NY Safe Act

[beachpeaz]

Have you read it?

 

The answer is no.  And part of my problem with our political system as it stands.  Name any piece of legislation and I will tell you the 50 other things that get thrown into the bill to get passed.  Look at Obamacare (not to get on that subject, trust me), but while trying to create socialized national healthcare, they have earmarks for new roads?  education?  alternative fuel funding??  WTF!!!

 

If I could change ANYTHING about our system, it would be the following:

 

New legislation must be:

 

1) less than 10 pages

2) contain ONLY 1 subject matter

3) In laymans terms (not in legal speak to make it confusing for the general public)

4) Be listed on a public site for a minimum of 30 days prior to congress being able to even consider voting

 

This would eliminate so much BS. 

 

so, no, I have not read the Safe Act, because contained in it is a thousand pages of lawyer BS just so people won't read it.

 

Which is also why, when I pose this question, so far nobody else seems to really know the guts of it either.

 

Quite scary!

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

google the text and read it. If I recal lit is only about 36 pages and it is pretty clear. Clear in terms of intent but not so clear in how it will be enforced and the infrastructure to do what the law requires.

 

Here

 

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/99999999/NEWS01/130116006/DOCUMENT-Full-text-New-York-s-new-gun-control-law-called-NY-SAFE-Act-

[josephmrtn]

Anti NY safe act signs are spreading like wildfire in my area

[WNYBuckHunter]

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.

 

Dont get it confused, the SAFE Act has nothing, and had nothing, to do with publicly listing the names of people with CCW/pistol permits. When you apply for a pistol permit (or when you used to), part of what you agreed to was that your status as a permit holder was public domain. All it took was a request and the state had to hand the info over.

 

Now as far as the SAFE Act and its "necessity" goes, its nothing but a gun grab power play to weaken the citizens of the state and remove more of our rights. Its pretty plain and simple actually.

 

[josephmrtn]

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.

you might need em to defend your family tho.... lmao i forgot your supposed to take your shotgun and blast holes thru your doors...

[jrm]

The answer is no.  And part of my problem with our political system as it stands.  Name any piece of legislation and I will tell you the 50 other things that get thrown into the bill to get passed.  Look at Obamacare (not to get on that subject, trust me), but while trying to create socialized national healthcare, they have earmarks for new roads?  education?  alternative fuel funding??  WTF!!!

 

If I could change ANYTHING about our system, it would be the following:

 

New legislation must be:

 

1) less than 10 pages

2) contain ONLY 1 subject matter

3) In laymans terms (not in legal speak to make it confusing for the general public)

4) Be listed on a public site for a minimum of 30 days prior to congress being able to even consider voting

 

This would eliminate so much BS. 

 

so, no, I have not read the Safe Act, because contained in it is a thousand pages of lawyer BS just so people won't read it.

 

Which is also why, when I pose this question, so far nobody else seems to really know the guts of it either.

 

Quite scary!

 

 

 

I am not sure we are thinking about the same SAFE act.

 

I have read the legislation several times, and I know of many others who did the same. There is no "pork" or unrelated items in the bill. It is not very long. 

 

It is not in layman's terms, but then no law ever is. There are reasons for that... just think back to Clinton on the stand questioning the definition of "is." Law, like many other fields have developed specialized terminology. Love it or hate it, that's the way it is.

 

There are grey areas in the law. Some are there because the people drafting the law have no experience with the subject matter (guns). Others are there intentionally to give the police/courts wiggle room in application.

 

The unSAFE act can be a little confusing because to really understand what is written you need some knowledge of other laws regarding guns. The new law is not so much a "new" set of rules, but a re-write of existing rules. If you already were familiar with NY law sections 265  and 400, unSAFE is easier to digest. While also a lot of legalise, 265 and 400 are not that long either and fairly simple to understand.

 

When dealing with all this, the first concept to realize is that NY law declares all guns illegal. The law goes on to include other "weapons" such as knives, but we can skip that for now. 

 

Then, the law lists various exceptions. No handguns - unless you have a NYS license. No rifles, unless they don't have x number of "evil" features. And so on.

 

When tragedy strikes, some people turn to the government to fix the problem. Some people in government feel they must fix a "problem" whether or not people turn to them. Others in government look for a problem or make a situation into a problem which they define, just so they can offer their "solution."

 

Newtown was a terrible tragedy. People want a bad guy to crucify and are looking for a white knight with a magic solution to prevent it from ever happening again. Life doesn't always work that way, but that doesn't stop people from dreaming it does.

 

Cuomo wants to be president (lord help us all). He felt compelled to rush legislation through to ban "evil assault rifles" and be the first in the county to do so. In his small, egocentric mind he felt this would rally people around him as a pioneering leader in "making our kids safe." As with any politician, the contents of the law are irrelevant. As long as it has enough provisions to prohibit _anything_ which the general public can be made to believe is "bad" or "scary."

 

Let's look at two major points in the unSAFE act:

 

- limits the amount of ammo in a magazine from 10 to 7 rounds. Imagine if that shooter couldn't have "high capacity magazines" (or "clips" as the halfwits on TV like to call them). Going to 7 means three more lives saved!

- Prohibits the sale of those "evil" assault rifles that "only the military and police" should have. If only the Newtown shooter didn't have a Bushmaster "killing machine" those poor children would be alive today. Why does anyone need such "killing power?" We don't need these "automatic" weapons.

 

There is more, but I think you get the point. Common sense tells a different story, but when does logic ever come into politics and lawmaking? 

 

Most of the population is un- or under educated about guns. When an entire political party sends all their minions out to talk about "evil" guns with "evil" features, many people believe what they are told. Long Island's Carolyn McCarthy runs around screaming about the evil "barrel shroud" but doesn't know what one is (she believes it is a "shoulder thingy that goes up.") That doesn't stop many people from believing her that "only the military need a barrel shroud."

 

Do you realize how many people believe a rifle that _LOOKS_ like an AR is more dangerous than a rifle which looks like a hunting rifle. Show them a Ruger 10-22 with a wood stock, and they say "that's fine." Show them the SAME rifle dressed up like the black "arch angel" model and they wet themselves in fear. The lawmakers and media all help to further that irrational thinking.

 

The ultimate goal of the unSAFE act (and other laws like it) is confiscation and elimination of guns. Look into the steps leading up to SAFE... confiscation of "assault" rifles, along with other draconian measures, were part of the original draft. It was taken out because they realized even with the backdoor way it was pushed through it would not have been passed.

 

Of course, no one here needs to worry because this is not about "hunters." You don't need an AR to hunt, you don't need a "black" rifle to hunt and you don't need more than 5 rounds to hunt. So YOUR guns are safe from Albany. You know that's all true because the tooth fairy and Easter bunny both told me personally. (i.e. it's BS)

 

So it comes down to this:

 

- They would like to outlaw all guns. It is a control thing. They can't do it all at once, so they take what then can when they can. (Death by 1,000 cuts)

- Never let a tragedy go to waste. Newtown presented an opportunity to advance an agenda AND theoretically gain some political points. (It may have backfired for Cuomo as he took a lot of heat for it).

- unSAFE does nothing to reduce crime or gun violence, but does harm law-abiding citizens. However it is being sold as the opposite.

- unSAFE shows our supreme leader is doing SOMETHING about these "terrible tragedies." He is not standing by waiting for others to take the lead. Anyone who speaks out against this wonderful law must enjoy watching children being murdered! This is not the wild west! We are a civilized society where guns are no longer necessary.

 

 

Disclaimer: I completely oppose unSAFE. It is not only un-Constitutional, it is wrong. Anything in the above post which seems to state otherwise is purely sarcasm and intended to show the misguided "thinking" of those who support it.

[jrm]

Dont get it confused, the SAFE Act has nothing, and had nothing, to do with publicly listing the names of people with CCW/pistol permits.

 

Actually, I believe there is a provision in the SAFE act to allow for an opt-out of having your name released. You are correct that prior to SAFE, that information was publicly available with no way to opt-out.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Actually, I believe there is a provision in the SAFE act to allow for an opt-out of having your name released. You are correct that prior to SAFE, that information was publicly available with no way to opt-out.

 

Yes there is. I have already filled out my form. As has been said, its really the only good part of the act, besides the increased penalties for gun related crimes.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yes there is. I have already filled out my form. As has been said, its really the only good part of the act, besides the increased penalties for gun related crimes.

 

 

Increase them to the death penalty for any violent felony committed with a firearm and THEN maybe we could get some where.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Agreed, but making them harsher is a step in the right direction.

[beachpeaz]

I am not sure we are thinking about the same SAFE act.

 

I have read the legislation several times, and I know of many others who did the same. There is no "pork" or unrelated items in the bill. It is not very long. 

 

It is not in layman's terms, but then no law ever is. There are reasons for that... just think back to Clinton on the stand questioning the definition of "is." Law, like many other fields have developed specialized terminology. Love it or hate it, that's the way it is.

 

There are grey areas in the law. Some are there because the people drafting the law have no experience with the subject matter (guns). Others are there intentionally to give the police/courts wiggle room in application.

 

The unSAFE act can be a little confusing because to really understand what is written you need some knowledge of other laws regarding guns. The new law is not so much a "new" set of rules, but a re-write of existing rules. If you already were familiar with NY law sections 265  and 400, unSAFE is easier to digest. While also a lot of legalise, 265 and 400 are not that long either and fairly simple to understand.

 

When dealing with all this, the first concept to realize is that NY law declares all guns illegal. The law goes on to include other "weapons" such as knives, but we can skip that for now. 

 

Then, the law lists various exceptions. No handguns - unless you have a NYS license. No rifles, unless they don't have x number of "evil" features. And so on.

 

When tragedy strikes, some people turn to the government to fix the problem. Some people in government feel they must fix a "problem" whether or not people turn to them. Others in government look for a problem or make a situation into a problem which they define, just so they can offer their "solution."

 

Newtown was a terrible tragedy. People want a bad guy to crucify and are looking for a white knight with a magic solution to prevent it from ever happening again. Life doesn't always work that way, but that doesn't stop people from dreaming it does.

 

Cuomo wants to be president (lord help us all). He felt compelled to rush legislation through to ban "evil assault rifles" and be the first in the county to do so. In his small, egocentric mind he felt this would rally people around him as a pioneering leader in "making our kids safe." As with any politician, the contents of the law are irrelevant. As long as it has enough provisions to prohibit _anything_ which the general public can be made to believe is "bad" or "scary."

 

Let's look at two major points in the unSAFE act:

 

- limits the amount of ammo in a magazine from 10 to 7 rounds. Imagine if that shooter couldn't have "high capacity magazines" (or "clips" as the halfwits on TV like to call them). Going to 7 means three more lives saved!

- Prohibits the sale of those "evil" assault rifles that "only the military and police" should have. If only the Newtown shooter didn't have a Bushmaster "killing machine" those poor children would be alive today. Why does anyone need such "killing power?" We don't need these "automatic" weapons.

 

There is more, but I think you get the point. Common sense tells a different story, but when does logic ever come into politics and lawmaking? 

 

Most of the population is un- or under educated about guns. When an entire political party sends all their minions out to talk about "evil" guns with "evil" features, many people believe what they are told. Long Island's Carolyn McCarthy runs around screaming about the evil "barrel shroud" but doesn't know what one is (she believes it is a "shoulder thingy that goes up.") That doesn't stop many people from believing her that "only the military need a barrel shroud."

 

Do you realize how many people believe a rifle that _LOOKS_ like an AR is more dangerous than a rifle which looks like a hunting rifle. Show them a Ruger 10-22 with a wood stock, and they say "that's fine." Show them the SAME rifle dressed up like the black "arch angel" model and they wet themselves in fear. The lawmakers and media all help to further that irrational thinking.

 

The ultimate goal of the unSAFE act (and other laws like it) is confiscation and elimination of guns. Look into the steps leading up to SAFE... confiscation of "assault" rifles, along with other draconian measures, were part of the original draft. It was taken out because they realized even with the backdoor way it was pushed through it would not have been passed.

 

Of course, no one here needs to worry because this is not about "hunters." You don't need an AR to hunt, you don't need a "black" rifle to hunt and you don't need more than 5 rounds to hunt. So YOUR guns are safe from Albany. You know that's all true because the tooth fairy and Easter bunny both told me personally. (i.e. it's BS)

 

So it comes down to this:

 

- They would like to outlaw all guns. It is a control thing. They can't do it all at once, so they take what then can when they can. (Death by 1,000 cuts)

- Never let a tragedy go to waste. Newtown presented an opportunity to advance an agenda AND theoretically gain some political points. (It may have backfired for Cuomo as he took a lot of heat for it).

- unSAFE does nothing to reduce crime or gun violence, but does harm law-abiding citizens. However it is being sold as the opposite.

- unSAFE shows our supreme leader is doing SOMETHING about these "terrible tragedies." He is not standing by waiting for others to take the lead. Anyone who speaks out against this wonderful law must enjoy watching children being murdered! This is not the wild west! We are a civilized society where guns are no longer necessary.

 

 

Disclaimer: I completely oppose unSAFE. It is not only un-Constitutional, it is wrong. Anything in the above post which seems to state otherwise is purely sarcasm and intended to show the misguided "thinking" of those who support it.

 

Thank you!  That was the most actual information I have heard about it.  Yes, we are referring to the same unSafe Act.  In my last comment, I wasn't neccessarily referring to the unSafe Act when I was talking about the 4 bullets for legislation.  I was referring to ALL legislation.  Its nice that this one is shorter and concise, but that is 1 in a 1,000,000.