jrm

"The problem with internet quotes is that you cant always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln, 1864

It is not illegal to sell barbed heads, just like it is not illegal to sell bait. Dick's carries a decent selection of deer bait. It is not illegal to own buy/own barbed heads or to shoot them at targets. It is, however, illegal to hunt with them. This page: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/8305.html has a description and diagram showing what is allowed and what isn't. Seems pretty clear. If there is still doubt, you can check your local DEC office to make sure.

Not sure which model your camera is. I know some cameras have software which allows you to adjust the settings on your computer. It will not help you in the field (unless you tether to a laptop) but might allow you to create different settings in advance.

Time for EVERYONE in NY State to step up. First step is to unseat Cuomo (and any assembly/senate who allowed safe to pass). Nothing will send a stronger message to those in Albany than being voted out. That message will absolutely make those in office think twice. On the other hand, a solid win for Cuomo and these others in November will be promoted as a "mandate" for the safe act. You can bet your last dollar that they already have the next round or restrictions lined up and ready to go. Cuomo is laying low right now because he knows it is a voter hot button without as much popular support as he anticipated. After November, the ammo database/BGC will be pushed ahead, enforcement of other provisions will be increased. Sooner or later we will be hunting in a "virtual" field, with computer generated game. Unless the state maybe allows us the ability to own and throw small rocks. Don't think you are safe because you don't own an "evil assault weapon." The end game is to remove access to all guns (at least for regular folks. Politicians, celebrities and their security details still get plenty of firepower). We have the means to change things and the voting booth is the place.

True to a point. You cannot transfer a safe registered gun to anyone else inside of NY State. Also, when you die, no one inside NY state can legally inherit the gun. Your heirs are forced to dispose of them. If they can't sell them out of state, they must turn them in to be destroyed (without compensation). Effectively we are one generation away from everything that the safe act defines as an "assault weapon" being banned and illegal in NY State - registered or not. Once you register, that particular gun is tied to you forever. When you die or move out of NY, that rifle is no longer allowed in NYS. I understand your point, but the reality is more than just "registration." It is, at best, delayed confiscation.

That's a "glass is half empty" view! How about because it is NOT accepted or part of the law in virtually the entire rest of the country, the gun-grabbers are out of touch and should LOSE their fight? The problem is that NYC carries a tremendous amount of political influence inside of NY State. That is one reason restrictive gun laws get written and passed. Fortunately, that influence doesn't extend to most areas outside of NY state. Yes, the fight is everywhere. It is just that it is currently much harder for us to "win" that fight in NY.

Yes you did. My point was that you have to register either way. The rest of us have options. We can modify and and avoid registration while those in NYC cannot. So for you, I guess you could say "no dilemma." For those in the rest of the state, there is a dilemma. Prior to safe, could you own/register an AR in NYC? Or were they already restricted?

While jt is great that many law enforcement agencies are against the law, remember that they still CAN enforce the law at any time. Don't rely on any of these statements in articles to believe you are safe from prosecution. If you have an unregistered gun which meets the state's new definition of "assault weapon" you are in violation. The state can. at any time, decide to enforce that law upon you and you will lose. From everything I have read, actually registration numbers are very low. (The state has decided to keep the numbers a secret, probably to avoid embarrassment). I am sure many have not registered and decided to ignore the law. I salute those people but also understand why others cannot risk this avenue of protest. Others have modified their guns to stay legal and avoid registration - this is another valid option.

Excellent point and one that needs to be communicated more widely. Among other things, I am involved in a non-hunting related outdoor recreation group. At a recent meeting there was some talk about the new crossbow proposals in NY as well as a fear of "expanded hunting seasons." It was all a complete misunderstanding (since everything was either wrong information or information that didn't effect this group at all). They also argued that the fall was the "best" time of year for their own activities. I kept explaining about the relatively short hunting season - much of which happens during "winter" weather conditions. I also tried to point out the advantages of aligning with sportsman/hunting groups since we actually have many of the same goal. Not sure I got through as too many seem to have both a fear of guns and a distain for "bambi killers." Sometimes I think the "outdoor recreationist" arguments are a little disingenuous. While they like to throw out reasons like "time equality" I think their real reason for opposition is they do no like hunting. Along the same lines it also seems rooted in the rampant disrespect for others that permeates our society. If "I" don't like or participate in that activity, then that activity really doesn't matter. "My" activity is "better" and deserves more rights/access/etc. than yours.

Safe act or not, you would have to register any long gun based on the location you are showing - Staten Island is in NYC. Registration is certainly one legal path to take. Many have chosen to instead make simple modifications which allow the rife to remain legally unregistered in part of NY outside NYC. I agree the consequences are severe (unnecessarily so). However there are legal options aside from registration. Many feel that registration equals "surrender" and allows an unconstitutional law to win. Some of us cannot afford the consequences associated with open defiance of the law - however, modification (and other actions) allow those to keep their property, transfer it to others and thumb their nose at Cuomo with fear of prosecution.

Anyone have details on this section? It would be nice if there were some discounted prices on licenses.

If I read this correctly, your research consists of talking to SCOPE and NYPRA - whose research consists of contacting county clerks. And those county clerks told them what? That they would release the information based on a FOIL request? Or were they told what you were told - that the information would NOT be released because they would refuse the request? Have any of these organizations actually filed a FOIL request and received the opt out list? Talking to someone on the phone is one thing. Actually filing the request and receiving the information is entirely different. File the request in a dozen or so counties and then it can be called legitimate research. I still see no reason to recommend against filing the form. Nothing you have written provides ANY negative result from the opt out form. It _might_ keep your name from being released. If it doesn't, it gives you cause to file action against the government and the safe act. If you don't fill out the form, your name is guaranteed to be released by a FOIL request. I would think this provides a great opportunity for SCOPE or NYPRA to file suit agains the state for violating its own law and another avenue to attack the safe act. I never did the opt out thing because I really don't care one way or the other. However, your previous post already indicated that your county (along with an implication that most counties are on the same page) would refuse a FOIL request to release opt out names. So again, I don't understand the harm in filling out the form if that's what someone wants to do. It is better than nothing and at least gives you a _chance_ of having your name withheld. For someone who doesn't want their name released, there is absolutely no downside to filling out the form. I think efforts are better spent on fighting the registration and prohibited items sections of the bill rather than the opt out provision. Still, with all these groups screaming about the gaping loophole of the opt out section, I am surprised that the issue hasn't received more (any) press or that lists of the opt out names haven't already surfaced. Thank you for your response. I surrender, as I don't think I will ever "get it" when it comes to the immenent danger of the opt out provision. I wish you and your organization the best as we are certainly on the same side when it comes to the repeal of the safe act.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I want to understand what you are trying to say. I realize internet forums are full of snippy people who like to argue and provoke others. While I can sometimes see the fun in that, it is absolutely NOT what I am trying to do here. Let's say you are right - you opt out and your name is on a list that can still be FOILed. What's the difference between this and not opting out? Someone who is going to FOIL the handgun license list would also FOIL the opt out list. They still have all the names. At most, you cause them to file two requests instead of one. Unless, as you state, the county clerk refuses to release the names on the opt-out list. If that's the case then the opt-out is working in that county. Look to me like a valid reason to opt out if you want your name withheld. I don't see what your "research" is (aside from talking with your county clerks office, where they may or may not be providing factual information). I don't see what your "research" points to. If you are 100% correct, then it would make sense to submit and opt out form because the clerk would refuse to release your information. Again, the county and state already knows who you are and what handguns you own. Putting you name on a piece of paper asking to keep your personal information private does not give any more information than you have already given them. So what is the "problem" and what is the "fight" on opt out? No one is saying anything is fine. No one is arguing to keep the safe act because it has an opt out provision. Of course, while the safe act is in force, the state and counties are required to abide by the opt out provision. You claim they are not (although you also claim they technically are, just for their own reasons rather than the law itself). So what are the assumptions? What do your connected people claim is going on? Is the opt out provision some sort of hidden trap? I apologize if it appears I am arguing. I am merely going on the facts (not assumptions) - there is a law allowing for opt-out; the counties are obligated to follow that law; if they don't follow that law, it is cause for legal action. Where are my assumptions? I honestly feel I am missing your point on this one.

Then I stand by my incredulity. Your (or any) county clerk doesn't necessarily know the right answer. May as well walk into a police station and ask them for details about the safe act. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they aren't. So your clerk told you that a list of names that they are restricted by law from releasing can be released by a simple FOIL request. But that clerk also has the power to ignore a FOIL request that they are required to acknowledge. All you can really do is prove my point. File the FOIL request and the clerk will deny it. The only question remaining will be whether it was denied because of the law prohibiting release or denied because the clerk is breaking the FOIL rules requiring release. There is no question as to why the opt out was included in the safe act. It was a PR move. There was public outcry from people on both sides of the issue when that newspaper published people's information. The opt out was a red herring thrown in there so they could claim they were listening to and protecting "us." I agree 100% that it is BS. Government form in a government office? Of course - same as the pistol license form in the same office. They already have your name, fingerprints, personal information, list of handguns owned and probably DNA on file. What can be FOILed is already there for anyone to obtain and always has been. People have been obtaining and releasing this information for a long time. Opting out has no downside. You are not giving anyone one iota of information they don't already have. There is, however, an upside. If they release your name after an opt-out request, you have the possibility of taking legal action against the office that broke the law. I admit it is a slim possibility, but it is an infinitely better possibility than if you didn't opt out. Not opting out is essentially permission to release your information to anyone filing the request. Opting out at least gives you the ability to complain about it. I am completely against the safe act. I support repeal of the entire thing - opt out included. That doesn't make opt-out a bad thing. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Protecting people's privacy is a good thing to me.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I find the concept highly questionable. i will call my county and check it out, just to satisfy my curiosity. By having "been down this road" are you claiming you filed a request and received a list of pistol license holders who opted out? If you are claiming you have personally done that and actually have that list, I won't bother contacting my county. I will take your word for it. I would also be amazed as - according to NYS law - that is blatantly illegal. You would be in possession of prime evidence for a civil (and possible criminal) action. Contact a lawyer, it might be a good payout. This has absolutely nothing to do with "faith" in any politician.They are all lying low-lifes in my book... Whether it is the "Democrat" traitor Cuomo and his ilk or the "Republican" traitor Skelos and his ilk. The fact is that the "opt out" thing was signed into law - it no longer matters who wrote it or signed it. It blows me away that they can blatantly violate a clear section of law. Are you suggesting that they wrote the law with no intention of following it? That wouldn't surprise me. What would surprise me is that someone hasn't yet obtained the list of "opt out" names and filed suit over it. It would be pretty big news. Prior to the "opt out" rule, anyone could get that information. I don't see how being "in the know" changes anything. If you don't opt out, anyone can still get your name. If you do opt out, by law your information can not be released. If they are breaking the law by releasing it, there is no difference than before the law or by not opting out. All you lose is the few minutes of time it takes to fill out the form.

I won't state for a fact this is not the case, but I highly doubt it. It is now NYS law that you can sing up for an "opt out" list so you name is not released. If you can file a FOIL request to get the opt-out names, that not is not only a gaping loophole, it is also in direct contradiction to the law. By releasing your information, the state (or agency that release the info) would be wide open for a lawsuit. If you filled out the form to have your name withheld, both local and state agencies are legally bound to withhold your name. If they do not, they are in violation of the law.

Pistol License is the obvious first requirement. The exact procedure will vary by county. In my county: 1. Go to gun store. Purchase gun. 2. Take paperwork to police headquarters. Get purchase document. 3. Return to gun store with purchase document. Receive gun. 4. Go back to police HQ with gun for inspection and have it added to license. You can do all in the same day. It can be a royal PITA if the gun store is not close to police HQ. Step # 3 must be completed within a certain time frame (14 days?) before the purchase document expires. I believe you have 10 days to complete step 4.

I remember seeing a NYS Pistol License holder list a little more than five years ago. This information has always been available to pretty much anyone, just for the asking. Antis have been publishing this information online for a while. It only received media attention when the newspaper (Westchester? Putnam?) published the names. You can fill out the form to have your name excluded from future release requests. However, if you name was on a list released prior to that request, it is too late. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is done. They can't call your name back. With things being published online these days, information is pretty much out there forever.

It is under the graphic in the linked article: "Shootings at K-12 schools in red, at colleges/universities in purple."

You have a point about the proposed bill. What gets me most - and when you know it is an "agenda" driven statement - is the use of the term "gun violence." If they removed the word "gun" from the sentence, it would make more sense to me. I am for the reduction of ALL violence. I have a problem understanding what "gun" violence is since I have never seen a gun become violent. Any I have seen just sit there minding their own business until someone picks it up. I can support fixing NICS so it works as intended. I can support a prohibition on felons and truly disturbed people having access to guns. I can't support politicians and appointed bureaucrats denying "regular" people access to guns for arbitrary reasons and without due process. It is also annoying when people misrepresent the facts, even through omission. It sound good when you talk about a bill that will "prohibit the mentally disturbed" from passing a NICS check. It becomes disingenuous when they fail to mention the details and/or other provisions in the same bill which don't sound so good. By that logic, you could argue the safe act is a good thing, as it increases penalties for illegal possession. What that would fail to mention is that it also makes several commonly owned rifles illegal and has many other provisions which restrict the rights of legal gun owners. I am so sick of politicians and the talking points they train people to use in the media. Worse is that the media prints/shows these things as-is and never questions or clarifies the facts. Not too long ago there was some integrity in journalism and reporters actually did some real research to find and expose the facts. The Op-Ed stuff was reserved for a particular section and labeled as such.

Michael Corleone kept a gun in the bathroom and he was a pretty tough guy... edited because I can't figure out how to embed a YouTube video in a post. Here is the link:

Unfortunately, the problem is with the camera. If they saved video in the proper format, then the iPad could import those as easily as it does photos. I am not sure if any trail cameras save in the proper format. Most don't seem to "support" anything Apple.

What a sick world we live in. There is no sane reason for this and I hope you are not in any real danger. How can people like this fail to see the tragic irony in their position. How can their distaste for someone killing an animal translate into a justification for killing a human? While others have mentioned changing privacy settings on place like "Facebook" that will not do very much to address the problem (not for the OP specifically - I mean in general terms). There is too much personal information too readily available online. Especially for someone who is willing to invest a little bit of time and effort. Take the OP for example. I have no idea who he is on FB. However, the post directly above mine shows a picture (presumably of him), a location of Western MA and a total of 521 posts. It is a safe bet I could look through those posts and get enough information to narrow things down further. Everything we do online leaves a digital trail for the whole world to see. You don't have to list your full name and address. Most of us give away plenty through "casual" conversation.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Sure, sometimes the system does pretty crazy things. These are exceptions rather than the rule. Of course it is the exceptions which make the headlines, not the everyday, common sense things. I was looking into liability issues like this recently. I am not a lawyer and I don't work with/for one. I was still able to find decisions of many NYS court cases. Contrary to urban legend, there seems to be a long list of civil court case decisions that fall on the side of common sense (i.e. side with the defendant/property owner, as one would hope and expect). Insurance is both part of the problem and part of the solution. It gives you protection from the frivolous things. It also tends to pay out a settlement whether or not the case makes sense. NYS law explicitly provides protection for landowners whose land is used by others for recreation (provided there is no cost to do so). Add some cheap insurance on top of that and I don't understand why anyone would be afraid to let others use their land. Yes, anyone can sue anyone else at any time for any reason. I bet you can find a lawyer who will take any case, no matter how frivolous. The insurance companies usually have better lawyers and fight it for you. If it really is frivolous, they will not pay because they know a judge will likely not take the case. If the case has merit (negligence or malcontent such as building a booby-trap) it will still probably settle. Either way, the insurance company handles it all. A big payout may mean higher rates or a cancelled policy - but I would still maintain that a big payout generally means you were actually in the wrong. There are always exceptions, but I believe the vast majority of liability cases work out in a relatively fair way. I have been connected with a few civil cases. Two involved a hit and run, in one of which the driver was obviously drunk. From what you see/read, you would think it was going to be a jackpot of the injured party. In reality it doesn't work that way. "Good" lawyers weren't interested in the case - they showed me the payout list and if you didn't lose an appendage or die, the potential payout is too low for them to get involved. Most cases get settled. It is not so much a problem with courts and laws, but with lawyers and insurance companies. They know in advance how many man-hours it will take to do something. Thus it becomes easier to "lose" and pay $1.00 than to "win" and have it cost you $2.00.

It's easy. Governor Crow-mo got the safe-lawn act passed, requiring all grubs to register their lawn-assault weapons. He is now sending out his crow-mo enforcers to lawns everywhere. Due to registration documents, they know exactly where to find each grub.