Buying Ammo will put you on a list???

[BizCT]

Once again, I'm sorry for those offended. I just honestly don't believe hunting with a gun in NY will ever be banned in my lifetime, my future kids lifetime, and so on. It is too big of a industry. Maybe some things will change like how many bullets you can have loaded, or what type of guns you can't use, etc. However, I just don't see them banning shotguns or bolt-action rifles. In CT, If I remember correctly you can only load 3 slugs, whereas I always have 5 loaded in my shotgun for deer in NY. If they change the law to 3 in NY, then so be it. I'll roll with the punches and keep hunting.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

And there folks, lies the REAL problem.

[hunterman7956]

Biz did you ever hear the term [give em an inch and they will take a yard] ? Well thats what the gun stance is all about and it's been proven time and again ! Do some research and read what the head of I.C.E said about the endgame plan for gun ownership in the U.S of A It just might change your mind or at least broaden your thinking on this matter !

P.S. We need all the help we can get !!

Edited February 12, 2013 by hunterman7956

[jjb4900]

How many of you that are calling him selfish for his thoughts on gun ownership and laws, have no problem being selfish by dividing the hunting community with your stands on antler restrictions, youth hunts, crossbows, etc.....? those are all me me me issue's.

[hunterman7956]

I for one am not against whatever seasons include youth hunts crossbow issues or ar's .Whatever the application of law includes or doesn't I follow agree or disagree doesn't matter ,what does matter is all sportsman MUST combine our efforts to unite against a common foe ! This should be the goal of every sportsman whether a skeet shooter or target shooter or plinker .If your a hunter or trapper your a sportsman even if you want a gun for self protection for your family this fight includes you ! We must and I can't say this enough UNITE ! Because this is where our power is.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

How many of you that are calling him selfish for his thoughts on gun ownership and laws, have no problem being selfish by dividing the hunting community with your stands on antler restrictions, youth hunts, crossbows, etc.....? those are all me me me issue's.

Very different issues. You are comparing differing opinions about regulations to an assault on a Constitutional right. Opinions should be brought up on any proposed regulation change but the conversations should not even be happening aout restrictiong a right. Not in our ranks. This is an incrimental attck on our freedoms

[ants]

Biz-R-oworld is just zoned in on his individual hunting rights only, and is never going to see it the way most of us do, which is that the 2nd amendment has zero to do with hunting..So be it.

[jjb4900]

unfortunately almost everyone reacts to a situation based on their opinion.........it would probably be pretty shocking to see the number of people who will do nothing to assist in the fight against these laws, in any way, because they have no use for the guns that are being targeted.......I for one have no use for the guns currently being banned, in fact when one shows up at the range with a bag full of ammo and magazines, it's the signal for me to go home......however, I will do what I can to help the cause to fight the new laws.

Edited February 12, 2013 by jjb4900

[mike rossi]

hunterman,

Once a law is in place off course we bide by it like it or not. That doesnt mean we have to unconditionally accept any proposed law, thats why most of the time there is a public comment period.

Who decides who the common enemy is? For the sake of example I am going to refer again to the budget hearing. The FWMB rep criticizes special interest legislation, while he is sitting next to a rep for the biggest source of it, the NYSCC. The next thing discussed and seemingly agreed upon is that the DEC budget is better applied to land aquisations should be distributed throut the state instead of a large pending Adirondack purchase. How slick is that... The DEC does do that off course. But whats more is that this particular land aquisition is recieving money from the bottle bill or something like that. It is very rural and as common in such areas is pretty much legally used by the public anyway. However under public trust it will be designated wilderness. Hunting is still allowed on wilderness lands, but other activities are not, it is those activities they are worried about, not hunting, not conservation/wildlife management. Its okay to reach beyond the scope of hunting and conservation as an individual, but when conservation advisory boards do it is not okay.The next thing that happens is other organizations work it into their newsletters and hunting magazines. The next thing that follows is the wilderness act is rumored to be anti hunting and organizations that support it ( the nature conservancy) are anti hunting. Said enough times it becomes truth to anyone who doesnt think for themselves. Thats what they have been doing and want to continue to be doing. Anyone as an individual has the right to disagree with the wilderness act, but not to miscategorize it as antihunting . A conservation entity never has the right to miscategorize it unnder the guise of working toward conservation and for hunters.

[BizCT]

Biz-R-oworld is just zoned in on his individual hunting rights only, and is never going to see it the way most of us do, which is that the 2nd amendment has zero to do with hunting..So be it.

The topic is supposed to be about having your name on a list if you buy ammo. As I previously said, I could care less if there are background checks before buying ammo.

My name was on the list posted by the Journal News. Do I agree with what they did? Absolutely not, but do I care that my personal name was on the list? No, I could care less.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

unfortunately almost everyone reacts to a situation based on their opinion.........it would probably be pretty shocking to see the number of people who will do nothing to assist in the fight against these laws, in any way, because they have no use for the guns that are being targeted.......I for one have no use for the guns currently being banned, in fact when one shows up at the range with a bag full of ammo and magazines, it's the signal for me to go home......however, I will do what I can to help the cause to fight the new laws.

Thats where im at. Most anyone i know has no use for the stuff that they are after. I would still fight the fight but not for saving what they are now outlawing... Just how they are doing it!

Biz is right in his way of thinking also. You will never see all guns outlawed just because of hunting. Many have a bow, rifle, muzzle and shotgun and thats it. Hunting weapons!!

[mike rossi]

Very different issues. You are comparing differing opinions about regulations to an assault on a Constitutional right. Opinions should be brought up on any proposed regulation change but the conversations should not even be happening aout restrictiong a right. Not in our ranks. This is an incrimental attck on our freedoms

You nailed it.

[jjb4900]

The topic is supposed to be about having your name on a list if you buy ammo. As I previously said, I could care less if there are background checks before buying ammo.

My name was on the list posted by the Journal News. Do I agree with what they did? Absolutely not, but do I care that my personal name was on the list? No, I could care less.

I could care less as well....maybe someone should know if the nutjob living on your street just ordered 5000 rounds of ammo.

Edited February 12, 2013 by jjb4900

[Elmo]

Biz-R-oworld is just zoned in on his individual hunting rights only, and is never going to see it the way most of us do, which is that the 2nd amendment has zero to do with hunting..So be it.

Everyone has their goals and priorities. To have an outlook that anyone who is not fighting by your side is automatically an enemy will probably get you out numbered. Those sitting by the sidelines are not your ally but they're not the enemy either.

I don't own an AR. Would love to have one as a gun enthusiast but don't need it as a hunter so the ban so far doesn't effect me as a hunter per say. I think the ban is wrong because they're targetting a lot of innocent people. Sure, I'm not one of those innocent people but it's still not right. But I don't have anything against those who stay neutral. More so, I definitely don't push them over to the side of the enemy.

I am worried about the background check for ammo. It does open the door for other restrictions. Maybe the government will start to think I don't need more than 5 or 6 guns to hunt with? Cap a limit on the number of guns you can own? That would definitely effect some hunters who wants to use certain guns/calibers for certain hunts/games. They had politicians create bans who know nothing about the actual guns they are banning. Those same politicians probably don't know anything about hunting either.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Many might not agree with me but those that sit idly by and allow rights to be infringed on because "they don't affect me" are the problem or at least equal to those actively taking the right away. In my mind they may even be worse because they are owners of firearms and won’t take a stand.

Can we at least agree that this Safe act will do nothing to reduce violent gun crime? That is one of their stated goals. When that does not work, and it won’t, what then? Do you honestly believe they will throw in the towel and say “Oh well we tried”. If, as only a hunter, you want to see how this could impact you, just do a little research on what has happened in Australia. That did take place in a “life time”. Less than one as a matter of fact. Try to hunt with a semi auto shotgun down there to say nothing of a semi auto rifle. Check out the hoops you have to go through to hunt with a bolt action. It can happen in a life time and if the fence sitters in our ranks don’t choose a side, it will.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Culvercreek hunt club

[ants]

The topic is supposed to be about having your name on a list if you buy ammo. As I previously said, I could care less if there are background checks before buying ammo.

My name was on the list posted by the Journal News. Do I agree with what they did? Absolutely not, but do I care that my personal name was on the list? No, I could care less.

Right but in a prior post you wrote, something to the effect of ,"why do I care who knows what guns I own" A background check on ammo could document what caliber ammo you buy which may indicate what guns you own. It's no ones business IMHO

You really didn't care that your name, and I assume address, was on the Journal news list???

[virgil]

The more people you push to 'the other side' and consider your enemy, the more you will find yourself outnumbered and alienated.

[ants]

Everyone has their goals and priorities. To have an outlook that anyone who is not fighting by your side is automatically an enemy will probably get you out numbered. Those sitting by the sidelines are not your ally but they're not the enemy either.

I don't own an AR. Would love to have one as a gun enthusiast but don't need it as a hunter so the ban so far doesn't effect me as a hunter per say. I think the ban is wrong because they're targetting a lot of innocent people. Sure, I'm not one of those innocent people but it's still not right. But I don't have anything against those who stay neutral. More so, I definitely don't push them over to the side of the enemy.

I am worried about the background check for ammo. It does open the door for other restrictions. Maybe the government will start to think I don't need more than 5 or 6 guns to hunt with? Cap a limit on the number of guns you can own? That would definitely effect some hunters who wants to use certain guns/calibers for certain hunts/games. They had politicians create bans who know nothing about the actual guns they are banning. Those same politicians probably don't know anything about hunting either.

I never said that anyone not fighting on my side is an enemy.. Did I?? I don't own an AR either and I agree wit your comments about the law being unfair to people who do own them.

[ants]

The more people you push to 'the other side' and consider your enemy, the more you will find yourself outnumbered and alienated.

Didn't say anyone was the "enemy" if they disagree with me HELLOOOO

[BizCT]

Right but in a prior post you wrote, something to the effect of ,"why do I care who knows what guns I own" A background check on ammo could document what caliber ammo you buy which may indicate what guns you own. It's no ones business IMHO

You really didn't care that your name, and I assume address, was on the Journal news list???

Correct, I dont care if people know what gun(s) I own. Part of me thinks a background check on ammo/guns could be a good thing. What's stopping criminals from walking into walmart and buying guns/ammo?

Yes, my name & address was listed on the Journal News list and I don't care.

[Elmo]

I never said that anyone not fighting on my side is an enemy.. Did I?? I don't own an AR either and I agree wit your comments about the law being unfair to people who do own them.

No you didn't. I apologize. I simply used your quote as a conversation starter.

[Doc]

How many of you that are calling him selfish for his thoughts on gun ownership and laws, have no problem being selfish by dividing the hunting community with your stands on antler restrictions, youth hunts, crossbows, etc.....? those are all me me me issue's.

Are you really equating those mini-issues with statements that as long as I can squeak through my own lifetime, the hell with those that come after us? Or attitudes of, "as long as I can appease the anti-gunners long enough to get through my life, who cares about future generations". That is unbelieveable that anyone would come out and say things like that. And even more unbelievable that anyone would compare that attitude to a bunch of game management decisions. People arguing about antler restrictions, youth hunts, crossbows, etc. are not talking about incrementally giving away the rights of the future generations. My God, where is your sense of proportion? My only hope is that such scrambled thinking is in the minority among gun owners or our society may have degenerated a whole lot farther than I ever thought.

[joe12]

The government in one swoop infringed upon the rights of a large group of gun owners in New York State as the most popular rifle is now banned from further purchase or ownership. Those that simply do not care because it didn't directly impact them really have their head in the sand. You don't think that anything like this can happen to the next set of firearms that the government decides are not "needed"? You don't see that this is just one step of many by the anti-gun movement?

And Biz r O - you say that you didn't care that the Journal News posted everyone's names, but then you quickly posted links showing the addresses of the Journal News editors, executives, etc. If you didn't care, why would you promote the retaliation by posting the links?

[BizCT]

I didn't care my name was posted, but I never said I agree with what they did. With respect to my posting of their names, etc I was just continuing with the updates regarding the battle back n forth.

[arrow nocker]

I never thought there would be a black market for ammo.

Guys.Add it up.There will be a trafficking law on ammo from out of state next.

The underground sales will create a black market for people getting ammo for others from out of state.Just like moonshine runners in the prohibition days.Then transporting un registered ammo from across the border will be a felony.

Mark my words.Think about it.How many of you said you will go out of state to purchase it.There will be others thinking the same thing and they will be taking orders.