ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

SCARRY SHIAAT better make some calls! Already passed assembly! It happened in Canada austrailia and England!

[hr]
[/align]This week, several anti-gun measures passed the State Assembly and are now heading to the State Senate, where they will most likely be referred to the State Senate Codes Committee.

Assembly Bill 6525A, sponsored by State Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-88), would create new sales and reporting requirements for licensed firearms dealers and require dealers to carry a minimum of $1,000,000 of liability insurance. AB6525A passed by a vote of 85 to 53.

Assembly Bill 9819A, authored by State Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D-16), would ban the sale of semi-automatic handguns not equipped with so-called "microstamping" technology. The bill requires all semiautomatic pistols sold in the state to microstamp an array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol on the firing pin, which would copy the characters onto the cartridge case upon firing. AB9819A passed by a vote of 90 to 43.

Assembly Bill 7331, sponsored by State Assemblyman Matthew Titone (D-61), would expand the ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons”, as well as require the ballistic “fingerprinting”(registration) of all semi-automatic “assault weapons” owned prior to a specified date. AB7331 passed by a vote of 85 to 46.

Assembly Bill 3451, introduced by State Assemblyman David Koon (D-135), would expand New York’s failed ballistic imaging program. AB3451 passed by a vote of 79 to 49.

Assembly Bill 2772, authored by State Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington (D-3), would ban the sale, use or possession of any firearm with a bore diameter .50 caliber or larger. This bill would require gun owners in possession of these firearms to surrender them to law enforcement. AB2772 would ban any shotgun larger than a .410. AB2772 passed by a vote of 85 to 49.

Assembly Bill 829, sponsored by State Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-4), would prohibit the sale of any handgun that doesn’t contain a childproofing device or mechanism incorporated into the design of the handgun. AB829 passed by a vote of 86 to 46.

Assembly Bill 76, sponsored by State Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg (D-20), would require the mandatory storage of all firearms. AB76 passed by a vote of 95 to 35.

Assembly Bill 3447, introduced by State Assemblyman David Koon (D-135), would ban the sale or possession of frangible ammunition. AB3447 passed by a vote of 85 to 40


- Just figured I'd pass this info along so you can see what our politicians are doing to us.

SF
__________________

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

Good luck to all of you that live in the big city states. Better hope the police show up in time to save you while you hide under your bed. Nany state at its worst, bills like these are all ways for politicians to look like they are concerned with fixing social ills, but they always go after the GUN GLAM instead of the root of the problems. The current generation (my generation) has had their minds warped into believing what big brother tells them, and forget that the Government and Politicians are not some all knowing entity, they are just a bunch of educated idiots with a power grabbing agenda of their own.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-- Benjamin Franklin

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

these politicians and the uninformed public are crazy!

recently here in IL, they had a meeting about gun control etc.....due to the NIU shooting.....instead of mostly anti gun people showing up, they got a rude awakening of pro gun rights crowd, many boos etc.....nice to know at times we are heard.....they wanted to reduce clip capacities or something, and the guy said that he was able to reload in less than a few seconds, ie.....reducing clip capacties wouldn't do much, but had concealed weapons been allowed, that may have made a severe impact on the outcome!

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

What state

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

This is the deer hunting portion of the forum, and none of the measures listed there affect deer hunting.

Furthermore, how dare they try to make it harder for a child to use a fully automatic .75 caliber handgun with a 200 roung clip that is kept securely under their father's pillow?

With all due respect, the things listed there aren't going to make it harder to hunt or protect yourself, or to target shoot for fun. you can store a handgun in a small safe under your bed, and unlock it before you go to sleep. you don't need a caliber larger than 50 any more than you need a formula one race car in your garage. if you don't use your gun to do anything illegal, it wont matter if its "fingerprinted". You don't need 50 round clips to fight off the Russkies and the gangs.

And the argument that the criminals have these weapons, so we need them too so we can protect ourselves doesn't work. Ifwe stopped making excessive weaponry 20 years ago, criminals would not have it now. It would have been weeded out and slowly confiscated, so the VirginiaTech shooter would have beenusing a bolt action rifle, or stopping to reload after only a few shots, making him mucheasier to stop before killing all those people. Think about the future.

I'm all for guns for hunting and for fun, but if you make a hammer bigger than it needs to be, somebody will hit someone in the head with it, so help minimize the losses by not making it bigger than it needs to be.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

I don't know what state you live in but in Indiana we can only use shotguns and pistols during gun season. So if the bill passed banning all shotguns bigger than a .410 it would affect a lot of peoples deer hunting. Lets hope nothing like this happens in Indiana. That would really mess up duck hunting to.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

I agree with kmunny, none of these types of weapons need to be accessable to the general public, none of them needed for the fair chase of game.( except for the .410, i wonder if that is correct) I dont see this as the govt. trying take away any reasonable gun rights.

If you want to handle weapons like that join the MILITARY, you will be able to use them all the time, even sleep with em.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

(I did a search on one of the names, "State Assemblywoman Amy Paulin", it is apparently New York State.)

I, for one, may want a big bore for hunting, big bore target shooting, collecting, or more effective personal protection. Who are legislators to define for me what is allowed under the Constitution? The 2nd does not say that we are only allowed small bore arms or only arms for hunting. A 45 can be a brutal bore anyway so what is this other than pandering to the politicions vapid base, or an attempt to get a foot into the door of a total gun ban.

Past history has shown that gun bans promote violence and aid criminals by disarming victims. I am fortunate to live in an area where most of us feel no need for a firearm for personal protection but things could change or I may retire and move.

Most of us value being citizens of the United States but these pols apparently want us all to be victims in the United States instead.

Bob

Edit- The two previous posters,kmunny19 & shamlin, sound like gun ban liberals wearing camouflage.

.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

amen Robert L E, 1st this is ot the forum for this argument, and second give them and inch and they will take a mile! PA is going through a similar assault on gun roghts driven by the liberal and antis. Never give them an inch and screw the idea of the bigger picture and compromise. There is none w/ a liberal.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

Say what you want...... about what you think I am. I spent 4 yrs in the Marines and I am currently in law enforcement.I personally do not wantBillyJohn crack wheeling a .50 cal or an assault rifle when I get a call to go to his trailor park to bust his meth lab.
Bob..... So youaint assuming next time; yes I am wearing camo, but I am not a liberal...... but I do beleive inleaveingthe gun slinging and war fighting to those who have the right training.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

Billy probably does not own his firearm legally anyways, being a member of law enforcement you should know that criminals will always have guns. I see no need to take away the rights of law biding gun owners. And when they take all of my guns away, what do I protect myself and my family with when Billy breaks into my house? You put yourself in a position to protect and serve, I do appreciate what you do, but bringing these type of laws in will only make things worse for you (more crimes committed), me (protection,hunting,etc.), and the dumb ass politiciansall stand around scratching their heads going, "why is our crime rate so high?" Once they start to ban certain guns, do really think that they will stop there? We will be restricted to a single shot 410; with 3 locks on it, in a safe, buried in the backyard!

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

Anti-gun laws ony effect law abiding citizens...Johnny crack dealer could not care less what gun laws are on the books...makes his life easier because he does not need to worry about law abiding citizens being armed.

Funny the two major cities with handgun bans have the highest firearm murder rates...Wash DC and Chicago.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

Where in my post did I say I wanted gun bans? Should I make the generalization that...

Edit- Robert L E thinks he's Dirty Harry and will shoot you in the face if you cut him off in traffic.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

A ban on anything over 50cal. I would call that a ban on some guns. There also would be a affective ban by creating rules and requirements for guns that would price them out of reach for those of moderate means.

Since criminals will defeat any or all of these requirements what will these requirement do besides being a burden on, or creating a criminal out of, otherwise law abiding people?

If I was off of the mark on you, I wasin grenade rangeanyway.

I think you may have pegged me wrong too. I did specifically said that I live in an area where I feel no need for a firearm for personal protection (I have never and probably will never keep a gun for personal protective reasons.), that being said,things can change and if you do not believe that the real goal of all of these proposals is a total gun ban, I think you are delusional.

A 12 gauge is above 50cal, by the way.

Bob

Edit- Shamlin, Thankyou for serving in the Marines and for currently serving with law enforcement. Your service helped to keep us free and continues to help keep us safe. I will be at Camp Pendleton this coming Tuesday to meet a bus carrying my son home from a tour in Iraq. Of the group he served with he had this to say, "Not a drop, nary a scratch."

One of the biggest problems I have with gun laws is that criminals do not obey them. The biggest affect that these laws have is to disarm honest citezens. Where highly restrictive gun laws are enacted, violent crime tends to rise dramatically.

Some years ago, 35 or so, Psychology Today had an article about guns, crime, gun laws, and criminals. The main conclusion of the article was this question and answer- "Are you safer or in more danger if you neighbor has a legally owned gun?" The answer was that you are clearly safer if your neighbor has a legally owned weapon.
They came to this conclusion by going to prisons and asking questions of convicts and how these men chose victims. The criminals do not know who is armed and who is not. This is also probably the reason for recent year's massive increases in violent crime in Austrailia, Canada, and Great Britain. The criminals there know that law abiding citizens have been disarmed by more restrictive gun laws. Great Britain also has court rulings that make it seem like self defence is illegal too.

I agree that law enforcement should be left to the professionals but it is not really the job of the police to prevent crime as much as it is to solve crimes that have been committed.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

My point is not about the sale of military or bigger style arms, it is about the production of them. Many of the most advanced products humans make are designed for the purpose of killing other humans. Pathetic.

I am not saying that if assault and huge caliber weapons aren't legal, that criminals won't get them. I'm saying that if they aren't made available to anyone other than military defense, and are highly scrutinized and inventoried, then criminals won't have them in the future as the ones they have now are slowly taken from them and otherwise rendered unusable. Yes its a long slow process to weed out these weapons, but the alternative is to make more of them to defend ourselves with, which criminals will get, so then we have to make more to defend ourselves with, which criminals will get and so on. Yeah, it sucks, but I feel it needs to start somewhere.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

Would the 50 cal law effect the ownership of muzzleloaders?

Has there been a rash of crimes committed lately with 50 cal weapons that i have not read about?

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

DannyD said it well, Is there a rash of crimes being committed with military style guns? The answer is, of course, no.

Most military type weapons are already illegal, full auto, canons, mortars, rockets, and bombs. What remain legal are semi-auto. They look mean though so I suppose they should be banned. How many 50BMG rifles have been used in crime anyway? To my knowlege, none. There are thousands of legally owned full auto guns in this country, to my knowlege only one has been used in a homocide since 1934 when the law was passed banning them.

Patric Purdy killed 5 small children in California with an "assault" rifle. 29 people were wounded in the same attack. An entire class of guns was banned because of this crime. Did these laws make Californians any safer?? I believe not. Had Purdy been using a pump shotgun I think the carnage would have been much worse. All guns are designed to kill; how are civilian guns different except in looks?
The people (some of them) of California feel better though and that is what is important to them. It is a liberal mantra, "If it feels good, do it." It feels good to let criminals have second and third and fourth ............ and twentieth and etc, chance to be moral and law abiding. How well does that liberal idea work? Patric Purdy had an extensive criminal record of being arrested for felonies which were plead to misdemeanors. How well did that work for the people of California?
A coworker of mine was right when he said that criminals should be stopped long before they have "a long criminal record". Keeping violent ctiminals in jail works but it does not FEEL good to bleeding heart liberals. Banning guns feels good to these people even though crime and violence tends to rise when such laws are passed. That does not matter to them because "if it feels good, do it".

A weapon of choice for coyote hunters here in Iowa is the AR15. It has range, accuracy, and low recoil. It looks ugly to a liberal though so it had better be banned, even though it is used is a minscule number of crimes. It feels good to ban it.

I feel that it is pathetic to ban guns without regard to the effect on honest citizens and the effect on crime. Passing laws that punish the good citizen and cause crime to rise does not feel good to me. Don't fall into the liberal feel good trap.


Bob

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

Would you mind if they were only availablewithbolt actions and four round, non-magazine capacity?

I'm not trying to get anyone riled up and I absolutely agree that we have the right to own guns and if we abuse that right, we shouldn't be allowed to do it again any time soon, regardless of what pushed us to it. And I know that semi auto (and converted fully auto) pistolsare more likely to be crime guns.

I'm saying that one of the biggest arguments against any type of gun law is that good honest hunters will be affected or people defending their homes, when in reality hunters and homeowners rarely (and shouldn't) need to fire more than a few shots at a time. Why makes weapons (available to the public; it shouldn't be hard for the military to inventory and hold onto more agressive weapons without them falling into the public's lap) that go above and beyond what hunters and homeowners need, and do what only criminals would need.

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

The way this one is worded could definitely effect anyone owning a .50 caliber or .54 caliber muzzleloader.

That's no good, surrender my what? Oh yeah, Joe Crackhead stole those earlier today. Can you fill out a police report for me for insurance purposes?

RE: ANTI-GUN BILLS-SCARRY!!!
 

(IMO) Kmunny needs to get with the program. The anti's are after our guns. They will stop at NOTHING. Trying for a little at a time, or all at once makes no difference, they still get them either way. Your either with us, or against us, your either part of the solution, or part of the problem. And now there after our ammo! If they can't get the guns, go afterthe ammo, you can't shoot without it! Read the newest assault inMay's American Rifleman magazine by Chris Cox. And be sure to ... VOTE for PRO GUN canadates,Join the NRA, fight, fight, fight, don't give them an inch. Good Hunting ... SHOTARYE