Would you move from new York State to a place just for better gun laws ?

[Robhuntandfish]

I certainly wouldn't move for gun laws. They don't really affect anything I need guns for .  As long as I can still hunt . Now I would move for hunting. If I had the chance at some great hunting opportunities that I don't have now I would certainly consider it.  But I have several good places to hunt and I love bowhunting and have the guns I need to hunt with.  

But I would love to be in Kentucky. Not too hot/cold and I love Rand Paul as a rep.  Been to Florida, didn't care for it.  But Kentucky has some good deer hunting, has elk, and is south of here in the united States.  Lol.   

[Jdubs]

14 minutes ago, land 1 said:

My question is what gun laws specifically are you talking about, i feel some are good and some are not so good but at the same time , i dont feel you should be able to go in a gun store and just buy basically whatever u want like some southern states. There are some people for various reasons that . should not have guns. I dont feel there is any need for new laws but possibly harsher punishment for the laws on the books. At the same time there is always that one guy who is not a felon or has a history of mental issues who owns guns and is very lets say sketchy. I also think that there are laws that where just a knee jerk reaction, I always do enjoy the guy that says he needs a gun with a 20round mag and has gun behind every door for "home protection"... Really the best gun for that is your normal shot gun loaded with a bird load not sure but your average shot in a house is close very close...Kinda of a rant...no i wouldnt move just my thoughts....

For starters, the Sullivan Act is blatantly unconstitutional in requiring a pistol permit merely to purchase and possess a handgun.  It further requires registration of those firearms, also deemed unconstitutional.  The Bill of Rights wasn't written to require citizens to obtain government permission before exercising those rights.

Personally, I think the best firearm for home or self defense is the one a person can handle and shoot the best.  Sorry, but the mule kick of a 12 ga shotgun is less than ideal for a lot of people and birdshot is for birds.  If that's your choice, fantastic.  However, an AR style rifle has very little recoil by comparison.  Once upon a time we had a choice in this state to defend ourselves as we saw fit (although SBR's and silencers would be ideal, if legal).  I would choose an AR style rifle 10 times out of 10 if not for Cuomo's idiotic un-SAFE Act that was shoved down our throats in the middle of the night.  The only way this will ever happen is by moving to a Free state.

[land 1]

Ok well the Bill of Rights was written long before we had firearms like we have today it like everything has to change with the times not saying thats good or bad but when it was written it was single shot black powder, every one has there own idea of the best defense gun and did i say 12ga nope and as LEO ive seen what both guns can do and you are right a 223 ar round is great a shot gun just leaves some room for poor aim ,  I agree the safe act was knee jerk reaction. As far as pistol permits they are issued by the counties and it is unfair that it differs so much but at the same time just to many unstable people and criminals not to have some checks.

[Hunter007]

3 minutes ago, Jdubs said:

For starters, the Sullivan Act is blatantly unconstitutional in requiring a pistol permit merely to purchase and possess a handgun.  It further requires registration of those firearms, also deemed unconstitutional.  The Bill of Rights wasn't written to require citizens to obtain government permission before exercising those rights.

Personally, I think the best firearm for home or self defense is the one a person can handle and shoot the best.  Sorry, but the mule kick of a 12 ga shotgun is less than ideal for a lot of people and birdshot is for birds.  If that's your choice, fantastic.  However, an AR style rifle has very little recoil by comparison.  Once upon a time we had a choice in this state to defend ourselves as we saw fit (although SBR's and silencers would be ideal, if legal).  I would choose an AR style rifle 10 times out of 10 if not for Cuomo's idiotic un-SAFE Act that was shoved down our throats in the middle of the night.  The only way this will ever happen is by moving to a Free state.

 I never keep any guns loaded just laying around  I bought them just for hunting and target shooting .

 

 

 

 

Unless I new someone was going around  robing  houses near me then maybe I would start tho .

You don't need a  gun  until you need gun if you know what I mean.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jjb4900]

Gun ownership is the bottom of my list when it finally comes time to move out of NY, in fact I don't even thinks it's on there at all......many more important things when it comes to my overall quality of life.

[Hunter007]

Deleted

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Storm914

[Dom]

NO!What are better GUN LAWS?

[Hunter007]

2 minutes ago, Dom said:

NO!What are better GUN LAWS?

Read this 

http://www.gunsandammo.com/second-amendment/best-states-for-gun-owners-2017/

[Jdubs]

3 minutes ago, land 1 said:

Ok well the Bill of Rights was written long before we had firearms like we have today it like everything has to change with the times not saying thats good or bad but when it was written it was single shot black powder, every one has there own idea of the best defense gun and did i say 12ga nope and as LEO ive seen what both guns can do and you are right a 223 ar round is great a shot gun just leaves some room for poor aim ,  I agree the safe act was knee jerk reaction. As far as pistol permits they are issued by the counties and it is unfair that it differs so much but at the same time just to many unstable people and criminals not to have some checks.

As a LEO, did you normally load your duty shotguns with birdshot?  I don't think that tool is intended to compensate for poor aim on duty; however, shotguns are most useful for breaching, stopping dogs and less than lethal loads.  Again, do whatever works for YOU.  Your personal choices or mine shouldn't be what defines the law; the 2A already does that.

I may not have such a luxury (using birdshot to compensate for poor aim) if someone is holding a gun to my loved one's head.  I'd rather train for the worst and hope for the best.  YMMV

[land 1]

number 4 buckshot,

[Nomad]

You don’t want to fire a shotgun indoors without ear proetection . Birdshot at close range maybe, but I’ve seen folks shot with it the width of a city street and had a nice conversations with them .

The Mrs. isn’t going to be working a 12 ga shotgun very well either. In the 90’s I was going to a shooting a week easy, and as many as 3 a night at times .

When the Bill of Rights was written , they used a quill pen, and shouted from the village square, so by somes logic , I guess the Frist Amendment, should outlaw computers , the internet as well as all electronic forms of communication.

The fact is when the musket was the state of the art gun, both military and civilians owned and used them, and as firearms advanced that has continued.

[Hunter007]

They had multi shot guns  back when the Constitution was written they called them  Pepper boxes

Some had up to18 / 20 shots that I have seen online 

 

The first pepper-box revolvers originated in the 1500s and used matchlock mechanisms. The user would pre-load all the barrels ahead of time and then apply a match to fire each one in turn. By the 1790s, the firing mechanism of choice was the flintlock and Nock's of England was well known for making pepper-box revolvers using a flintlock mechanism. All these early pepper-box revolvers had no automated mechanism to rotate the barrels, so the user had to do this manually after each shot.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Storm914

[land 1]

5 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

The had multi shot guns  back when the Constitution was written they call Pepper boxes

Some had up to 20 shots that I have seen online 

 

The first pepper-box revolvers originated in the 1500s and used matchlock mechanisms. The user would pre-load all the barrels ahead of time and then apply a match to fire each one in turn. By the 1790s, the firing mechanism of choice was the flintlock and Nock's of England was well known for making pepper-box revolvers using a flintlock mechanism. All these early pepper-box revolvers had no automated mechanism to rotate the barrels, so the user had to do this manually after each shot.

learn something new every day,

[Dom]

I'm still not going to move because some Dumb asses change the laws.I do believe we do need better background checks on the purchase/owning/and the use of firearms.If I were to move for this reason only, then this state looses another vote.Let's say we/I do move to an area that has less restrctions I still have to provide information as to where I lived pryor to moving to the area so being from NY may have an impact as to what they will allow me to purchase/own.

[greybeard]

Years back,for some reasons that I now don't remember I looked into some history on gun control in our early days. As I recall gun control was here from even before the constitution, and when it was written.. Native Americans, slaves, indentured servants, Catholics and I think also those who wouldn't support loyalty to the revolutioncould not own firearms. I've discussed it since then and do remember some things, but you can double check my facts.

As far as local laws.. Tombstone, Dodge City and a few others had local restrictions about carrying guns. So the Sullivan Act, the Safe Act and other local restrictions and laws are nothing new.

So the 2nd amendment is not as broad as one might think.

I know that an argument is that things were different so slaves and native Americans, in particular, were considered different, but that's the point.. Things were different ..

[Hunter007]

3 minutes ago, greybeard said:

Years back,for some reasons that I now don't remember I looked into some history on gun control in our early days. As I recall gun control was here from even before the constitution, and when it was written.. Native Americans, slaves, indentured servants, Catholics and I think also those who wouldn't support loyalty to the revolutioncould not own firearms. I've discussed it since then and do remember some things, but you can double check my facts.

As far as local laws.. Tombstone, Dodge City and a few others had local restrictions about carrying guns. So the Sullivan Act, the Safe Act and other local restrictions and laws are nothing new.

So the 2nd amendment is not as broad as one might think.

I know that an argument is that things were different so slaves and native Americans, in particular, were considered different, but that's the point.. Things were different ..

Things are not really different ,  media sensationalize gun stories they're actually not common at all.

But you watch cnn and they give you the impression people getting shot all the time

 

Thats only true in Chicago and they have a gun ban there so much for that lol

in my town for example it has not happend in 20 years 

[Dom]

We as hunters/sportsmen need to worry more then the general gun/home owner about the Gunlaws because we will be the first target of demise.By purchasing a Hunting license we are their first targets.

[Hunter007]

1 minute ago, Dom said:

We as hunters/sportsmen need to worry more then the general gun/home owner about the Gunlaws because we will be the first target of demise.By purchasing a Hunting license we are their first targets.

Yep and the same people who want gun control are the very same people who want to ban hunting they will never stop 

[Dom]

4 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

Yep and the same people who want gun control are the very same people who want to ban hunting they will never stop 

I do not agree with all the gun regulations that NY has come up with but I am not moving.In a whole we have 1 of the best states in the entire country been almost to every state and this is to myself is the best for any outdoorsmen/women 

[greybeard]

Do you think that Insurance companies will ever not cover firearms, or related issues, or charge more for homeowner's insurance to gun owners l. Some companies don't cover bites from some breeds of  dogs ?

 

[Jdubs]

6 minutes ago, Dom said:

We as hunters/sportsmen need to worry more then the general gun/home owner about the Gunlaws because we will be the first target of demise.By purchasing a Hunting license we are their first targets.

Hunters and sportsmen especially would be wise to side against any more gun control.  The push now is to ban and confiscate "assault weapons" because they are "military weapons". The wording matters because guess what?  The 1911 handgun was a military arm.  Semi-autos such as the Beretta 92, SIG 226 and now Glock 17 and SIG 320 are all military arms.  Bolt action "sniper" rifles like the Rem 700 are staples of both the military and LE.  Shotguns like the Mossberg 590a1 and Benelli M4 in military and LE use too.  So if the push today is to ban and confiscate anything broadly defined as "military weapons", then that same language can just as easily be applied to a much broader ban on firearms commonly used today.  

[Hunter007]

3 minutes ago, Jdubs said:

Hunters and sportsmen especially would be wise to side against any more gun control.  The push now is to ban and confiscate "assault weapons" because they are "military weapons". The wording matters because guess what?  The 1911 handgun was a military arm.  Semi-autos such as the Beretta 92, SIG 226 and now Glock 17 and SIG 320 are all military arms.  Bolt action "sniper" rifles like the Rem 700 are staples of both the military and LE.  Shotguns like the Mossberg 590a1 and Benelli M4 in military and LE use too.  So if the push today is to ban and confiscate anything broadly defined as "military weapons", then that same language can just as easily be applied to a much broader ban on firearms commonly used today.  

Good point Every gun at one time or other was designed. Or used by milatery 

[Dom]

11 minutes ago, Jdubs said:

Hunters and sportsmen especially would be wise to side against any more gun control.  The push now is to ban and confiscate "assault weapons" because they are "military weapons". The wording matters because guess what?  The 1911 handgun was a military arm.  Semi-autos such as the Beretta 92, SIG 226 and now Glock 17 and SIG 320 are all military arms.  Bolt action "sniper" rifles like the Rem 700 are staples of both the military and LE.  Shotguns like the Mossberg 590a1 and Benelli M4 in military and LE use too.  So if the push today is to ban and confiscate anything broadly defined as "military weapons", then that same language can just as easily be applied to a much broader ban on firearms commonly used today.  

The 1911 was and still used .45 cal is an great cartridge.I have my Dads and still cannot use ore display for reasons.