1. Check out the Hot Deals section of the Marketplace forum to order an official Mossbergowners.com hat.

Stop the NYS Firearms Ban Now!

Discussion in 'Gun Rights, Fights and Rallies' started by ceesman762, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. Tim4k5

    Tim4k5 .270 WIN

    Okay......just read through that list and one thing in particular jumped out at me quickly as rediculous. The Benelli M2 Tactical is label as an "assault shotgun" but not the M4......you know, the one designed to be a friggin military assault shotgun. SMH.

    I'm beginning to wonder more and more if the clowns that write these laws have ANY firearms experience that doesn't involve putting in a DVD and popping some popcorn.
  2. oli700

    oli700 12g Supporter "Philanthropist"

    is that list complete? Becuase it it is I can think of a couple of great carbines that arent on that list

    Ruger Mini 14
    Ruger 556

    LAZY EYED SNIPER Overwatch Staff Member Global Moderator Supporter "Philanthropist"

    ...not sure if the list is complete yet.

    I didn't see the 930 SPX on there either...
  4. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Moderator Supporter

    930 spx with a standard stock is ok.

    There's a loophole I found on the new semiauto shotgun language.

    In the orig 1994 it specifies a pistol grip as an evil feature. This new ban it just references thumbholw stocks. So I'd say a pistol grip is no longer an evil feature.

    LAZY EYED SNIPER Overwatch Staff Member Global Moderator Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Whoa, it looks like the link I posted has now been disabled by the host...
  6. Itsricmo

    Itsricmo .30-06

    *Twilight Zone Theme* Conspiracy Theorists Gather..... :)
  7. raven01750

    raven01750 .270 WIN

    Well. I just got caught up on this topic. And even though I am greatly saddened by the news it comes as no surprise. "We the People" has lost it's meaning to people who have never had to defend their rights or serve their country and see how those "rights" actually make us a better country. The media and education systems are filled with people who have never served their country. They grew up as frat boys and girls who had the idea instilled into them by their parents and grand parents that serving their country was for the poor and less fortunate. In other words the stupid. There will never be any respect from the few people that actually fall in this catagory because there is no respect for people they consider less educated or less whatever. Yet their Frat gives them a unique advantage over the stupid. They think that "their" people are better and make sure that anyone who follows in "their" way of thinking gets preferential treatment because they are part of the club.

    End the end, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Because "we as a country" are allowed to say things in annonimity to protect us from any possible backlash and being classified as "one of them." And as a people we have allowed those in power to have more "rights" than everyone else but have not grown disguted enough to do something about it because those in power control the media and education system which just reinforces those beliefs and the people have bought into this idea that those less fortunate than "us" should have less rights than "we" do or should because the powerful among us have told us that we are right in thinking this way. Any minority, that doesn't fit into our ideas as being "with us" are against us. And we all know who "those" people are. The Blacks, hispanics, gays, lesbians, Irish, Nigerians, trailer trash, indians or whomever comes to mind as someone who is not like us.

    So, today, gun owners are on that list as a bunch of "crazies" that don't deserve certain rights by that club. So be it. But history has proven time and again that "most" people will willingly if grudgingly accept to turn in their guns. And the few remaining will be villified and called names such as radical or whatever other word that has a negative conotation so that the remaining masses will turn on the remaining few who do understand what is happening and what is coming, to silence them. Until the end.

    Then, when the SHTF, when the trucks arrive on your street to carry off your neighbors to some unspeakable horror, the people will stand and watch. Quitely so as not to be noticed and be the next ones loaded on the trucks. And when tens of thousands or even millions die, and the carnage has run it's course, all the people will cry out in one voice "How did we let this happen?" But of course it will be too late. And we as a country will start anew and build a new country that temporarily learns from it's past mistakes and mournes the losses.

    This is the cycle of life. It has been since the beginning of time and will be until the last person takes a breath. If you don't believe it, just look at history. Because we as a human race ARE too stupid to learn from past mistakes. That is obvious...

    I have no answers here. Just observations. And the repeat of history as my own personal crystal ball. All we can do as individuals today is what we are doing now. Don't give up. Talk about it, write letters and make phone calls and HOPE that there is someone left in power who listens, understands and will make the sacrifice to get on the truck to prove that we are no different than our neighbors and what is happening is wrong. I prey that I am strong enough to get on the truck when the time comes. I'm very afraid and not ashamed to say it. Because I truely believe that that time is coming. And I have no idea how to stop it.

  8. oli700

    oli700 12g Supporter "Philanthropist"

    ha ! you think Iraqi's are the only ones that know build a road side bombs.....so do the Irish. No trucks allowed up in here
  9. aksavanaman

    aksavanaman Work In Progress... Supporter "Philanthropist"

  10. carbinemike

    carbinemike Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    My wife is Irish and she's been holding out on the IED knowledge!

    I couldn't find this on Youtube yet so if you want to see the video, follow the link. A mayor in NY is predicting bad things from Cuomo's sgun grabbing.

    "Most people are law-abiding citizens and may go ahead and sell those or turn those over, but you're going to have a fraction of people that are going to take a stand, and I can just predict a Waco-style standoff in some rural area and it's not going to end well," Gloversville, New York Mayor Dayton King (I) said about New York state's new gun control laws that Gov. Cuomo recently signed into law. (source: WXXA-TV)

  11. JT10

    JT10 .270 WIN

  12. JAM 590

    JAM 590 Copper BB

    I feel your pain Walter Monkey... I in WNY comming to grasps that most of what I thought as true as a kid in the 60's has been nothing but BS. Thanks for all your efforts & always know that light & truth will always dispell darkness & evil. The wait sure is painful though. Jerry
  13. awiner

    awiner .270 WIN

    Us here in California are facing the same Democratic pile.
  14. JAM 590

    JAM 590 Copper BB

  15. OhioArcher

    OhioArcher Where's da fishes? Supporter "Philanthropist"

    So New York's ban goes into affect today along with mandatory registration. I would imagine there are several hundred thousand weapons that would fall under the new rules. Just how many will register their weapons, how many will hide/bury them and how many will just flip the NY government off?

    I'm not asking you to give up your plan if you live there, this is just an open question for discussion.

    If you don't live there, but this happened in your state, what do you think you would do?
  16. oli700

    oli700 12g Supporter "Philanthropist"

    I would sell all mine in the allotted time and become a law abiding citizen just like every NY’er has done....no question. I keep selling them and buying the back at gun shows all the time….I would just let them go for good.
  17. old mossy

    old mossy Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    well congrats "old mossy" i am now a felon for just sitting here in my house doing nothing.
    TY gov cumo. :)
  18. John A.

    John A. Unconstitutional laws are not laws. Staff Member Administrator Global Moderator

  19. OhioArcher

    OhioArcher Where's da fishes? Supporter "Philanthropist"

    This judge is a *censored by me* moron...how can it be both ways?

    They are all violations of the 2nd Amendment!!! There is nothing in the Constitution that puts " the state’s important interest in public safety" above anything else...

    Another Obama appointee...I assume, anyway...
  20. ripjack13

    ripjack13 Resident Sawdust Maker Staff Member Administrator Supporter "Philanthropist"

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... e+Interest

    State Interest

    A broad term for any matter of public concern that is addressed by a government in law or policy.

    State legislatures pass laws to address matters of public interest and concern. A law that sets speed limits on public highways expresses an interest in protecting public safety. A statute that requires high school students to pass competency examinations before being allowed to graduate advances the state's interest in having an educated citizenry.

    Although the state may have a legitimate interest in public safety, public health, or an array of other issues, a law that advances a state interest may also intrude on important constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has devised standards of review that govern how a state interest will be constitutionally evaluated.

    When a law affects a constitutionally protected interest, the law must meet the Rational Basis Test.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... Basis+Test
    This test requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. For example, a state law that prohibits a person from selling insurance without a license deprives people of their right to make contracts freely. Yet the law will be upheld because it is a rational means of advancing the state interest in protecting persons from fraudulent or unscrupulous insurance agents. Most laws that are challenged on this basis are upheld, as there is usually some type of reasonable relation between the state interest and the way the law seeks to advance that interest.

    When a law or policy affects a fundamental constitutional right, such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, the Strict Scrutiny test will be applied. This test requires the state to advance a compelling state interest to justify the law or policy. Strict scrutiny places a heavy burden on the state. For example, in roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), the state interest in protecting unborn children was not compelling enough to overcome a woman's right to privacy. When the state interest is not sufficiently compelling, the law is struck down as unconstitutional.

Share This Page