NY law: If gun permit owner dies, family must TURN IN GUNS TO THE GOVT after 2 weeks

[Little-Acorn]

In case you thought government official would never use gun registration records to confiscate the guns of law-abiding owners, think again. Confiscation has been the law in New York state for many years.

If gun owners and their families simply sit still and do nothing, they become automatic criminals in violation of the law

And the paranoid gun-haters' main problem with such a thing, is not its unconstitutionality. It's that the government has (surprise!) done a very poor job of keeping track of who obeys they law!

There is no evidence that the gun-haters notice the crowning irony of this situation, where the government they place their life and safety in the hands of, can't (or won't) even keep track of who is violating the laws the gun-haters have demanded.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/NEWS01/612100348/-1&nclick_check=1

Out-of-date records mar ability to track pistol owners

1:29 AM, Dec 10, 2006 |

Confiscated pistols in the evidence room at Westchester County police headquarters. / Elizabeth Orozco/The Journal News

by Jorge Fitz-Gibbon and Richard Liebson
The Journal News

Police have lost track of thousands of registered handguns because there's no system in place to keep tabs on the weapons of state pistol permit holders who die, The Journal News has found.

The guns are a symptom of a larger administrative black hole brought on by outdated records and reliance on an "honor system'' requiring families to turn in weapons on their own after a licensed gun owner has died.

"These laws were set up in the 1930s and we've accumulated more than 1.2 million records since then, with no real way of knowing how many are still valid,'' said Lt. Glenn Miner, a spokesman for the New York State Police.

The task of applying the laws falls to the counties, with overtaxed police and sheriffs left to enforce them. County clerks can't be sure which permits are still active, because no one is officially notified when a permit holder dies.

State law requires handgun owners to get permits. The permit lists restrictions on what the gun owner may do, such as keep the gun at his home or place of business or transport it to a target range, up to allowing the weapon to be carried concealed in public. No permit is required to own a rifle or shotgun.

Officials in the three Lower Hudson Valley counties agree that the vast majority of pistol permit holders are law-abiding citizens legally exercising their constitutional right to keep arms. But they are largely left on their own once their permits are approved.

State Penal Law 265.20(f) states that if a permit holder dies, the estate has 15 days to dispose of the weapons. If not, the weapons must be surrendered to "an appropriate official" such as local police, or "the superintendent of state police."


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[revelarts]

Well we buried Grampa with his guns officer.
And i'd take some offense if you decided to desecrate his restin place.

[KarlMarx]

Actually, considering who's in the White House, they ought to confiscate the tar and the chicken feathers first

[Marcus Aurelius]

might want to actually look up the law...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/P/265/265.20


A person who possesses any such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance as an executor or administrator or any other lawful possessor of such property of a decedent may continue to possess such property for a period not over fifteen days. If such property is not lawfully disposed of within such period the possessor shall deliver it to an appropriate official described in this paragraph or such property may be delivered to the superintendent of state police. Such officer shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter.</pre>

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and I'm a card carrying NRA member.

[aboutime]

Actually, considering who's in the White House, they ought to confiscate the tar and the chicken feathers first


KarlMarx. FACE IT. That would be a terrible waste of tar, and chicken feathers. If used in such a USELESS way.

[revelarts]

"A person who possesses any such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance as an executor or administrator or any other lawful possessor of such property of a decedent may continue to possess such property for a period not over fifteen days. If such property is not lawfully disposed of within such period the possessor shall deliver it to an appropriate official described in this paragraph or such property may be delivered to the superintendent of state police. Such officer shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter."

You'll have to get properly permited and request your inheritance from the gov't.

It's just another way for the gov't to steal your property.
In this case estate property.
It's a soft disarrangement. a long range plan.
Baby boomers will be dying off in droves in the next 35 years. All the guns purchased by them over the last 25 years "SHALL" be turned over to officails. If the kids don't have the proper permits. How easy is going to be get permits going forward i wonder?

I'm not sure why we can be trusting when this incrementally crap has become so obviously oppressive over the years.

Ever one of the new laws has some spin that makes it seem reasonable. Funny thing is, that things have been going along fine in the US for the pass 300 years without this new law. I think we can probably live without it. the lawmakers should take a vacation or sumthin.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When I die the ffing government has no damn right to my guns. They are all legally bought and maintained. They are my damn property. I hope my son is old enough to use them when I die because I will teach him they are rightly his and not to turn them over! I will teach him to be a man and to give the bullets instead!!
I'm getting more sick of this government tyranny everyday. --Tyr

[taft2012]

Please, can we not take this discussion down the "I'm gonna shoot the cops!" path?

If you want to effectively teach your son how to combat perceived tyranny, teach him to go shoot the politicians who enact the laws and the judges who distort the Constitution. Not some working-class guys in uniform, like me, your friends and neighbors, enforcing laws passed by duly elected legislatures and upheld by duly elected judges. Neither of whom, frankly, are going to be shaken a bit if a few cops are gunned down, but may take some notice if a few of their colleagues are popped.

In fact, you could start your son out today by having him go out and shoot a few abortionists, a far more insidious government endorsed evil than confiscation of unlicensed firearms. Or maybe some voters who vote for those elected officials and judges.

I'm a life-long New Yorker and for the most part we don't consider our gun laws to be tyrannical. Yes, intellectually some of us can recognize Constitutional problems with gun laws, however we're also firmly enough grounded in reality to know that if tomorrow everyone in Brooklyn was allowed to legally carry a firearm, I'd conservatively estimate 1000 people would be dead by sundown.

In the 2008 campaign Rudy Giuliani summed it nicely when he discussed how there are two separate and distinct gun cultures in this country. New York is not Wyoming. To the average New Yorker inheriting a gun would be like being Siegfried and Roy's sole heir and inheriting a pack of tigers. They'd be like "What the hell am I supposed to do with this?"

That said, however, I don't think NY should be seeking tougher gun laws for other jurisdictions, particularly when we do not make proper use of the gun laws we already have. It's the same rationale by which I opposed our military attacking cocaine fields in Colombia. Don't blame the supplier somewhere else when we're not doing enough to punish the demand side within our own borders.

[Marcus Aurelius]

"A person who possesses any such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance as an executor or administrator or any other lawful possessor of such property of a decedent may continue to possess such property for a period not over fifteen days. If such property is not lawfully disposed of within such period the possessor shall deliver it to an appropriate official described in this paragraph or such property may be delivered to the superintendent of state police. Such officer shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter."

You'll have to get properly permited and request your inheritance from the gov't.

It's just another way for the gov't to steal your property.
In this case estate property.
It's a soft disarrangement. a long range plan.
Baby boomers will be dying off in droves in the next 35 years. All the guns purchased by them over the last 25 years "SHALL" be turned over to officails. If the kids don't have the proper permits. How easy is going to be get permits going forward i wonder?

I'm not sure why we can be trusting when this incrementally crap has become so obviously oppressive over the years.

Ever one of the new laws has some spin that makes it seem reasonable. Funny thing is, that things have been going along fine in the US for the pass 300 years without this new law. I think we can probably live without it. the lawmakers should take a vacation or sumthin.

not new. Been on the books quite some time.

[Marcus Aurelius]

When I die the ffing government has no damn right to my guns. They are all legally bought and maintained. They are my damn property. I hope my son is old enough to use them when I die because I will teach him they are rightly his and not to turn them over! I will teach him to be a man and to give the bullets instead!!
I'm getting more sick of this government tyranny everyday. --Tyr

yes, but you're dead now... and unless your son is properly licensed and permitted, HE has no right to those guns.

[revelarts]

Please, can we not take this discussion down the "I'm gonna shoot the cops!" path?.
No one said anything about shooting cops.



If you want to effectively teach your son how to combat perceived tyranny, teach him to go shoot the politicians who enact the laws and the judges who distort the Constitution. Not some working-class guys in uniform, like me, your friends and neighbors, enforcing laws passed by duly elected legislatures and upheld by duly elected judges. Neither of whom, frankly, are going to be shaken a bit if a few cops are gunned down, but may take some notice if a few of their colleagues are popped.
Yes , I'd agree for the most part here, cops, soldiers and armed citizens shooting at each other will do no good. It'd be counter productive. The same mechanisms and drivers of tyranny will be in place.
THAT why the Cops and soldiers need to have a line in the sand. maybe even at the cost of promotion and careers where they refuse illegal orders. And keep there oath. without the police and soldiers following thru on the tyrannical laws they'll never be implemented. even if on the books.




In fact, you could start your son out today by having him go out and shoot a few abortionists, a far more insidious government endorsed evil than confiscation of unlicensed firearms. Or maybe some voters who vote for those elected officials and judges.
I'm 100% Pro-Life but this is NOT what we should do. And it would probably be a REAL good if this one comment was removed from the thread.



I'm a life-long New Yorker and for the most part we don't consider our gun laws to be tyrannical. Yes, intellectually some of us can recognize Constitutional problems with gun laws, however we're also firmly enough grounded in reality to know that if tomorrow everyone in Brooklyn was allowed to legally carry a firearm, Id conservatively estimate 1000 people would be dead by sundown.

Culture is different for sure.
1000 dead by sundown, Maybe who can say. but how is everyone gonna get a gun overnight?



In the 2008 campaign Rudy Giuliani summed it nicely when he discussed how there are two separate and distinct gun cultures in this country. New York is not Wyoming. To the average New Yorker inheriting a gun would be like being Siegfried and Roy's sole heir and inheriting a pack of tigers. They'd be like "What the hell am I supposed to do with this?"IMO, Giuliani is a liar and scumbag politician in general, but he's probably got a point. And this has happened to people in my family. Do you know what they did? they gave the inherited fire arms to others in the family who DID know what to do with them or Just stored them securely until they could sell them. What's the problem with that?
Guns are not going to stand up by themselves and walk though the street shooting people by themselves and aren't going to, by magical gun powers, transform people who unwittingly inherit guns into murderers.




yes, but you're dead now... and unless your son is properly licensed and permitted, HE has no right to those guns.
The go'vt has no right to take inherited property.
--And of course we come to the question of "permits" and "licenses" which is a lager question.
What right do we have if we have to ask the gov't to exercise it?
I know there are practical considerations but lets make no mistake.
If you have to ASK permission to DO something or OWN something is it really a right?

[revelarts]

...

[Marcus Aurelius]

not where i live.

I was referring only to the OP, and the NY law it discusses.

[revelarts]

I was referring only to the OP, and the NY law it discusses.Yes, and I tried to retract my comment.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=605117#post605117)

yes, but you're dead now... and unless your son is properly licensed and permitted, HE has no right to those guns.



The go'vt has no right to take inherited property.
--And of course we come to the question of "permits" and "licenses" which is a lager question.
What right do we have if we have to ask the gov't to exercise it?
I know there are practical considerations but lets make no mistake.
If you have to ASK permission to DO something or OWN something is it really a right?

They are not TAKING it. They are asking your son to turn it in until he can prove he meets the legal requirements to OWN it himself... such as a license, carry permit, etc. Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with this.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

yes, but you're dead now... and unless your son is properly licensed and permitted, HE has no right to those guns.

That may be the case but only because they passed laws that go against the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
I will not obey such laws myself. I will also teach my son the Constitution as I was taught it in school back when our nation had real schools and not indoctrination camps as is now the case. Just as I taught my daughter! Taught her how to properly fire and use guns too. Anybody break into her home threatening her family she is more likely to shoot them than her soon to be husband !
The law has no validity IMHO. New York is a very ffed up place.. -Tyr

[taft2012]

No one said anything about shooting cops.


Yes , I'd agree for the most part here, cops, soldiers and armed citizens shooting at each other will do no good. It'd be counter productive. The same mechanisms and drivers of tyranny will be in place.
THAT why the Cops and soldiers need to have a line in the sand. maybe even at the cost of promotion and careers where they refuse illegal orders. And keep there oath. without the police and soldiers following thru on the tyrannical laws they'll never be implemented. even if on the books.


I have a better idea; instead of telling other people to risk their livelihoods and put their family's financial security at risk, how about you just stop electing douchebags?

I'm perfectly willing to disobey a clearly unlawful order, like opening fire on a group of unarmed protesters.

Taking a stand on a Constitutional interpretation is beyond my paygrade though. I had nothing but contempt for those soldiers who planted their asses on the tarmac and refused to go to war because they felt it was an illegal war, and I'm not about to become one of them on the opposite end of the spectrum. It would be hypocritical.


I'm 100% Pro-Life but this is NOT what we should do. And it would probably be a REAL good if this one comment was removed from the thread.

Yet unloading at law enforcement coming to seize unlicensed firearms is OK? I'm just saying that if we're going to start opening fire on those who offend our conservative sensibilities in carrying out their legal and lawful professions, there are better places to start than with our local law enforcement friends.




IMO, Giuliani is a liar and scumbag politician in general, but he's probably got a point. And this has happened to people in my family. Do you know what they did? they gave the inherited fire arms to others in the family who DID know what to do with them or Just stored them securely until they could sell them. What's the problem with that?
Guns are not going to stand up by themselves and walk though the street shooting people by themselves and aren't going to, by magical gun powers, transform people who unwittingly inherit guns into murderers.

Who said there's anything wrong with that? It's done all the time.

Giuliani would have been a great president.

Whatever liberal winds he had to bow to in order to get elected in NYC, would have been immaterial when it came time to him to appoint Supreme Court justices. He began as a federal prosecutor and went on to be a law & order mayor. His frequent criticisms of liberal judicial rulings, both as prosecutor and mayor, indicate his judicial appointments would have been orginalists, which would have also had positive effects on the issues of abortion and 2nd Amendment.

His economic conservatism would stand well right now, his deep welfare cuts as well. And his overall commitment to the notion of individual responsibility. I can't think of a politician in the history of this country who has had such a profound beneficial effect on the everyday lives of virtually everyone who lived in his jurisdiction.


The go'vt has no right to take inherited property.

Ever hear of the inheritance tax?

[revelarts]

I have a better idea; instead of telling other people to risk their livelihoods and put their family's financial security at risk, how about you just stop electing douchebags?
God Knows I've been trying to do that but i can't do it alone.
people keep telling me I'm "wasting my vote". But you see what we get when we keep voting in these Flagwavin do Nuthin corporate brand Republicans and typical liberal socialist corporate run Dems.



I'm perfectly willing to disobey a clearly unlawful order, like opening fire on a group of unarmed protesters. Great!


Taking a stand on a Constitutional interpretation is beyond my paygrade though. I had nothing but contempt for those soldiers who planted their asses on the tarmac and refused to go to war because they felt it was an illegal war, and I'm not about to become one of them on the opposite end of the spectrum. It would be hypocritical.
Not really it's a new day different situation. Obeying BS laws doesn't make you a patriot.



Yet unloading at law enforcement coming to seize unlicensed firearms is OK?
i never said shooting a cop was OK, why did you delete that part TAft?
why are distorting my words and misrepresenting me in a knee jerk way
Carry on.:poke:



I'm just saying that if we're going to start opening fire on those who offend our conservative sensibilities in carrying out their legal and lawful professions, there are better places to start than with our local law enforcement friends. If one's sitting at home minding his own biz and people come unlawfully unconstitutionally to one's door to harm him or steal his property, well, what's a fella to do? Who's wants to go out looking for trouble?
But hypothetically If anyone was stupid enough to do what you suggest you'd be right beside them correct?
Can't risk your job but you'll help lead a coup?


Giuliani would have been a great president.

Whatever liberal winds he had to bow to in order to get elected in NYC, would have been immaterial when it came time to him to appoint Supreme Court justices. He began as a federal prosecutor and went on to be a law & order mayor. His frequent criticisms of liberal judicial rulings, both as prosecutor and mayor, indicate his judicial appointments would have been orginalists, which would have also had positive effects on the issues of abortion and 2nd Amendment.

His economic conservatism would stand well right now, his deep welfare cuts as well. And his overall commitment to the notion of individual responsibility. I can't think of a politician in the history of this country who has had such a profound beneficial effect on the everyday lives of virtually everyone who lived in his jurisdiction.
Hey well uh ... Didn't you say something earlier about not voting for Douchebags?



Ever hear of the inheritance tax?
Unconstitutional

[Robert A Whit]

might want to actually look up the law...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/P/265/265.20


Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and I'm a card carrying NRA member.

Somebody must have cancelled the constitution if that is the law.

[Kathianne]

might want to actually look up the law...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/P/265/265.20


Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and I'm a card carrying NRA member.

part of me wants to agree with you, I not only am not a member of NRA, I wouldn't have a gun in my home if you paid me. While I would advocate for conceal carry for teachers on school grounds, with an endorsement from site administrator, (principal) and his/her superior, (superintendent), I can't agree. It's not reasonable, IMO.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Somebody must have cancelled the constitution if that is the law.

Hardly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringed

in·fringe (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifn-frhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifnjhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.



This law does not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

[logroller]

That may be the case but only because they passed laws that go against the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
I will not obey such laws myself. I will also teach my son the Constitution as I was taught it in school back when our nation had real schools and not indoctrination camps as is now the case. Just as I taught my daughter! Taught her how to properly fire and use guns too. Anybody break into her home threatening her family she is more likely to shoot them than her soon to be husband !
The law has no validity IMHO. New York is a very ffed up place.. -Tyr


"A person who possesses any such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance as an executor or administrator or any other lawful possessor of such property of a decedent may continue to possess such property for a period not over fifteen days. If such property is not lawfully disposed of within such period the possessor shall deliver it to an appropriate official described in this paragraph or such property may be delivered to the superintendent of state police. Such officer shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter."

You'll have to get properly permited and request your inheritance from the gov't.

It's just another way for the gov't to steal your property.
In this case estate property.
It's a soft disarrangement. a long range plan.
Baby boomers will be dying off in droves in the next 35 years. All the guns purchased by them over the last 25 years "SHALL" be turned over to officails. If the kids don't have the proper permits. How easy is going to be get permits going forward i wonder?

I'm not sure why we can be trusting when this incrementally crap has become so obviously oppressive over the years.

Ever one of the new laws has some spin that makes it seem reasonable. Funny thing is, that things have been going along fine in the US for the pass 300 years without this new law. I think we can probably live without it. the lawmakers should take a vacation or sumthin.
The precipitating issue is may issue firearm permits, not shall deliver inheritance laws. I'd just keep the gun and fight the law when (if) I get caught...hypothetically speaking, of course. ;)

[taft2012]

God Knows I've been trying to do that but i can't do it alone.

Yet you want others to go it alone and suffer repercussions you are not willing to suffer yourself.


Obeying BS laws doesn't make you a patriot.

Strawman argument. I never said that. My job is to do my duty. For the soldiers that meant going to war. For me it means obeying and enforcing the laws passed by a duly elected representative legislature of the people and upheld by the judiciary.

It's that simple. I guess you admired those soldiers. I'm not so self-important that I think my position affords me the authority to act as a separate and distinct one man Supreme Court. Nor am I about to tell my daughter she can't go to college because daddy listened to some crackpot on the internet and decided to freelance as a Supreme Court Justice, especially when that crackpot doesn't take any of the bold steps he prescribes for others himself.



i never said shooting a cop was OK, why did you delete that part TAft?
why are distorting my words and misrepresenting me in a knee jerk way
Carry on.:poke:

I never said you said it. I never said anyone actually said it. Perhaps you have someone on ignore who hinted at it?


If one's sitting at home minding his own biz and people come unlawfully unconstitutionally to one's door to harm him or steal his property, well, what's a fella to do? Who's wants to go out looking for trouble?
But hypothetically If anyone was stupid enough to do what you suggest you'd be right beside them correct?

Those "people" would be uniformed law enforcement, which means you would be able to enjoy due process and plead your case in court.

I'm sure drug lords also believe the police "steal" their wares as well, when in fact they are invoiced for evidence at trial.

If you have an unlicensed firearm in your home you are guilty of a misdemeanor under a NYS law that is ages old and has been upheld repeatedly in the courts. Uniformed law enforcement executing a search warrant to seize contraband is not "some people coming into your house to steal."

I've been on search warrant executions. If you want to tangle with those flack-jacketed guys who are the first ones through the door ... well, I wouldn't advise it.

Or you could explain to the judge that the search warrant he signed was an authorization for an act of thievery. Good luck on that one too.


Unconstitutional

A lot of taxes can be argued to be unconstitutional, including the income tax. Yet you pay them all, don't you?

This is why this BS annoys me so much. "100% pro-life" people will wring their hands like Uriah Heep when taking out baby murderers is mentioned, do nothing when their tax dollars go to pay for abortions, and in fact pay every tax the government smacks them with... but for some reason will become blustery cop shooters when it comes to their guns. Utterly unbelievable bullshit.

Willing to get into a shootout with police officers, your friends and neighbors, a shootout you're going to lose, all to avoid having to argue your case in court. Nonsensical and unbelievable blustery horseshit.

[taft2012]

I'm a life-long New Yorker and for the most part we don't consider our gun laws to be tyrannical. Yes, intellectually some of us can recognize Constitutional problems with gun laws, however we're also firmly enough grounded in reality to know that if tomorrow everyone in Brooklyn was allowed to legally carry a firearm, I'd conservatively estimate 1000 people would be dead by sundown.


This happened in Brooklyn on Wednesday:


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/09/woman-90-shot-in-east-new-york-brooklyn/



NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A 90-year-old woman was wounded by stray bullets Wednesday afternoon in East New York, Brooklyn.
As CBS 2’s Dick Brennan reported, Gloria Johnson was reported in stable condition at Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center Wednesday night, after being shot at Blake and Miller avenues around 4:30 p.m.

This happened in Brooklyn on Thursday:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/10/man-child-shot-in-tompkins-park-in-brooklyn/




NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Police are searching for a second suspect in connection with the shooting of a toddler and his father in Brooklyn.
The shooting occurred at around 2 p.m. at Herbert Von King Park, originally named Tompkins Park, in Bedford-Stuyvesant.
The man and his 2-year-old son were grazed by the bullets, and a total of three shots were fired, according to authorities.
The father is believed to be the target of the shooting, police said.
When two suspects saw the father, one of them said, ‘That’s him’ and began shooting, CBS 2′s Sean Hennessey reported.
The father held his son and dashed into this community center. Three shots were fired outside the center, one fired inside. The father was hit in the hand and his son was shot in both arms.

The story surrounding the shooting of the 2 year-old and his father, is that the 2 year-old's father had shot the brother of the guy who shot the father and 2 year-old, just the day before. In Brooklyn.

I don't envision a Brooklyn populated by millions of responsible gun owners without there first being a massive culling of the herd, a culling that would include many innocents, aged 2 through 90.

[revelarts]

Yet you want others to go it alone and suffer repercussions you are not willing to suffer yourself.
You don't really know what i've sacrificed. but to be honest. it has been small by comparison.
But I have had to say to employers on more than 1 occasions, "No i 'm not going to do that. Get somebody else". I was never fired for it but the possibility was there. There's more than one Job in the world.



Strawman argument. I never said that. My job is to do my duty. For the soldiers that meant going to war. For me it means obeying and enforcing the laws passed by a duly elected representative legislature of the people and upheld by the judiciary.
It's that simple. I guess you admired those soldiers. I'm not so self-important that I think my position affords me the authority to act as a separate and distinct one man Supreme Court. ...
decided to freelance as a Supreme Court Justice, .....

It's not being self important, it's using ours heads to evaluate our natural freedoms protected by the constitution . If the Duly elected offices violate the "the supreme law of the land." We have to decide whether to draw the line at their word or what we understand to be the clear reading of a few paragraphs. You don't have to be a legal scholar to read and understand it. You have already said that you would not fire into a crowd of unarmed citizens. You say that would be an illegal order. Who made you the law there? Are you a Crackpot or sumthin? A one man supreme court? Or is it that you understand that your duty is to the law , the constitution and peoples rights not the duly elected officials when they break it.




Those "people" would be uniformed law enforcement, which means you would be able to enjoy due process and plead your case in court.
I'm sure drug lords also believe the police "steal" their wares as well, when in fact they are invoiced for evidence at trial.
If you have an unlicensed firearm in your home you are guilty of a misdemeanor under a NYS law that is ages old and has been upheld repeatedly in the courts. Uniformed law enforcement executing a search warrant to seize contraband is not "some people coming into your house to steal."
I've been on search warrant executions. If you want to tangle with those flack-jacketed guys who are the first ones through the door ... well, I wouldn't advise it.
Or you could explain to the judge that the search warrant he signed was an authorization for an act of thievery. Good luck on that one too.
...Willing to get into a shootout with police officers, your friends and neighbors, a shootout you're going to lose, all to avoid having to argue your case in court. Nonsensical and unbelievable blustery horseshit.

I'm not talking about drug dealers or unliceneced, or warrents. I'm talking about
executive orders, Supreme court recended 2nd amendment, sittiing at home mining my own biz. And whoosh my right is "legally" taken away.
What court are you going to argue your case in? the "laws" been changed. how many years would it take to change it back to what what was suppose to be an "inalienable right?"
as you say "good luck with that"

It's a real question as to when a person says the law is wrong. I'm not going to do it.
the Jews waited to late in Germany.




A lot of taxes can be argued to be unconstitutional, including the income tax. Yet you pay them all, don't you?
---At the threat of fines and prison yes i do--

This is why this BS annoys me so much. "100% pro-life" people will wring their hands like Uriah Heep when taking out baby murderers is mentioned, do nothing when their tax dollars go to pay for abortions, and in fact pay every tax the government smacks them with... but for some reason will become blustery cop shooters when it comes to their guns. Utterly unbelievable bullshit.
---There you go again saying someone wants to shoot cops, I've post several times that it's counter productive.

Willing to get into a shootout with police officers, your friends and neighbors, a shootout you're going to lose, all to avoid having to argue your case in court. Nonsensical and unbelievable blustery horseshit.
OK Taft I am prolife that's another reason why I would NEVER vote for Giuliani.
But it looks like you support BOTH gun control and killing babies with the candidates you support with your vote. The thing we both can do painlessly.
Do you vote for the 2nd amendment rights and pro-life candidates TAFT?
If you and other republicans did there'd be no need to to even consider police disobeying orders or people defying unconstitutional guns "laws".


As you say the way we should be handling these problems is by our votes.
So many compromised, "At least he's republican" candidates votes have brought us to this discussion.

[jimnyc]

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/NEWS01/612100348/-1&nclick_check=1

Out-of-date records mar ability to track pistol owners

1:29 AM, Dec 10, 2006 |

Confiscated pistols in the evidence room at Westchester County police headquarters

LA - how do you end up on the Journal News? I see you post a few things from there now, and of course within the Westchester limits. Are you from around here? Now you know the hell I live in around here! I'm embarrassed. LOL

[taft2012]

You don't really know what i've sacrificed. but to be honest. it has been small by comparison.
But I have had to say to employers on more than 1 occasions, "No i 'm not going to do that. Get somebody else". I was never fired for it but the possibility was there. There's more than one Job in the world.

You're right, I don't know. Are we talking about strapping on a firearm, donning a kevlar vest, and making yourself into a target for society's malefactors?

Or are we talking about snit and a pair of wadded up panties about perceptions of "overwork"?

Sorry, the job description of a police officer does not include a provision to override court rulings. I'm not about to give up the only livelihood I know because the electorate doesn't elect officials who return laws I personally agree with.



It's not being self important, it's using ours heads to evaluate our natural freedoms protected by the constitution . If the Duly elected offices violate the "the supreme law of the land." We have to decide whether to draw the line at their word or what we understand to be the clear reading of a few paragraphs. You don't have to be a legal scholar to read and understand it. You have already said that you would not fire into a crowd of unarmed citizens. You say that would be an illegal order. Who made you the law there? Are you a Crackpot or sumthin? A one man supreme court? Or is it that you understand that your duty is to the law , the constitution and peoples rights not the duly elected officials when they break it.

Whenever one choses to violate an order there will be repercussions. There's no question an order to fire on unarmed civilians would be an unlawful order because the authorized use of deadly physical force is clearly outlined in the New York State Criminal Procedure Law.

Me having a personal disagreement on a legal matter with the State Supreme Court is another matter.



I'm not talking about drug dealers or unliceneced, or warrents. I'm talking about
executive orders, Supreme court recended 2nd amendment, sittiing at home mining my own biz. And whoosh my right is "legally" taken away.
What court are you going to argue your case in? the "laws" been changed. how many years would it take to change it back to what what was suppose to be an "inalienable right?"
as you say "good luck with that"

Several hundred thousand babies were murdered last year because of a judicial ruling. I support the 2nd Amendment, but even I have step back and point out gun nuts when I see them. They will sit back quietly while a virtual legal holocaust is underway, but will only be moved towards outrage and violence if their revolver is threatened.

Your priorities need re-evaluation.



It's a real question as to when a person says the law is wrong. I'm not going to do it.
the Jews waited to late in Germany.

Hundreds of thousands of babies probably wish you'd have acted on your extra-Constitutional outrage long ago.




---There you go again saying someone wants to shoot cops, I've post several times that it's counter productive.

And I've posted several times that I never said *YOU* said it. Knock off the strawman arguments.

Bluster bullshit. If you're going to sit back and watch a holocaust of infants, you'll never convince me in a bazillion years you're going to take a life-and-death stand when a SWAT teams comes for your unlicensed firearm. Talk away, but it is transparent bullshit. You might want to stop embarrassing yourself.