NY Safe Act

[beachpeaz]

Ok, all you people that are way smarter than I am.  Can someone tell me what the basis behind the Safe Act was?  Before you answer, understand that I know it was liberal anti-gun mongrels trying to make it harder to own a gun since the 2nd amendment is a dead end for them.  Don't bother ranting on here about those blood suckers, we are on the same page.

 

What I am trying to understand, that nobody that I have asked could answer, is WHAT the main objective was to get it passed through legislation.  Simply outing all the legally registered hand gun owners and their weapons was not the moral of the story (that was the the aftermath).

 

Nobody can tell me WHY this needed to be a matter of public record and HOW this makes anyone safer?  There has to be a centerpiece to it that would have allowed it to get this far.

 

Even if I don't agree with something (as is this case) i still try and see both sides.  Being educated only helps in the fight against something.

 

Does anyone have a deeper understanding of the Act and what the argument is for it?

[jjb4900]

It was just a political ploy by Albany to show everyone they're tough on gun laws.........there was no rational thinking behind it.

[beachpeaz]

There HAS to be something behind it or it wouldn't have gotten passed.  There must be something somewhere that has an ounce of some rational thought.  I just don't understand.

 

Just publishing gun owners would be even a waste of liberal's time.  it doesn't serve them any purpose.

[Five Seasons]

It was just a political ploy by Albany to show everyone they're tough on gun laws.........there was no rational thinking behind it.

 

that about sums it up. there's really no need to keep going. We beat it to death in the offseason. For me it's time to focus on my stick and string and forget that this state went full blown retard.

[jjb4900]

There HAS to be something behind it or it wouldn't have gotten passed.  There must be something somewhere that has an ounce of some rational thought.  I just don't understand.

 

Just publishing gun owners would be even a waste of liberal's time.  it doesn't serve them any purpose.

most of the Safe Act won't serve any purpose.......bad people will still do bad things, no matter how much they try to regulate.

[NYbuck50]

There HAS to be something behind it or it wouldn't have gotten passed.  There must be something somewhere that has an ounce of some rational thought.  I just don't understand.

 

Just publishing gun owners would be even a waste of liberal's time.  it doesn't serve them any purpose

 

If rational thoughts were required in Albany, we would be without a single politician.

[beachpeaz]

based on these answers, it is safe to assume that, like me, noboby else has any answers to my question.

 

I have yet to find a single person who can explain it.

[greybeard]

This is MY opinion....  It gives politicians wiggle room after murders are committed. They can state that they tried to stop violence by controlling guns.. Do they really believe it, I would think not, but now they can say that they tried.

New York can now blame other States with less restrictive gun laws for the problems. They can also blame the federal government for not passing stricter gun control laws...Good strategy, pass the buck and get reelected. I woulda done it myself.. It's a winning strategy, there will always be murders in New York, but the STATE officials will say that they did their best to stop it..

 

When the President gave speeches about gun control, I said it'll never happen,because  the Congress would prevent very restrictive laws. If I knew that, as did many others, then you have to know that the President did too. This Congress doesn't want to pass anything he wants, so why would any intelligent man think that this controversial issue  would pass if he pushed for it.

In the future, when  a mass killing  happens, he and his gun control supporters have someone else  to blame. The Gun Control supporters will report that  It happened because those non supportive elected officials didn't support the President....... It's just a game.

 

It's kinda like  the old parent thing.."I told you to do that, and you didn't listen,and ignored me, so NOW look what happened." It's worked since the beginning of time...

[beachpeaz]

This is MY opinion....  It gives politicians wiggle room after murders are committed. They can state that they tried to stop violence by controlling guns.. Do they really believe it, I would think not, but now they can say that they tried.

New York can now blame other States with less restrictive gun laws for the problems. They can also blame the federal government for not passing stricter gun control laws...Good strategy, pass the buck and get reelected. I woulda done it myself.. It's a winning strategy, there will always be murders in New York, but the STATE officials will say that they did their best to stop it..

 

When the President gave speeches about gun control, I said it'll never happen,because  the Congress would prevent very restrictive laws. If I knew that, as did many others, then you have to know that the President did too. This Congress doesn't want to pass anything he wants, so why would any intelligent man think that this controversial issue  would pass if he pushed for it.

In the future, when  a mass killing  happens, he and his gun control supporters have someone else  to blame. The Gun Control supporters will report that  It happened because those non supportive elected officials didn't support the President....... It's just a game.

 

It's kinda like  the old parent thing.."I told you to do that, and you didn't listen,and ignored me, so NOW look what happened." It's worked since the beginning of time...

 

while I agree with everything you said, here is the problem I am running into....

 

it does NOT have anythign to do with restricting guns.  That seems to be the common answer I have hear people argue.

 

Having it a matter of public record that someone owns a gun doesn't make it harder to own a gun! 

 

And, since the murders and mass shooting are done usually by criminals and unregistred guns, that argument wouldn't even hold up.  The idiot politians can say, "well, we made everyone public who owns a handgun legally, but this was done by a criminal and an unregistred weapon, so we have no idea."  That would just make the case for OUR side of the argument against it this stupid Act.

 

I don't get it.

 

 

[jjb4900]

while I agree with everything you said, here is the problem I am running into....

 

it does NOT have anythign to do with restricting guns.  That seems to be the common answer I have hear people argue.

 

Having it a matter of public record that someone owns a gun doesn't make it harder to own a gun! 

 

And, since the murders and mass shooting are done usually by criminals and unregistred guns, that argument wouldn't even hold up.  The idiot politians can say, "well, we made everyone public who owns a handgun legally, but this was done by a criminal and an unregistred weapon, so we have no idea."  That would just make the case for OUR side of the argument against it this stupid Act.

 

I don't get it.

ownership of handguns was public info before the safe act was enacted.....

[beachpeaz]

ownership of handguns was public info before the safe act was enacted.....

 

public record by request.

 

Now it is PUBLISHED public record.  You can pull up a fricken map and know everyone and everythign they have.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The info on pistol or hand gun owners is only the pimple on the ass of the Un Safe Act. You do realized it is much more encompassing than that? right? It is by design to limit a persons ability to own a firearm. period. That was the intended purpose and it was done under the canopy of public safety.

[beachpeaz]

The info on pistol or hand gun owners is only the pimple on the ass of the Un Safe Act. You do realized it is much more encompassing than that? right? It is by design to limit a persons ability to own a firearm. period. That was the intended purpose and it was done under the canopy of public safety.

 

Thats what I am tryign to get to the bottom of.  I have asked a whole lot of people and nobody seems to know what the center piece of the legislation is.  I am surprised the lack of knowlege about this.

 

I for one, who obviously oposes it, would like to know a lot more about it so I can educate people I know.

[josephmrtn]

most of the Safe Act won't serve any purpose.......bad people will still do bad things, no matter how much they try to regulate.

I say all of it.... its a bunch of BS that has no purpose except to make life hard for ppl which BTW is one of Andy Cumorons favorite things to do

[covert]

public record by request.

 

Now it is PUBLISHED public record.  You can pull up a fricken map and know everyone and everythign they have.

Umm, actually that is the only reasonable part of the SAFE act.  There was not a means to keep that info private and now there is.  Just drop the one page form off at you permit office and your information is no longer available to the public.  The State was not the ones who published all the permit holders info on a map, that was a newspaper.

[Two Track]

I think part of it was for Cuomo to grab national spotlight to run for President in the future and show how he gets things done.  Of course this was by declaring a emergency on a non-emergency need and force it through the state legislate without any review by the public, or provide our legislators time to make an informed opinion before voting on it.

 

I think the rational was to find a away to legislate preventive measures to keep a future Sandy Hook from occurring in his state while it was a hot topic.  Of course they dis-missed actual research that most crimes are done with hand-guns, the majority of the offenders are not allowed to possess or use a firearm in the first place, and the implements used were illegally obtained.

 

God-forbid they consult a firearms expert, understand the existing laws, and ignore the rights outlined Constitution, Bill-of-Rights, and our own state constitution. 

 

I think there should be a requirement for political officials to study and pass a review on the existing rights, laws, and legislative processes that must be followed.  I'm not saying these people are not smart.  I know a few highly intelligent and educated people, but they just are short on common-sense and are very gullible.  I suspect that is partly how this "Safe" Act got pushed through.

They may not even realize that you can vote yea, nay, or abstain.  If you don't understand what is up for a vote, demand competent clarification, or abstain from voting on it.

 

[greybeard]

My point was not that I believe that is  justifiable, or effective. My point was only that the reason that the Safe Act, or most other gun control laws are proposed, or passed is because many citizens  want some action after a tragedy involving firearms. My response was ONLY why I thought it passed. Nothing more.

Those supporters probably won't read the act, nor would they understand it if they did. It just sounds good to them. The politicians, realize that they need to do something, so they side with anti gun so that they can distance themselves from blame for non action.

There are shootings daily in NYC, they are done by criminals and illegal guns. The politicians admit that, but what do you hear on the news by the Mayor. He will say that the gun laws outside of NY are too lax, and that the Feds must step up. Remember, that the Mayor, and Police Commissioner  Kelly sent NYPD to Arizona to gather info on gun shows, and they could have called someone and got the info. It was done for effect on television.

 

As stated above, the criminals will still get the guns, everyone knows that, but as I wrote, the politicians will blame other states and the feds, and many people will buy it.

 

 

I have friends on both sides, and can tell you that many of them never heard of the title safe act, they only know that the Governor passed a strict gun law.The liberals love it, the conservatives hate it, but the liberals are less likely to know, or care about the details as long as it's strict.They(liberals,) will also support the politicians who voted for stricter laws.

You really have to get this... The anti gun people don't care what the real facts are, they just want gun control.. Forget logic.

 

Ask some liberals to explain the safe act to you and see what I mean, but first ask them if they even know what the safe act  is. Some that I spoke to thought that it must have had to do with traffic

[HectorBuckBuster]

It was passed so King Cuomo can grandstand and say look on my watch I passed the toughest gun laws in our Nation. Remember you don't need 10 bullets to kill a deer.

[greybeard]

Hector.. yup... but then he can also say when it happens again, REMEMBER.. I passed the toughest laws so I'm without sin.

[Doc]

First of all, you have to understand that any passage of gun control is interpreted by the voting public as being "tough on crime". Of course that linkage is ridiculous, but the anti-gun folks have done a better job of selling that bogus thought than we have done in trying to fight it. Hell, we even have some gun owners on here that are believers in gun control. So gun control is a way of getting votes, an that is what politicians are all about. So when we had all these kids being killed by that mentally defective goof-ball, the politicians swooped in like a bunch of carrion-eating vultures and figured that the time and circumstances were correct for sliding in a major attack on the 2nd amendment. As they say in politics, "no good crisis should ever be wasted".

See, you're trying to apply logic and reason to an issue that runs completely on emotion. The anti-gun forces are masters at manipulating emotion. We aren't even in their league when it comes to that. And the anti-gun forces have the politicians in their pocket. So when you add all that up, it makes perfect sense. No, none of this will effect anything other than applying another layer of harassment on the backs of gun owners. And that is the basis behind the Safe Act, plain and simple. There is nothing in the Safe Act that would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy hook.

The only defense against this constant barrage of harassment is to make politicians more afraid of gun owners than they are of the anti-gun fanatics. we do have an opportunity to make that happen when the next election comes around if we can just stay as incensed as we were when the Safe Act was snuck in. If we can discipline ourselves to vote as a unified block, and in effect become a group of "one-issue" voters, we do have the rare opportunity to show that gun owners are not an easy mark. Can we do it? ...... That remains to be seen.

[ctballos]

Its pretty simple actually. Raitings are down let's take advantage of some situation that can bring us into the limelight. Sandy Hook, NJ served his purpose. Now let's watch as he defends this in court to the tune of a billion dollars. Nothing like the losses of a state run by ego.

[Two Track]

We have to keep my assembly woman in office - she voted against the NY "Safe" Act and is petitioning for its repel.

[greybeard]

The problem that I see with the voting by gun owners is, as often happens, many are not one issue voters. Not everyone's priorities are the same. There are many one weekend a year hunters, and many who just "kinda like it". .

 

Many hunters want background checks. Also, I was surprised by hearing first hand how many were opposed to "assault rifles". Some of the opinions that I heard were men who are very far to the right on most issues. It wasn't a scientific pole, I just asked many of the people that I know, and it was quite a few. So uniting will be difficult.

 

Remember the last 2 presidential elections, the right predicted the President's loss.I heard it and read it constantly. I don't know what planet they were on when they thought at the end that the Governor would win.( Early in the election I understood that prediction). Both times, the NRA ,united gun owners,  and went after the President with all they had and he still won. I watch both liberal and conservative news shows especially during  and after the election . After the election, the fact that the NRA was not effective became almost a rallying cry by the gun control people that the NRA is losing strength.Statements were made that the politicians now don't have to worry about them any longer (reportedly, most candidates that the NRA supported lost) The fact that the President won helped in uniting the anti gun people who were admittedly not united. I don't believe that they are really that united now, but they have certainly more support then they did.

 

So , I do agree to unite gun owners to fight against those who hurt our sport, but it's going to take a well planned campaign, but even with that It'll take a lot to unite such a diverse State.

 

One more thought.

Those who believe that suing the State is good must remember that there is no person named Mr. New York. When the State loses a lawsuit, we pay with our taxes. A lawsuit by gun owners that costs the State a lot of money will not help the cause.The Governor doesn't reach into his wallet for the funds, he reaches into ours.

 

 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Thats what I am tryign to get to the bottom of. I have asked a whole lot of people and nobody seems to know what the center piece of the legislation is. I am surprised the lack of knowlege about this.

I for one, who obviously oposes it, would like to know a lot more about it so I can educate people I know.

Have you read it?

[Doc]

The problem that I see with the voting by gun owners is, as often happens, many are not one issue voters. Not everyone's priorities are the same. There are many one weekend a year hunters, and many who just "kinda like it". .

 

Many hunters want background checks. Also, I was surprised by hearing first hand how many were opposed to "assault rifles". Some of the opinions that I heard were men who are very far to the right on most issues. It wasn't a scientific pole, I just asked many of the people that I know, and it was quite a few. So uniting will be difficult.

 

Remember the last 2 presidential elections, the right predicted the President's loss.I heard it and read it constantly. I don't know what planet they were on when they thought at the end that the Governor would win.( Early in the election I understood that prediction). Both times, the NRA ,united gun owners,  and went after the President with all they had and he still won. I watch both liberal and conservative news shows especially during  and after the election . After the election, the fact that the NRA was not effective became almost a rallying cry by the gun control people that the NRA is losing strength.Statements were made that the politicians now don't have to worry about them any longer (reportedly, most candidates that the NRA supported lost) The fact that the President won helped in uniting the anti gun people who were admittedly not united. I don't believe that they are really that united now, but they have certainly more support then they did.

 

So , I do agree to unite gun owners to fight against those who hurt our sport, but it's going to take a well planned campaign, but even with that It'll take a lot to unite such a diverse State.

 

One more thought.

Those who believe that suing the State is good must remember that there is no person named Mr. New York. When the State loses a lawsuit, we pay with our taxes. A lawsuit by gun owners that costs the State a lot of money will not help the cause.The Governor doesn't reach into his wallet for the funds, he reaches into ours.

Here's the deal. I have never seen such outrage over any piece of legislation that I have seen over this. The reaction of the NYS gun owners was impressive to say the least. It is probably the most unified that I have ever seen gun owners actually get. The rallies and protests were really quite impressive. I see this as a very unique, once in a lifetime opportunity to actually put these legislators on notice. If we squander this opportunity, we might as well just give it all up.

 

One thing that terrifies politicians is a highly motivated and unified minority and that is exactly what they handed us if we can only keep the outrage alive until the elections. Anti-gun voters are all over the map in terms of issues and hot-buttons reasons for the way they cast their vote. They really have no motivation to vote as a single block. This time around, we do. That makes us a potentially powerful voting block that can make a difference. Part of all that involves a "get out the vote" activity by as many as possible people who really care about gun ownership. It will take a lot of organization, and pushing, and effort, but given this issue and the emotion that is behind it, I believe we have the best opportunity to pull it off that we will ever see.

 

I too have taken note of those that have mixed feelings about specific elements of that law, but it was so all-encompassing that it had a little something in it to piss off every gun owner. I have seen the breadth and scope of the hatred for this act, and I believe that we really need to go for it. We need to take that voting record on that act and use it as a pass/fail document for our vote. Anything else will doom us forever to watching our gun rights dissolve here in this state.