Gun Laws

[Doc]

23 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Other than forced work arounds to even increasing laws (bump stocks), what has really changed in the function of a firearm? The cartridges work the same. you have pistols, rifles, shotguns....single shots, pumps, bolts, semi-automatics and automatics. Automatics require a  class 3 and I am actually ok with the NFA regulations and classifications as they are.  You brought up bazookas and cannons ans such. almost without fail those are covered under the NFA as a destructive device. the shells are highly regulated since even a 1/4 ounce of explosive in a shell receives the Destructive Device (DD) designation. I know there are some work arounds for the muzzleloading  cannons and a lot of that can be further regulated in  the local level. I know they are used in reenactments and such so I an mot sure how that paperwork pans out. 

Other technological advances  into things like the shotgun street sweepers seem to get classified into their catch all category in the NFA of Any Other Weapon. (AOW). 

I guess in summary the current laws are there to handle anything you mentioned. Nothing new is required and that is why I said I am fine with the current line in the sand. 

But the question was phrased specifically a bit more personal and individual than a discussion of what has historically been made illegal or heavily regulated. I was asking each member where they draw the line. I have heard some that would argue that even the heavy restrictions on full auto weapons should be dropped. Fans of bump stocks might be prone to argue this. There are those who think that any weapon that the military has should be available to citizens as a hedge against tyranny. We had a member a few years back that was a big fan of militias that made that argument very passionately. At the other end of the curve, there are those that would outlaw all privately owned weapons completely. And there are others that are pop up everywhere along that curve with every philosophy represented. The question posed by the original post was not what choices have been already made for you, but where each member personally would draw their own line. I'm not sure I am being clear, but it was not meant to result in a recitation of past regulation of weapons laws. Simply looking for an opinion of where people come down on the weapons regulation subject and why.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

But the question was phrased specifically a bit more personal and individual than a discussion of what has historically been made illegal or heavily regulated. I was asking each member where they draw the line. I have heard some that would argue that even the heavy restrictions on full auto weapons should be dropped. Fans of bump stocks might be prone to argue this. There are those who think that any weapon that the military has should be available to citizens as a hedge against tyranny. We had a member a few years back that was a big fan of militias that made that argument very passionately. At the other end of the curve, there are those that would outlaw all privately owned weapons completely. And there are others that are pop up everywhere along that curve with every philosophy represented. The question posed by the original post was not what choices have been already made for you, but where each member personally would draw their own line. I'm not sure I am being clear, but it was not meant to result in a recitation of past regulation of weapons laws. Simply looking for an opinion of where people come down on the weapons regulation subject and why.

My point was ans remains that the current regulations are sufficient to handle any technological advances that may pop up. There is no need for more, there is no need to further regulate the firearms. The line that was previously drawn is sufficient on the national level. The Safe act  and the like is an over reach. 

[Doc]

Do you think that weaponry technology has topped out and that everything that can be improved or invented has been improved and invented? I think that there will always be challenges that require some basic line that should not be crossed. Everybody thought that the idea of full auto weapons had been put to bed decades ago. And then some wizard came up with the bump stock. Another challenge not covered by current law. Is anyone concerned about armed drones? What law will cover that when they become commercially available? Yes I have another line drawn at remote controlled weapons. No, I don't believe that it is true that, "current regulations are sufficient to handle any technological advances that may pop up". No, we are not done with regulations on privately owned weaponry, and yes there will be things that come up that are not adequately regulated. And no, I am not afraid to do a bit of independent thinking on where I draw lines.

[chas0218]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

Do you think that weaponry technology has topped out and that everything that can be improved or invented has been improved and invented? I think that there will always be challenges that require some basic line that should not be crossed. Everybody thought that the idea of full auto weapons had been put to bed decades ago. And then some wizard came up with the bump stock. Another challenge not covered by current law. Is anyone concerned about armed drones? What law will cover that when they become commercially available? Yes I have another line drawn at remote controlled weapons. No, I don't believe that it is true that, "current regulations are sufficient to handle any technological advances that may pop up". No, we are not done with regulations on privately owned weaponry, and yes there will be things that come up that are not adequately regulated. And no, I am not afraid to do a bit of independent thinking on where I draw lines.

With the laws on the books it wouldn't allow civilians to obtain anything more than what we already have. For example if they made a firearm capable of faster fire rates it wouldn't make any difference being we can't own fully auto without special tax stamp and a butt load of paperwork and approvals. For the average citizen what we can have now won't be much if any different in the future. Just because technology evolves doesn't mean we can own things that are already illegal. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

Do you think that weaponry technology has topped out and that everything that can be improved or invented has been improved and invented? I think that there will always be challenges that require some basic line that should not be crossed. Everybody thought that the idea of full auto weapons had been put to bed decades ago. And then some wizard came up with the bump stock. Another challenge not covered by current law. Is anyone concerned about armed drones? What law will cover that when they become commercially available? Yes I have another line drawn at remote controlled weapons. No, I don't believe that it is true that, "current regulations are sufficient to handle any technological advances that may pop up". No, we are not done with regulations on privately owned weaponry, and yes there will be things that come up that are not adequately regulated. And no, I am not afraid to do a bit of independent thinking on where I draw lines.

Both of those could be regulated under current NFA. The bump stock was ruled on by the BATF and THEY found it ok and no need to place the regulation on it since it was only a firearm part. They missed it's potential. That was in 20010.  https://slidefire.com/files/BATFE.pdf

I can easily see that a armed drone would get the AOW or DD designation. 

 

[airedale]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Do you think that weaponry technology has topped out and that everything that can be improved or invented has been improved and invented?

Hell no! Weapons development is never ending. As we have progressed from crude matchlocks using black powder to  our modern weapons we have today the real good stuff like lasers, phasers, death rays and who knows what will be viable weapons in the not too distant future. I won't be around to see it but when they hit the market I am sure there will be squabbling on who can own one just like they are squabbling about the bullet firing weapons we use today.

Al

Edited March 28, 2018 by airedale

[Hunter007]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Do you think that weaponry technology has topped out and that everything that can be improved or invented has been improved and invented? I think that there will always be challenges that require some basic line that should not be crossed. Everybody thought that the idea of full auto weapons had been put to bed decades ago. And then some wizard came up with the bump stock. Another challenge not covered by current law. Is anyone concerned about armed drones? What law will cover that when they become commercially available? Yes I have another line drawn at remote controlled weapons. No, I don't believe that it is true that, "current regulations are sufficient to handle any technological advances that may pop up". No, we are not done with regulations on privately owned weaponry, and yes there will be things that come up that are not adequately regulated. And no, I am not afraid to do a bit of independent thinking on where I draw lines.

My line is anything  full auto and  anything  bigger like cannons  need  to be regulated more then  just a simple background check but still able to get if you go thro the red tape .

Semi automatics all should be left alone like they are in most states mag size pistol grip left alone .

Concealed carry in big cities need to be regulated more then just a background check but still allowed if you are willing to  jump  through all the hoops pass all the tests .

 

 

 

 

 

[chas0218]

32 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

Concealed carry in big cities need to be regulated more then just a background check but still allowed if you are willing to  jump  through all the hoops pass all the tests .

 

 

 

 

 

The "big cities" you can't carry in without permits and/or written permission from the police commissioner. Big cities like NYC, Chicago, D.C., ect. It is very difficult or even impossible in some cities to get a CC permit without being LE.

[Hunter007]

39 minutes ago, chas0218 said:

The "big cities" you can't carry in without permits and/or written permission from the police commissioner. Big cities like NYC, Chicago, D.C., ect. It is very difficult or even impossible in some cities to get a CC permit without being LE.

Well that is understandable in a place like NYC   in such a densely  populated area where a misplaced shot easily can hit someone other then the bad guy  obviously you are going to have more regulations . But at the same time I think it is  dumb for farmer joe to have to jump through the same Hoops when he lives out in the middle of nowhere . The lefty politicians want to make this one size fits all gun  laws and they don't work .

What works in big cities like  NYC is not what works upstate . Or in most of the small towns of USA . 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Storm914

[philoshop]

On 3/27/2018 at 2:00 AM, Doc said:

Yes, we are beginning to see the origin of youth being turned loose to serve as a tool of the left. Get used to it. The libs are on to something here. They have created an army of robots willing to do their bidding and the gun issues are only the beginning.

Control the education system and you will eventually control the voters. I was fortunate enough to have teachers who cared more about my education than my indoctrination.

[Hunter007]

5 hours ago, philoshop said:

Control the education system and you will eventually control the voters. I was fortunate enough to have teachers who cared more about my education than my indoctrination.

This been going on for a, long time   I can remember hearing teachers telling kids you should vote liberal  30 40 years ago already. 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Storm914

[DirtTime]

On 3/26/2018 at 11:38 PM, Storm914 said:

If you protest against the libs the left in public media, brands you as a hate group automatically better to just vote and donate to groups,like the NRA  And let them handle it .  

 

Vote, pay someone else to deal with the problem and do nothing? Is that your mind set ( Isn't that how the Mafia ( Or for a better reference, Obama and Hillary with all the riots when Trump won. ) works? Never get YOUR HANDS DIRTY! ) ? Show me how that is working out. Two words to dispel that myth, "SAFE ACT"! At some point, we are going to have to get off the devices, and put boots on the ground to defend our gun rights. 

Even Trump is back peddling on being Pro-2A. Which is one of the reasons he won the election.

We're most likely going to see some big changes, but not one person can say factually that's 100%. 

 

[Hunter007]

21 minutes ago, Rob... said:

Vote, pay someone else to deal with the problem and do nothing? Is that your mind set ( Isn't that how the Mafia ( Or for a better reference, Obama and Hillary with all the riots when Trump won. ) works? Never get YOUR HANDS DIRTY! ) ? Show me how that is working out. Two words to dispel that myth, "SAFE ACT"! At some point, we are going to have to get off the devices, and put boots on the ground to defend our gun rights. 

Even Trump is back peddling on being Pro-2A. Which is one of the reasons he won the election.

We're most likely going to see some big changes, but not one person can say factually that's 100%. 

 

Voting and money makes things happen in Washington .

Protesting amd riots are just for media ratings they mean nothing .

Look how many Trump protest and riots there were just before the election. 

They lost anyway. Most leftist vote because they want more freebees from the goverment anyway. 

Obama won because lots of people thought they all were getting free tvs and cell phones .

If nobody was getting a check from uncle sam  the left would never win a major election In this country. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Storm914

[DirtTime]

5 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

Voting and money makes things happen in Washington .

Protesting amd riots are just for media ratings they mean nothing .

Look how many Trump protest and riots there were just before the election. 

They lost anyway. 

 

So, if I send the NRA $1,000,000.00 will the Safe Act get repealed? NO! If I give the moron responsible for the Safe Act the same amount will it go away? NO! You have to look at this being realistic. At some point, we are going to have get out there. What you are saying is doing more then making payments to other organizations to defend YOUR GUN RIGHTS is a moot point? I do not now, nor ever will agree with that!

Oh, and just out of curiosity, do you have any plans for the Spring Turkey season? 

[Hunter007]

11 minutes ago, Rob... said:

So, if I send the NRA $1,000,000.00 will the Safe Act get repealed? NO! If I give the moron responsible for the Safe Act the same amount will it go away? NO! You have to look at this being realistic. At some point, we are going to have get out there. What you are saying is doing more then making payments to other organizations to defend YOUR GUN RIGHTS is a moot point? I do not now, nor ever will agree with that!

Oh, and just out of curiosity, do you have any plans for the Spring Turkey season? 

As long as  you have the one party system in this state you will have things like the safe act unless a judge decides to strike it down..

Usually unless I go down south

 

Albany's corrupt so yeah a lot of money will help actually .

The politicians are all the same in this state they  really don't care one way or the other they just want your money.

Promise them money and they will leave our guns alone 

It is as simple as that. 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Storm914

[DirtTime]

13 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

As long as  you have the one party system in this state you will have things like the safe act unless a judge decides to strike it down..

Usually unless I go down south

 

Albany's corrupt so yeah a lot of money will help actually .

The politicians are all the same in this state they  really don't care one way or the other they just want your money.

Promise them money and they will leave our guns alone 

It is as simple as that. 

 

Down state is far more corrupt, that's where Andy lives and has the most influence. 

You never answered my question though. If I send the NRA $1,000,000.00 will they get the Safe Act repealed? 

 

You are also avoiding my point. I guess getting your hands dirty to preserve your gun rights is beneath you. 

[Hunter007]

13 minutes ago, Rob... said:

Down state is far more corrupt, that's where Andy lives and has the most influence. 

You never answered my question though. If I send the NRA $1,000,000.00 will they get the Safe Act repealed? 

 

You are also avoiding my point. I guess getting your hands dirty to preserve your gun rights is beneath you. 

What do you mean get my hands dirty ?

By doing what?

Standing outside Andy's  house with a sign ?

Most politicians are lawyers someone needs to spend some money NRA lobbyists take them out to dinner give them a donation to there campaign and you will see change  and make a new safe act but one that has what gun owners want in it.

Your typical  none gun owner doesn't know anything about guns anyway .

Basically just have to give them the perception that they got a safer gun control bill  you know what I mean put in loop holes and work arounds . Like if you have a hunting license  you are exempt from the safe act bs .

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Storm914

[Hunter007]

That would be my compromise if I was a lobbist guys who have hunting licenses should be allowed to have any semi automatic rifle they want .

You have to give the left a reason why   you need to own things like AR besides defence  .  If you explain to them these things have legitimate sporting applications for hunting .

There is a good chance they would go for that comprise. 

And money of course lol 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Storm914

[DirtTime]

14 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

What do you mean get my hands dirty ?

By doing what?

Standing outside Andy's  house with a sign ?

Most politicians are lawyers someone needs to spend some money NRA lobbyists take them out to dinner give them a donation to there campaign and you will see change  and make a new safe act but one that has what gun owners want in it.

Your typical  none gun owner doesn't know anything about guns anyway .

Basically just have to give them the perception that they got a safer gun control bill  you know what I mean put in loop holes and work arounds . Like if you have a hunting license  you are exempt from the safe act bs .

 

So, you just stated that the NRA is political based and just as corrupt as any politician out there. Slippery slope. 

 

Quote

Basically just have to give them the perception that they got a safer gun control bill  you know what I mean put in loop holes and work arounds . Like if you have a hunting license  you are exempt from the safe act bs .

Really? You crack me up. Seriously? Keep typing. I get the sarcasm, at least hoping it's sarcasm. I just want to know what DA created this trolling account.

Storm, I only have one more question for you!

https://huntingny.com/forums/topic/44648-opening-day-plan/?tab=comments#comment-659968

[Hunter007]

5 minutes ago, Rob... said:

So, you just stated that the NRA is political based and just as corrupt as any politician out there. Slippery slope. 

 

Really? You crack me up. Seriously? Keep typing. I get the sarcasm, at least hoping it's sarcasm. I just want to know what DA created this trolling account.

Storm, I only have one more question for you!

https://huntingny.com/forums/topic/44648-opening-day-plan/?tab=comments#comment-659968

Giving donations to political campaigns is legal  .

Anyway that's the way  politics is played .

It is what it is .

Most of them are lawyers there all about  $$$$$ 

Besides safe act is unconstitutional anyway.

Should be easy to chip at 1 part at a time .

But comes down to $$$$$$$$

 

[Hunter007]

48 minutes ago, Rob... said:

Down state is far more corrupt, that's where Andy lives and has the most influence. 

You never answered my question though. If I send the NRA $1,000,000.00 will they get the Safe Act repealed? 

 

You are also avoiding my point. I guess getting your hands dirty to preserve your gun rights is beneath you. 

You can trace back the gun control movement to like two or three rich  jerks for example guys like  Soros and doomberge .

Same with the gay marriage stuff it is  few rich  people pushing these agendas with there donations .

Ever hear the Golden Rule he who got the gold makes the rules  .  That is what it comes down to most the time in are goverment 

 

 

 

[Hunter007]

21 hours ago, Rob... said:

Down state is far more corrupt, that's where Andy lives and has the most influence. 

You never answered my question though. If I send the NRA $1,000,000.00 will they get the Safe Act repealed? 

 

You are also avoiding my point. I guess getting your hands dirty to preserve your gun rights is beneath you. 

Rob By hands  dirty you mean A protest right ? That  is only good if you are going to get positive press coverage more then likely  lefty media which is  90 %  will ignore your protest or cover it in a way  that makes gun owner look bad . Voting and supporting groups like the NRA are   way more effective if you  want laws changed I believe. 

 

 

[DirtTime]

23 hours ago, Storm914 said:

 

Besides safe act is unconstitutional anyway.

 

 

 

DING DING DING! WINNER! Yet not one organization claiming to protect our 2A has gotten it repealed. Or even revised for that matter. So please, stop with that.

2 hours ago, Storm914 said:

Rob By hands  dirty you mean A protest right ? That  is only good if you are going to get positive press coverage more then likely  lefty media which is  90 %  will ignore your protest or cover it in a way  that makes gun owner look bad . Voting and supporting groups like the NRA are   way more effective if you  want laws changed I believe. 

 

 

At some point yes, we are going to have get off the couch or out from behind a computer desk. We are not going to win the anti-gun war fighting it on social media! Perhaps that's above how you think about the reality that may be coming our way.

Here's how I feel about giving my money to organizations who claim to be protecting my 2ND Amendment: If you pay someone to plow your driveway, and they mess up your lawn by running the plow across it, and offer no restitution, you would fire them. Right?

It doesn't matter. Storm, you have your mind set, I have mine. At some point we will have to stop paying someone to mow our lawn and get off our ass and do it ourselves.

With that said, I am done with this banter. As entertaining as it was, I say we just agree to disagree, and move on. Best of luck this turkey season. Good day to you sir!

[Doc]

I can fully understand how the pinkos of the left would argue against organized gun rights advocacy groups, but I see gun owners making that argument for them as simply being too cheap to put their money where their mouths are. There is only one way to fight the leftist gun-grabbers, and that is to support our gun advocacy organizations and provide an organized front. Why do you think the anti gun forces view the NRA as the devil incarnate? because when it comes to gun rights and 2nd Amendment issues, they are damn effective. I believe that the only reason we have guns in our homes today is because of the NRA.

Why hasn't the NRA accomplished even more? It's because almost all gun owners are too cheap to part with the few dollars for membership. They would rather fraudulently pretend that as unaffiliated individuals they are really going to do something to protect the 2nd Amendment on their own. They are not really fooling anyone but themselves. They have decided to do nothing.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

I can fully understand how the pinkos of the left would argue against organized gun rights advocacy groups, but I see gun owners making that argument for them as simply being too cheap to put their money where their mouths are. There is only one way to fight the leftist gun-grabbers, and that is to support our gun advocacy organizations and provide an organized front. Why do you think the anti gun forces view the NRA as the devil incarnate? because when it comes to gun rights and 2nd Amendment issues, they are damn effective. I believe that the only reason we have guns in our homes today is because of the NRA.

Why hasn't the NRA accomplished even more? It's because almost all gun owners are too cheap to part with the few dollars for membership. They would rather fraudulently pretend that as unaffiliated individuals they are really going to do something to protect the 2nd Amendment on their own. They are not really fooling anyone but themselves. They have decided to do nothing.

Yeah. They get done what they do with about 1% if the overall population in their organization. If you believe the polls, one quarter of Americans own guns. (I think it is higher because i know many that would NEVER answer "yes" to that question) That is about 88 million gun owners. 5 million NRA members. (5% of gun owners). Imagine if it were 100% with how the left fears the 5%