receive that interest in 2015 (and each year thereafter). If they aren't receiving that interest, there is something wrong. I don't think that invalidates the concept of a lifetime license, as the math should work. The problem seems to be with the administration of funds collects or some "creative" accounting that routes the interest and/or principal somewhere else. Frankly, if they manage the lifetime revenues that poorly, it doesn't give me much faith that the annual license revenues are managed any better. Maybe some of that money is paying the pensions for Skelos and Sliver while they are in jail? NY is so corrupt it wouldn't surprise me.

Very interesting comment. It bothers me that this has been turned into an party-line issue (in general - not singling out the OP). I lean very right and was surprised to find out that I am apparently very "left" on this one. Of course, there are many conflicting "facts" out there and people are spinning the story in different directions. As I understand it, the feds want Apple to write and provide software that will enable the feds to hack the phone. Based on this, I have to side with Apple.

Hesitant to jump into the middle of this, but want to make sure I understand. From what has been written, annual license fees go into the DEC spending pot and lifetime license fees go into an interest bearing vehicle with the interest being available for the DEC spending pot. That being the case, I don't understand Mike's distaste for lifetime licenses. Phade used the example of a lifetime license generating the following revenue: $765 @ 5% = $38.25. That's for the lifetime sportsman license, which included small/big game, turkey and fishing. Alternately, there is the Hunting lifetime for $535. Using the same 5% return (which I think is a little high for the current market, but will use is anyway)the annual revenue it $26.75. An annual hunting license is only $22. The DEC actually does $4.75 more income on a lifetime license. For all privileges of the sportsman (hunt, turkey, fish) you would pay $57/year vs.the theoretical income of $38.25. Seem like a loss - however, that lifetime license forces every hunter to buy all three items. If they get it just for deer and turkey, for example, they also pay for fishing. Now the state actually receives $38.25 as opposed to an annual fee of $32. I don't know how many lifetime sportsman holders do or do not take advantage of all three license privileges (or how many would not have if buying individually on an annual basis). That's a calculated risk that still seems to tip in favor of lifetime income. On top of that is the already mentioned point. The lifetime payment is all up-front. It continues to generate that annual fee whether or not the person hunts and long after the person is deceased. Seems like a good idea all around. The income generated seems to be at least the same, and probably more (definitely more over the long term). How does that cause the environment to die?

Under NYS Penal law, a "firearm" is essentially a handgun. PL Section 265: Thus, a loaded firearm in a vehicle is not the same (legally) as a loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle. ECO law may or may not differ on that point, I am not sure. They only have info on their webpage, which is not the actual law. The wording of the law and the definitions included in that law are what matters.

True. (Downstream is all that matter here). Keep in mind that all the items you listed are realtively low-bandwidth applications. Even YouTube. Downloading/watching an HD movie requires a much bigger pipe. Even with compression, you are still looking at several gigabytes for a feature length movie. I'm not claiming it can't be done (many are doing it right now). However, if you and a few neighbors are all hitting up HBO at the same time to watch this week's "Game of Thrones" in 1080p, there are potential issues. Especially when the internet provider wants to sell you a faster speed. What I am saying is that as more people go this route, the internet providers will find a way to cap your speed (some already do) or charge more for the bandwidth you use. I recall reading accounts of people using Apple TV and complaining about the time to download some HD movies. Don't know if that has been fixed or if movie rentals/purchases through other services have or had the same issue. On the subject of compression, not all providers are created equal. There are differences between Cablevision, FIOS, Dish, Direct TV, TWC, etc. I imagine there are also differences between online content services (for example, YouTube is famous for over compressing video content). This may or may not be a factor to consider. The level of picture quality expected could be important, depending on one's situation.