# Remembner when they said New York wasn't confiscating guns?



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

What's the law in New York?
Is there a limit to how much ammo you can have?
Is there a gun limit?
What exactly was he arrested for?


> All told, cops *seized*: 14 licensed handguns, which were not properly secured in a safe; two loaded licensed shotguns; one licensed rifle; approximately 45,000 rounds of ammunition for multiple weapons; two Kevlar body armor vests; and six Kevlar armor plates.
> http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...e-weapons-stockpile-17-guns-article-1.2527173


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Sounds like the Yankee cops are infringing on that mans rights! Won't matter, their yank legislation will find a way to circumvent the constitution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What exactly was he arrested for?


I'd suspect it was several violations of "improper storage" of assorted things like a couple of hundred pounds of powder, and not having the guns secured

The actual charges were given in your own link:


> Shou was arraigned Tuesday night and charged with first-degree reckless endangerment and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'd suspect it was several violations of "improper storage" of assorted things like a couple of hundred pounds of powder, and not having the guns secured
> 
> The actual charges were given in your own link:


All his weapons were licensed according to the report.
What was his violation?
Is there a legal limit on powder, and if so, what is it?
Is there a legal limit on amount of guns or ammo?
If so, what is the limit?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> All his weapons were licensed according to the report.
> *What was his violation?*
> Is there a legal limit on powder, and if so, what is it?
> Is there a legal limit on amount of guns or ammo?
> If so, what is the limit?


"According to the report" he violated some laws.
It even gave the charges, which I quoted for you.

Look them up for yourself if you *really* want to learn.

If you just want to rant, don't ask questions :shrug:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "According to the report" he violated some laws.
> It even gave the charges, which I quoted for you.
> 
> Look them up for yourself if you *really* want to learn.
> ...


I'm asking legitimate questions
If you don't know the answer, just say so.
I saw the charges, and I understand the charges, what I'm asking is what did he have or do that was illegal?


> Shou was arraigned Tuesday night and charged with first-degree reckless endangerment and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.


Did he have too many guns?
What's the limit?
Did he have too much powder?
What's the limit?
Did he have too much ammo?
What's the limit?
I'm googling it, and so far, I haven't found the answer.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

He wasn't charged under the SAFE act, _*your link*_ indicates "Shou was arraigned Tuesday night and charged with first-degree reckless endangerment and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted of the most serious offense."

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good foaming at the mouth and ranting that New York is confiscating guns tho. :hysterical:

Not to mention that Queens is a borough of New York City, and their laws have always been different. I've mentioned that a time or two. 

May I suggest that you actually read your links?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Sounds like if your gun comes out of the safe in Yankee land you are endangering others and if you load it you become a criminal! Real smart New York! I have well over 30lbs of different powders and thousands of rounds with loaded pistols and shotguns all over. They are in safe locations though and all but 1 are all condition 3.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I'm asking legitimate questions
> *If you don't know the answer, just say so.*
> I saw the charges, and I understand the charges, what I'm asking is what did he have or do that was illegal?
> 
> ...


Most of your first questions were answered in your own posts.



> Quote:
> All told, cops seized: 14 licensed handguns, which were *not properly secured in a safe*;


If you can't Google the answers, you're not asking the right questions

Try "NYC handgun storage statutes" and "NYC gunpowder storage regulations" then work from there.

Your own link provided all you need to find the rest


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most of your first questions were answered in your own posts.
> If you can't Google the answers, you're not asking the right questions
> 
> Try "NYC handgun storage statutes" and "NYC gunpowder storage regulations" then work from there.
> ...


Ok, you don't know, I get it
As usual, you've been courteous and helpful, just like the rest of your group.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Ok, you don't know, I get it
> As usual, you've been courteous and helpful, just like the rest of your group.


I answered a few questions, and told you where to find the rest.
I'm not sure what more you expect if you just keep repeating yourself.



> I'm asking legitimate questions


You're also complaining about the answers you got.

I guess you'd be happier if no one ever replied


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I answered a few questions, and told you where to find the rest.
> I'm not sure what more you expect if you just keep repeating yourself.
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't get any real answers
I got "go google it"
I'm not really complaining about the answers, more the manner in which they are delivered.
But I should be used to that from you guys by now, there's no such thing as conversation here


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Yes, he lives in a liberal state, that means he has no privacy in his home and no Constitutional rights.
> Also he had scary guns
> Close?


That isn't what the link that you provided indicates, does it? 

You have a wonderful night. You're not using me to get your error deleted.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> That isn't what the link that you provided indicates, does it?
> 
> You have a wonderful night. You're not using me to get your error deleted.


What error?
The link does indeed indicate his firearms and ammo were seized.


> All told, cops seized: 14 licensed handguns, which were not properly secured in a safe; two loaded licensed shotguns; one licensed rifle; approximately 45,000 rounds of ammunition for multiple weapons; two Kevlar body armor vests; and six Kevlar armor plates.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> What error?
> The link does indeed indicate his firearms and ammo were seized.


It seems they were but based on his violation of local storage laws, which seem a bit like our requirements.

We could be similarly reviewed but it would be very unlikely unless something had changed in a way that affected our permit (violent crime or possibly a neighbor complaint about reckless discharge).

I'm not completely understanding from the article presented if the pistol review is a regular thing in some way or if there was a reason for it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

NYC Firearms regulations:

http://newyorkcityguns.com/nyc-title-38-nyc-specific-firearms-laws/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm confused by the article 
The call it a " huge" bunch of guns but the. Discribe only a tiny few. 
Did the leave other guns or just not tell us about them ?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Possession of over 20 firearms in NYS is a class E felony. I don't know if the SAFE Act II addresses amounts of ammo or powder.

What gives the government authority to enter your house unannounced?

Why do you need a license in order to exercise a Constitutional right?

Do you need a Free Speech license?

Yes NYS is confiscating guns. Check out the "Shooters Committee On Political Education" (S.C.O.P.E.).
It also appears that when you fill out a 4478 form for a NICS check instead if destroying it if you pass as the law directs, our beloved Federal government is saving the information and distributing it to other agencies. 
Just a little FYI.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Possession of over 20 firearms in NYS is a class E felony. I don't know if the SAFE Act II addresses amounts of ammo or powder.
> 
> What gives the government authority to enter your house unannounced?
> 
> ...


Got a link where NYS is confiscating guns under the SAFE Act? A link to a legit newspaper article will do. 

This guy is in Queens, and apparently when he applied for a pistol permit it gives them authority to come to his house. He must have let them in.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> Possession of over 20 firearms in NYS is a class E felony. I don't know if the SAFE Act II addresses amounts of ammo or powder.
> 
> What gives the government authority to enter your house unannounced?
> 
> ...


We were told that when our long gun registry was scrapped that our information would be destroyed but we know that that to be not true because that destroyed information was used when the RCMP accessed homes during the High River floods and removed firearms from the homes.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

JJ Grandits said:


> Possession of over 20 firearms in NYS is a class E felony. I don't know if the SAFE Act II addresses amounts of ammo or powder.
> 
> What gives the government authority to enter your house unannounced?
> 
> ...


They need to make them get permits to voice their opinions and permits to exercise all their other rights! Ignorance seems to be spreading up there in Yankee land!


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

He make a big mistake - letting the cops into his home the first time - two rules to follow - don't talk to cops and don't let them in your house without a warrant - and then if possible don't live in New York 

Just happened the other day - some nut came into a restaurant in Ohio and started hacking people with a knife - killed one person and injured several - no one in the restaurant was armed - when will people wise up and arm themselves -


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Got a link where NYS is confiscating guns under the SAFE Act? A link to a legit newspaper article will do.
> 
> This guy is in Queens, and apparently when he applied for a pistol permit it gives them authority to come to his house. He must have let them in.


First off, quit trying to start a fight. Your attitude is pretty apparent.

Secondly, Check out SCOPE. That is your link.

Yes I am a member, Yes we have filed law suits against the State and also numerous requests under the freedom of information act. and yes the site is more legitimate than any downstate newspaper.

Having a pistol permit DOES NOT surrender your Constitutional rights.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> First off, quit trying to start a fight. Your attitude is pretty apparent.
> 
> Secondly, Check out SCOPE. That is your link.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to start a fight, *the fact is there have been zero gun confiscations because of the SAFE Act in NYS*. 

Yet it's brought up all the time that NY confiscates guns, SAFE Act, blah blah blah. I was sick of hearing it, and pretty much said put up or shut up. 

I don't want any more gun laws either.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight, the fact is there have been *zero* gun confiscations because of the SAFE Act in NYS.
> 
> .


Sorry, you are wrong. There have been gun confiscations but they are not directly linked to the SAFE act. Dr's are violating HIPAA rules and Dr. , patient confidentiality by sending medical information to State police. If it was a matter of "So and so" has threatened suicide or using violence it would be one thing. But it is being used as an excuse to seize firearms from people who have gone in for a sleep study (Actual case in NY) or someone who ten years ago was temporarily on an antidepressant because his wife died. People on blood pressure medications are also suspect. It is any reason stretched to the farthest limit of believability.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Sorry, you are wrong. *There have been gun confiscations but they are not directly linked to the SAFE act.* Dr's are violating HIPAA rules and Dr. , patient confidentiality by sending medical information to State police. If it was a matter of "So and so" has threatened suicide or using violence it would be one thing. But it is being used as an excuse to seize firearms from people who have gone in for a sleep study (Actual case in NY) or someone who ten years ago was temporarily on an antidepressant because his wife died. People on blood pressure medications are also suspect. It is any reason stretched to the farthest limit of believability.


Read my post again. 

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but it's only opinion unless backed up by fact.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Pixie,
No one said a word about the safe act until you brought it up in post #7. In post #24 you said, "*the fact is there have been zero gun confiscations because of the SAFE Act in NYS". 

*You are either trying to rile up the discussion on purpose or people picking on the safe act is a pet peeve of yours. The OP's premise is that guns are being confiscated in NY. Your statement in bold above does nothing to refute that. It seems a normal tactic of yours to try to redefine the original premise to something where you can win the argument. 

My take on the OP's example is that the guy probably broke some idiotic laws in NYC covering how many guns you can own, how they are stored, and how much gun powder you can own. Thank god I don't live in NY state, much less NYC.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nimrod said:


> Pixie,
> No one said a word about the safe act until you brought it up in post #7. In post #24 you said, "*the fact is there have been zero gun confiscations because of the SAFE Act in NYS".
> 
> *You are either trying to rile up the discussion on purpose or people picking on the safe act is a pet peeve of yours. The OP's premise is that guns are being confiscated in NY. Your statement in bold above does nothing to refute that. It seems a normal tactic of yours to try to redefine the original premise to something where you can win the argument.
> ...


Please read the title of this thread, it's a continuation of a prior thread that was about the SAFE Act.

Why are you getting personal? I state my opinion, if you don't like it don't read my posts.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Please read the title of this thread, it's a continuation of a prior thread that was about the SAFE Act.
> 
> Why are you getting personal? I state my opinion, if you don't like it don't read my posts.


The title of this thread does not reference the safe act at all, it might be a continuation, or not.

But you can find valid articles of gun confiscation in NY, some of the things they are doing in that state are plumb scary.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I don't see how the title of this thread is a continuation of the safe act. Perhaps Cornhusker can elucidate. 

I have not attacked you personally. I disagreed with your arguments and tactics. If I had attacked you personally I would have said something like, "Your mother wears army boots". Wait, is that even an insult anymore?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Possession of over 20 firearms in NYS is a class E felony. I don't know if the SAFE Act II addresses amounts of ammo or powder.
> 
> What gives the government authority to enter your house unannounced?
> 
> ...


There's a lot of misinformation in that post.
You should do some fact checking and re-edit


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> Pixie,
> No one said a word about the safe act until you brought it up in post #7. In post #24 you said, "*the fact is there have been zero gun confiscations because of the SAFE Act in NYS".
> 
> *You are either trying to rile up the discussion on purpose or people picking on the safe act is a pet peeve of yours. The OP's premise is that guns are being confiscated in NY. Your statement in bold above does nothing to refute that. *It seems a normal tactic of yours to try to redefine the original premise to something where you can win the argument. *
> ...


It was stated in the OP article the charges were due to improper storage.
I don't understand why there continue to be questions when it's been answered multiple times.

Some use a tactic of asking endless questions and ignoring answers while suggesting every* discussion* is an "argument" :shrug:

If you go back to the beginning you will find most real questions were answered before there were 5-6 posts


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> It seems they were but based on his violation of local storage laws, which seem a bit like our requirements.
> 
> We could be similarly reviewed but it would be very unlikely unless something had changed in a way that affected our permit (violent crime or possibly a neighbor complaint about reckless discharge).
> 
> I'm not completely understanding from the article presented if the pistol review is a regular thing in some way or if there was a reason for it.


There ya go, a real answer
thank you.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's a lot of misinformation in that post.
> You should do some fact checking and re-edit


I would greatly appreciate if you could tell me what misinformation I put in my post.
Show me where I am wrong and I will stand corrected.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight, *the fact is there have been zero gun confiscations because of the SAFE Act in NYS*.
> 
> Yet it's brought up all the time that NY confiscates guns, SAFE Act, blah blah blah. I was sick of hearing it, and pretty much said put up or shut up.
> 
> I don't want any more gun laws either.


In this case, the only one mentioning the "safe act" was you.
Then you holler about others blaming gun grabbing on it.
I'm so glad I don't live in a state where the citizens rolled over and let the state invade their homes and steal their private property.
Sounds like everything America was founded to prevent is happening there.
No wonder New Yorkers are cranky.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's a lot of misinformation in that post.
> You should do some fact checking and re-edit


There was misinformation!!!!!! 

It's ATF 4473 not 4478. I hang my head in shame and will practice my typing skills.
Outside of that I'm perfectly right.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> There ya go, a real answer
> 
> thank you.



We aren't restricted by firearms numbers (except magazine capacity) but our storage laws are very rigid. 

Trigger locks are a must for transfer and a secure locked area is a must and while most use safes, it is subject to definition and I know others who have gun rooms. 

It is my understanding that we could be subject to inspection but I've only heard of it happening when someone has violated the law in some way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by wr View Post
> It seems they were but based on his *violation of local storage laws*, which seem a bit like our requirements.





Cornhusker said:


> There ya go, *a real answer*
> thank you.


It's the same answer I gave you in way back in Post # 3:



> I'd suspect it was several *violations of "improper storage"* of assorted things like a couple of hundred pounds of powder, and not having the guns secured


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the same answer I gave you in way back in Post # 3:


If the firearms were licensed (as per NYC requirements) the "shall Issue" aspect of the pistol permit in NYC is for personal protection in ones residence there is no storage requirement. An unloaded, stored firearm can not be used for personal protection. The only issue I can think of may be the storage of powder, however I still question why the police were there and the reasoning behind what they observe. 
On my desk in my livingroom is a box of shotgun shells in plain view. So what law have I broken? I also have a 12ga. pumpgun in plain view in the back hall. If you don't like it, tough tomatoes.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> We aren't restricted by firearms numbers (except magazine capacity) but our storage laws are very rigid.
> 
> Trigger locks are a must for transfer and a secure locked area is a must and while most use safes, it is subject to definition and I know others who have gun rooms.
> 
> It is my understanding that we could be subject to inspection but I've only heard of it happening when someone has violated the law in some way.


Sounds like an Orwell novel 
What gets me is the people who seem to accept their governments invasive policies/actions.
Our servant is now our master.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> There was misinformation!!!!!!
> 
> It's ATF 4473 not 4478. I hang my head in shame and will practice my typing skills.
> *Outside of that I'm perfectly right*.


Nope, it's still not right

There is no limit on the number of guns not considered "assault weapons" so long as you have the proper permits for each one. 

NY State requires no permits for long guns but NYC does

The "Feds" don't keep the 4473 because they never get it in the first place.
It stays at the dealer. They get the buyer's personal ID information along with the type of gun, but that is all.

There's no evidence anyone entered "unannounced" since they were there doing an "inspection" the first time, and had a warrant the second time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the same answer I gave you in way back in Post # 3:


Ok, thank you.
As I sit here typing with guns on the table, hanging from the chair, leaning by the door, I can't help but wonder how New York got in such a state of oppression.
They kept mentioning the amount of guns, powder, ammo, like that was the problem.
What if you had your guns out cleaning them?
Why didn't he put stuff away before they came back with the warrant?
Sounds to me like a "surprise" inspection.
Did they kick the door in and "find" his improper storage, or did he think he was in compliance and just said "Sure fellas, come on in"?


----------



## mustangglp (Jul 7, 2015)

wr said:


> We were told that when our long gun registry was scrapped that our information would be destroyed but we know that that to be not true because that destroyed information was used when the RCMP accessed homes during the High River floods and removed firearms from the homes.


Same thing In California by law they were not to keep record's some how that law got lost and now they are confiscating thousands and spendings millions! Also reclassifying what is a prohibited person now they seem to know where millions of rifles are even though we have only had Rifle registration since 2014 there is no doubt the end goal is the end of gun ownership.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight, *the fact is there have been zero gun confiscations because of the SAFE Act in NYS*.
> 
> Yet it's brought up all the time that NY confiscates guns, SAFE Act, blah blah blah. I was sick of hearing it, and pretty much said put up or shut up.
> 
> I don't want any more gun laws either.





Bearfootfarm said:


> It was stated in the OP article the charges were due to improper storage.
> *I don't understand *why there continue to be questions when it's been answered multiple times.
> 
> Some use a tactic of asking endless questions and ignoring answers while suggesting every* discussion* is an "argument" :shrug:
> ...


You don't understand?
Then let me explain it clearly.
When smart alecks post their little snippy replies and MAYBE put a small, partial piece of info within it, leaving out the very specific answer that was asked, people ask it again.
IOW, if you want to be helpful then do it.
If you just want to wear your behind on your shoulders, go somewhere else to do it, or expect more of the same responses.


----------



## mustangglp (Jul 7, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nope, it's still not right
> 
> There is no limit on the number of guns not considered "assault weapons" so long as you have the proper permits for each one.
> 
> ...


New legislation introduced this year will classifie a 740 Remington as a assault rifle!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You don't understand?
> Then let me explain it clearly.
> When smart alecks post their little snippy replies and MAYBE put a small, partial piece of info within it, leaving out the very specific answer that was asked, people ask it again.
> IOW, if you want to be helpful then do it.
> *If you just want to wear your behind on your shoulders, go somewhere else to do it*, or expect more of the same responses.


Don't be hatin' 
:nono:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mustangglp said:


> New legislation introduced this year will classifie a 740 Remington as a assault rifle!


That's ridiculous, like most of their laws.
None of the laws stopped the San Bernardino shooters, who bought the guns legally, although they were modified illegally.


----------



## mustangglp (Jul 7, 2015)

All semi auto's centerfire rifles since pistols are used far more then rifle's in crime we can see where this is going.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Ok, thank you.
> As I sit here typing with guns on the table, hanging from the chair, leaning by the door, I can't help but wonder how New York got in such a state of oppression.
> They kept mentioning the amount of guns, powder, ammo, like that was the problem.
> What if you had your guns out cleaning them?
> ...


Again, all those questions were answered in the OP link.
Why pretend you don't know what happened, or do you just not bother to read anything at all?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nope, it's still not right
> 
> There is no limit on the number of guns not considered "assault weapons" so long as you have the proper permits for each one.
> 
> ...



No my friend, you are the one that is wrong.

1) "There are no limits on the number of guns not considered assault weapons so long as you have the the proper permits for each one."

OK, I think you are confusing NYC law with NYS law. In NYC you need a license for long guns but that is not a NYS law. As far as the limit of guns, so called assault weapons or not NYS limits your possession to twenty firearms.
It is a law on the books that is not actively enforced. Kind of a "just in case law".

2) I never said that the feds "keep" the 4473. They do keep and share the information which is a violation of the law.

3) Entering someones home for an "unannounced" inspection very seriously violates the fourth amendment. In case you did not know, that is part of our Constitution.

4) using Wikipedia as a sole source for information is about as accurate as taking legal advice from your neighbors aunt.

Hey, nice try at a come back.:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Not that I agree with it but I think if you obtain an FFL or class 3 you basically surrender that right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> No my friend, you are the one that is wrong.
> 
> 1) "There are no limits on the number of guns not considered assault weapons so long as you have the the proper permits for each one."
> 
> ...


So now you're repeating part of what I said about permits, and repeating the "20 firearm limit" claim, but still not showing anything to support it.

You keep parroting "unannounced" with no evidence

You're whining about my source while posting nothing other than your opinion.

Mere repetition of unsupported allegations doesn't equal proof

Show the "law on the books" please.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> No my friend, you are the one that is wrong.
> 
> 1) "There are no limits on the number of guns not considered assault weapons so long as you have the the proper permits for each one."
> 
> ...


I can't find the NYS law that limits gun ownership to a certain number either. Can you link to the Penal Law that indicates this, please? Or is this just your opinion again?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Sounds like an Orwell novel
> What gets me is the people who seem to accept their governments invasive policies/actions.
> Our servant is now our master.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You don't understand?
> Then let me explain it clearly.
> When smart alecks post their little snippy replies and MAYBE put a small, partial piece of info within it, leaving out the very specific answer that was asked, people ask it again.
> IOW, if you want to be helpful then do it.
> If you just want to wear your behind on your shoulders, go somewhere else to do it, or expect more of the same responses.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Not that I agree with it but I think if you obtain an FFL or class 3 you basically surrender that right.


Not really.
An FFL allows the ATF to conduct *one* annual inspection during business hours.

It keeps being stated this inspection was "unannounced" but there has been nothing to suggest that's true. 

NYC handgun permits are reviewed every three years, and they can request you bring all your guns in to them, or they can choose to inspect your home. 

If you own more than 4 handguns, you are required to prove to them you own a safe in which to store them when not in actual use or personal control.

I posted links to these regulations and they aren't closely guarded secrets.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

never mind

WWW


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> I didn't get any real answers
> I got "go google it"
> I'm not really complaining about the answers, more the manner in which they are delivered.
> But I should be used to that from you guys by now, there's no such thing as conversation here


Bingo. And then there is a thread on Politics on which a poster comments there are no thoughtful discussions on the forum. You asked simple questions and how many thoughtful responses did you get? If there was even one, I missed it. I fail to see how the guy broke any laws that I know of here in Illannoy or any other nearby state. I, probably you too, have no idea about New York Laws. It looks like none of those who responded to you don't either but felt compelled to snipe at you anyway. Perhaps someone from NY will reply with some answers. That would be a thoughtful response.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not really.
> An FFL allows the ATF to conduct *one* annual inspection during business hours.
> 
> It keeps being stated this inspection was "unannounced" but there has been nothing to suggest that's true.
> ...


I do know the ATF does some inspections of FFL's unannounced. I know a few FFL's who had it happen. One guy has been in business 18 years and got his first inspection last year unannounced. The lady walked in out of the blue for the inspection. He asked her why they hadn't done one before and she said they probably came by on days he was closed. He's only open Monday through Wednesday because he sets up at gun shows the rest of the week. His hours are clearly posted on his door and they could have set up a time anytime they wanted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> Bingo. And then there is a thread on Politics on which a poster comments there are no thoughtful discussions on the forum. You asked simple questions and how many thoughtful responses did you get? If there was even one, *I missed it*.
> 
> *I fail to see how the guy broke any laws *that I know of here in Illannoy or any other nearby state. I, probably you too, have no idea about New York Laws. It looks like none of those who responded to you don't either but felt compelled to snipe at you anyway. Perhaps someone from NY will reply with some answers. *That would be a thoughtful response*.


He got answers to all the questions, most of which were already given in the article. 

If you " fail to see how he broke any laws", you didn't read the OP either since it tells you what laws were broken.

I also posted links to the precise laws that were broken.

People complain about wanting "thoughtful discussions", but don't stop ranting long enough to actually read the posts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> *I do know the ATF does some inspections of FFL's unannounced*. I know a few FFL's who had it happen. One guy has been in business 18 years and got his first inspection last year unannounced. The lady walked in out of the blue for the inspection. He asked her why they hadn't done one before and she said they probably came by on days he was closed. He's only open Monday through Wednesday because he sets up at gun shows the rest of the week. His hours are clearly posted on his door and they could have set up a time anytime they wanted.


I know too. I just posted it, but evidently you're not reading other posts, even though you quoted it.

He said/she said is really not relevant. The laws allow them one annual inspection during business hours. They know his business hours because it's on the license application. This is all on the ATF website

Any other record checks have to be in relation to criminal investigations.

None of this has any bearing on the OP case, since he was not a dealer


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> Ok, thank you.
> As I sit here typing with guns on the table, hanging from the chair, leaning by the door, I can't help but wonder how New York got in such a state of oppression.
> They kept mentioning the amount of guns, powder, ammo, like that was the problem.
> What if you had your guns out cleaning them?
> ...





wr said:


> It seems they were but based on his violation of local storage laws, which seem a bit like our requirements.
> 
> We could be similarly reviewed but it would be very unlikely unless something had changed in a way that affected our permit (violent crime or possibly a neighbor complaint about reckless discharge).
> 
> I'm not completely understanding from the article presented if the pistol review is a regular thing in some way or if there was a reason for it.





Cornhusker said:


> There ya go, a real answer
> thank you.




Yep, it took awhile reading through the NYC link Bearfoot posted to find several things that he was probably with. Having the specific statute numbers would have made it a lot easier and faster. 

Along with the usual gun permit regulations, NYC has some pretty strict and somewhat vague sections that many might find themselves in violation of, such as being terminated from your job for "moral" reasons.:shrug:
That can get your gun permit revoked.

I couldn't find whether or not having more than 200 rounds of ammo requires you to get a "dealers license" but it does require you to get a "storage permit" from the local fire dept. costing $50.

They mentioned his address' proximity to a school with the reckless endangerment charge, so I'm guessing that was a big part of it.
On the first visit, they observed his powder and I think his reloading stuff.
Also in those statutes were numerous regulations on sellers of ammo to keep and submit records. Between those two things, they might have easily gotten enough probable cause for the warrant they came back with the second time.
After that any gun without a lock on it or having a round in it in another room, etc. was easy pickings.

Your confusion was understandable because most gun owners would see 8 years in prison for reloading in your own home as absurd.
Then again, they probably would think the same about living in NYC.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

This is from the OP link:

All told, cops seized: 14 licensed handguns, which were not properly secured in a safe; two loaded licensed shotguns; one licensed rifle; approximately 45,000 rounds of ammunition for multiple weapons; two Kevlar body armor vests; and six Kevlar armor plates." 

Okay, he had 14 licensed handguns and there is no mention of any of them being loaded. He had 2 loaded licensed shotguns. Not at all uncommon for someone to have a loaded shotgun or two for home defense. He had one licensed rifle, apparently unloaded. He had 45,000 rounds of various ammo. With that many guns, that is not a lot of ammo if it is divided among several calibers. They don't say what calibers it was. Maybe 25,000 of those rounds were .22. Lots of people have a lot of ammo. The black powder I do not know much about but I know guys who use it. The sheriff or whoever it was called this a "lethal arsenal". Sounds like a rather puny gun collection to me. 
He had licensed all his weapons which indicates he likely had no criminal intentions. Assuming he lived alone, his guns were in his apartment and under his direct supervision at the time. For this he is possibly in for up to 10 years in prison which is more than a street punk would get for carrying a loaded handgun on the street.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> This is from the OP link:
> 
> All told, cops seized: 14 licensed handguns, which were *not properly secured in a safe*; two loaded licensed shotguns; one licensed rifle; approximately 45,000 rounds of ammunition for multiple weapons; two Kevlar body armor vests; and six Kevlar armor plates."
> 
> ...


You go on and on with the ranting when the answer was in the first sentence


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You go on and on with the ranting when the answer was in the first sentence


Oh, I read it okay. They seized(confiscated) his guns because they were not secured in a safe. Don't you have a problem with that? Seems pretty draconian to me since there is no claim he was a danger to himself or anyone else. It seems more reasonable, if he is violating a NY law, to inform him of the law, give him a citation, and tell him you will be back to see if he is in compliance. As to the 2 loaded shotguns, are New Yorkers not even allowed to have ready access to guns for home protection? I thought Illinois was bad.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

poppy said:


> Oh, I read it okay. They seized(confiscated) his guns because they were not secured in a safe. Don't you have a problem with that? Seems pretty draconian to me since there is no claim he was a danger to himself or anyone else. It seems more reasonable, if he is violating a NY law, to inform him of the law, give him a citation, and tell him you will be back to see if he is in compliance. As to the 2 loaded shotguns, are New Yorkers not even allowed to have ready access to guns for home protection? I thought Illinois was bad.


I find it rather horrifying that the "government" can just come in, arrest you for exercising your Constitutional rights, confiscate your personal and expensive property and invade your home and privacy, just because you have guns.
Does anyone see the slippery slope?
What's next, books?
"subversive" literature?
An Obama dart board?
8 years in prison for being within your rights....I miss America


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Ok, thank you.
> As I sit here typing with guns on the table, hanging from the chair, leaning by the door, I can't help but wonder how New York got in such a state of oppression.
> They kept mentioning the amount of guns, powder, ammo, like that was the problem.
> What if you had your guns out cleaning them?
> ...


I can't speak for New York but it's perfectly legal to take ours out and clean them as often as we'd like and there would be obvious evidence of such. 

I may be grossly misinformed but can only base my opinions on my own experiences and if the necessary permit forms include a clause allowing for on site inspections, I would suggest that a person just signed away the need for a warrant.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> I find it rather horrifying that the "government" can just come in, arrest you for exercising your Constitutional rights, confiscate your personal and expensive property and invade your home and privacy, just because you have guns.
> Does anyone see the slippery slope?
> What's next, books?
> "subversive" literature?
> ...


Earlier in this thread I seem to remember someone saying that in NYC, if one applies for a handgun permit it gives the government the right to enter your home. I found that to be disturbing. What they are saying is that, in order for you to (somewhat)exercise your 2nd amendment rights, you must forgo your 4th amendment rights. What ever happen to the idea of being secure in ones person, etc.?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I find it rather horrifying that the "government" can just come in, arrest you for exercising your Constitutional rights, confiscate your personal and expensive property and invade your home and privacy, just because you have guns.
> Does anyone see the slippery slope?
> What's next, books?
> "subversive" literature?
> ...


The guy in question was arrested because he broke the law. He invited "the government" into his home because he requested a pistol permit. I know the facts don't support the agenda, but they are what they are. 

If you want to misinterpret the _facts_ of this situation into something else that's all on you.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> Earlier in this thread I seem to remember someone saying that in NYC, if one applies for a handgun permit it gives the government the right to enter your home. I found that to be disturbing. What they are saying is that, in order for you to (somewhat)exercise your 2nd amendment rights, you must forgo your 4th amendment rights. *What ever happen to the idea of being secure in ones person, etc.?*


Democrats took care of that.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The guy in question was arrested because he broke the law. He invited "the government" into his home because he requested a pistol permit. I know the facts don't support the agenda, but they are what they are.
> 
> If you want to misinterpret the _facts_ of this situation into something else that's all on you.


Instead of personally attacking me time after time, maybe we could discuss the topic?
For instance, I'd like to know, are you ok with laws that allow the government to come into your home and seize your property?
They are treating honest gun owners like meth cookers.
Does that seem right and just to you?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I can't speak for New York but it's perfectly legal to take ours out and clean them as often as we'd like and there would be obvious evidence of such.
> 
> I may be grossly misinformed but can only base my opinions on my own experiences and if the necessary permit forms include a clause allowing for on site inspections, I would suggest that a person just signed away the need for a warrant.


Sounds like infringement to me.
As I understand it, (correct me if I'm wrong) Canadians don't have the "right" to keep and bear arms, but more like a privilege?
The way the left is taking this country down the drain, chipping away at our rights, makes me sad for the future of this country.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> The guy in question was arrested because he broke the law. He invited "the government" into his home because he requested a pistol permit. I know the facts don't support the agenda, but they are what they are.
> 
> If you want to misinterpret the _facts_ of this situation into something else that's all on you.


You're missing the point. Such laws are draconian and clearly violate the constitution. Does having a pistol permit allow the government to enter your house in any other state? We have some weird gun laws here but that's never even been introduced. If our state passed such laws, I would hide my guns where they couldn't be found and send them my permit and tell them where to stick it. I carried long before we had carry permits and would do it again. But, we do not even need permits just to own guns.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> Instead of personally attacking me time after time, maybe we could discuss the topic?
> For instance, I'd like to know, are you ok with laws that allow the government to come into your home and seize your property?
> They are treating honest gun owners like meth cookers.
> Does that seem right and just to you?


The left typically finds no problems with heavy handed laws as long as they don't apply to abortion. NYC is very leftist oriented and that's the reason such laws ever get passed. Chicago is the same. Thankfully our state gun carry law preempted municipalities from imposing even stricter laws on residents. But, liberals don't give up. The sheriff of Cook County (Chicago) is a liberal and he files lots of objections to people getting state carry permits just to clog up the system and cause delays. Last I read, there have been 11,000 objections filed in Illinois against CC applicants and 8,000 of those are from Cook County. About 95% of his objections are over ruled when they go before the licensing board but he manages to cause a lot of people undue delays in getting their license. I think they are about 9 or 10 months behind right now in reviewing objections.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

poppy said:


> Oh, I read it okay. They seized(confiscated) his guns because they were not secured in a safe. Don't you have a problem with that? Seems pretty draconian to me since there is no claim he was a danger to himself or anyone else. It seems more reasonable, if he is violating a NY law, to inform him of the law, give him a citation, and tell him you will be back to see if he is in compliance. As to the 2 loaded shotguns, are New Yorkers not even allowed to have ready access to guns for home protection? I thought Illinois was bad.


I for sure wouldn't keep my guns in a safe as they are a major part of my decor I have them hanging on the walls in every room of my house and if anyone gave me grief about it then we would both have a very bad day - but I will not bend to the damned government! I cannot understand how people let their home states get away with this BS!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Instead of personally attacking me time after time, maybe we could discuss the topic?
> For instance, I'd like to know, are you ok with laws that allow the government to come into your home and seize your property?
> They are treating honest gun owners like meth cookers.
> Does that seem right and just to you?


Where is the government going into homes and seizing property? If we're still talking about the guy in Queens, he invited them in, and they found he was in violation of the law. If he broke the law shouldn't he be punished? Or is that only some laws?

If the government went into a home without cause and seized guns- that isn't right. No one has linked that happening tho.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

1948CaseVAI said:


> I for sure wouldn't keep my guns in a safe as they are a major part of my decor I have them hanging on the walls in every room of my house and if anyone gave me grief about it then we would both have a very bad day - but I will not bend to the damned government! I cannot understand how people let their home states get away with this BS!


They elected far left crazies, and far left crazies are all about stripping us of our rights.
We need to take America back and sent the far left crazies packing.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where is the government going into homes and seizing property? If we're still talking about the guy in Queens, he invited them in, and they found he was in violation of the law. If he broke the law shouldn't he be punished? Or is that only some laws?
> 
> If the government went into a home without cause and seized guns- that isn't right. No one has linked that happening tho.


So you are saying he got what he deserved for the inexcusable crime of having guns in his own private home?
Do you think that's a good law?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> So you are saying he got what he deserved for the inexcusable crime of having guns in his own private home?
> Do you think that's a good law?


Nope, not at all. I'm saying that he broke the law. 

If you don't like the law, move to Queens and try to get it changed. If not, the law in Queens doesn't concern you.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, not at all. I'm saying that he broke the law.
> 
> If you don't like the law, move to Queens and try to get it changed. If not, the law in Queens doesn't concern you.


Actually, it concerns all of us.
It's a proving ground, a precedent, a step in their quest to subvert our rights.
You are in worse trouble than I am, at least I live in a conservative corner of this once great country, you are right in the liberal lap.
If I lived where you do, I'd be very concerned.
But, not everybody worries about the world their grandkids will inherit.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Actually, it concerns all of us.
> It's a proving ground, a precedent, a step in their quest to subvert our rights.
> You are in worse trouble than I am, at least I live in a conservative corner of this once great country, you are right in the liberal lap.
> If I lived where you do, I'd be very concerned.
> But, not everybody worries about the world their grandkids will inherit.


NYC has had very strict gun laws for decades, upstate not so much. Same state. 

Until the SAFE Act, which hasn't been used to consficate guns, NY gun laws were pretty much the same as surrounding states. I don't think the SAFE Act (even version 2.0) will remain on the books. 

Why did you have to add the little jab at the end? Did it make you feel better?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

If you study NYS penal law 265 and 400 you will find that the way they are worded you have broken the law in this State simply by breathing when it comes to firearms.
By the way, that is where the limit on the number of firearms is listed.
In the State of New York we are all felons who have not come to the attention of the powers that be.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Actually, it concerns all of us.
> It's a proving ground, a precedent, a step in their quest to subvert our rights.
> You are in worse trouble than I am, at least I live in a conservative corner of this once great country, you are right in the liberal lap.
> If I lived where you do, I'd be very concerned.
> But, not everybody worries about the world their grandkids will inherit.


If I lived there I'd be moving in a ''New York '' minute....


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why did you have to add the little jab at the end? Did it make you feel better?


 No, it was probably there to make people like you think.

A valiant effort but a waste of time.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, not at all. I'm saying that he broke the law.
> 
> If you don't like the law, move to Queens and try to get it changed. If not, the law in Queens doesn't concern you.


Laws are broken all the time without draconian consequences. Liberal governments are always trying to achieve more control over you. If I am stopped for speeding, it does not give them the right to seize my truck. Laws need to have some rationality. Punishment is not supposed to be the goal. Laws are to be used to keep society orderly. I read an article a couple days ago where government in some city wants the right to enter homes to see if they are clean. No complaints need to be filed or anything. They just want to be able to drop by an a whim and look your house over. I see the Wisconsin Supreme Court just said warrantless searches of private homes is okay. Think what that means. They can enter your residence at their own discretion under the flimsiest excuse. All laws are not good and the blacks in the south proved it decades ago.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> NYC has had very strict gun laws for decades, upstate not so much. Same state.
> 
> Until the SAFE Act, which hasn't been used to consficate guns, NY gun laws were pretty much the same as surrounding states. I don't think the SAFE Act (even version 2.0) will remain on the books.
> 
> Why did you have to add the little jab at the end? Did it make you feel better?


What jab?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> NYC has had very strict gun laws for decades, upstate not so much. Same state.
> 
> Until the SAFE Act, which hasn't been used to consficate guns, NY gun laws were pretty much the same as surrounding states. I don't think the SAFE Act (even version 2.0) will remain on the books.
> 
> Why did you have to add the little jab at the end? Did it make you feel better?


Doesn't the "SAFE" act have a provision for confiscating weapons if they aren't registered or destroyed?
Aren't you a felon if you have certain weapons, that were previously legal when purchased?
I hope you are right and it gets repealed, just the fact that it was ever allowed to exist speaks poorly of left wing politicians.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Doesn't the "SAFE" act have a provision for confiscating weapons if they aren't registered or destroyed?
> Aren't you a felon if you have certain weapons, that were previously legal when purchased?
> I hope you are right and it gets repealed, just the fact that it was ever allowed to exist speaks poorly of left wing politicians.


The SAFE Act (which is what is discussed when restriction *NYS* gun laws are brought up) isn't being enforced. I don't think it ever will be but that's my opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> What jab?


JJ Grandits got it for what it was, ask him.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> JJ Grandits got it for what it was, ask him.


I wasn't intending any jabs, if it seemed like one, I apologize.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The SAFE Act (which is what is discussed when restriction *NYS* gun laws are brought up) isn't being enforced. I don't think it ever will be but that's my opinion.


Is the "SAFE" act the only gun law on the books?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Is the "SAFE" act the only gun law on the books?


No, I'm sure there are others.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> The SAFE Act (which is what is discussed when restriction *NYS* gun laws are brought up) isn't being enforced. I don't think it ever will be but that's my opinion.


Your again mistaken. The SAFE act is being enforced. If you don't believe me simply sell a firearm to your neighbor and have him call the police. Or maybe go to Pennsylvania, buy a twenty round magazine for a 10/22 and then be caught with it by NY police.
You are again mistaken by constantly referring to the gun confiscation as being related to the SAFE act. This is either caused by ignorance on your part or the common liberal attempt to muddy the waters and repeat lies until they believe they are true. I assume a combination of the both.
The gun confiscation is occurring although at a slow and measured pace. Part of the "boiling a frog" government intrusion. I have referred to SCOPE as a source of what is going on regarding gun control in New York. Another site is 

http://wnytalks.com/ Either of these will provide information concerning the SAFE act and Albany's attempt to circumnavigate our Constitutional rights.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

BY the way. Having a NYS pistol permit DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, give authorities the right to enter your property without a legal search warrant. 

This however may change if certain people get their way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> If you study NYS penal law 265 and 400 you will find that the way they are worded you have broken the law in this State simply by breathing when it comes to firearms.
> By the way, that is where the limit on the number of firearms is listed.
> In the State of New York we are all felons who have not come to the attention of the powers that be.


Still waiting to *see *the "20 firearm limit" statute.
We shouldn't have to hunt down your claims


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> BY the way. Having a NYS pistol permit DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, give authorities the right to enter your property without a legal search warrant.
> 
> This however may change if certain people get their way.


No one said it did and the OP has little to do with NY *state* law
NYC law *does* allow them to come to your home


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> BY the way. Having a NYS pistol permit DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, give authorities the right to enter your property without a legal search warrant.
> 
> This however may change if certain people get their way.


Apparently in Queens obtaining a pistol permit _does_ involve authorities inspecting your home. From the original link: "The arsenal was discovered when officers conducted an *administrative pistol licensee review* at Shou's home Monday. The officers spotted the gunpowder and some of the ammunition lying in plain sight."

*NYC* has had more stringent gun laws for decades. It can't be assumed that NYS and NYC have the same laws.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Your again mistaken. The SAFE act is being enforced. If you don't believe me simply sell a firearm to your neighbor and have him call the police. Or maybe go to Pennsylvania, buy a twenty round magazine for a 10/22 and then be caught with it by NY police.
> You are again mistaken by constantly referring to the gun confiscation as being related to the SAFE act. This is either caused by ignorance on your part or the common liberal attempt to muddy the waters and repeat lies until they believe they are true. I assume a combination of the both.
> The gun confiscation is occurring although at a slow and measured pace. Part of the "boiling a frog" government intrusion. I have referred to SCOPE as a source of what is going on regarding gun control in New York. Another site is
> 
> http://wnytalks.com/ Either of these will provide information concerning the SAFE act and Albany's attempt to circumnavigate our Constitutional rights.


If there have been gun confiscation under the SAFE Act why can't anyone link a single instance? The government is covering it up? 

Your link (and SCOPE another opinion site) doesn't load correctly but does indicates "the UN-SAFE Act" based on that alone I'm going to guess it's full of opinion and other stuff, just like you are.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> http://wnytalks.com/ Either of these will provide information concerning the SAFE act and Albany's attempt to circumnavigate our Constitutional rights.


We've already heard all the rhetoric.
Still waiting to see *the specific statute* that says "20 firearm limit"


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Still waiting to *see *the "20 firearm limit" statute.
> We shouldn't have to hunt down your claims



Someone of your obvious intelligence should not have to be spoon fed.

NYS penal code S 265.04

Knock yourself out cupcake.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> If there have been gun confiscation under the SAFE Act why can't anyone link a single instance? The government is covering it up?
> 
> Your link (and SCOPE another opinion site) doesn't load correctly but does indicates "the UN-SAFE Act" based on that alone I'm going to guess it's full of opinion and other stuff, just like you are.


Again you keep referring to guns confiscated under the SAFE act. You are obviously way over your head on this discussion.I will try to explain this using small words, but you are going to have to pay attention, OK?

The SAFE act was part of a much larger plan for gun control. There, was that so hard?

Sorry your having trouble with your computer.

For SCOPE go to http://www.scopeny.org/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Again you keep referring to guns confiscated under the SAFE act. You are obviously way over your head on this discussion.I will try to explain this using small words, but you are going to have to pay attention, OK?
> 
> The SAFE act was part of a much larger plan for gun control. There, was that so hard?
> 
> ...


No point in going to either of the links they're just opinion sites, at best. I prefer fact over opinion- I'm funny that way.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> If there have been gun confiscation under the SAFE Act why can't anyone link a single instance? The government is covering it up?
> 
> Your link (and SCOPE another opinion site) doesn't load correctly but does indicates "the UN-SAFE Act" based on that alone I'm going to guess it's full of opinion and other stuff, just like you are.



Someone can..........

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index...._cny_too_mentally_unstable_to_have_weapo.html

Of course this is only one reason to confiscate, and will likely be argued, "That's OK, it's a good one".
That doesn't make it any less of a fact though.


As far as "covering it up", I wouldn't say that exactly, but if you were wondering why the information about confiscations is not easy to find, here is the state's explanation from the link above.

*The state does not know how many permits were suspended and guns confiscated after the database identified mentally unstable patients with pistol permits. That's because it is up to local courts and licensing officials to act on those decisions, said Janine Kava of the Division of Criminal Justice. Local officials are not required to tell the state what actions they took.

Permit holders may not even know their names are in the state database because mental health providers are not required by the law to get an individual's authorization or consent before making a report.*



BTW, how'd ya like the sammich I made ya?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Someone can..........
> 
> http://www.syracuse.com/news/index...._cny_too_mentally_unstable_to_have_weapo.html


Crystal ball? Tarot cards? :facepalm: "New York state has identified 278 licensed gun owners who *could* lose their weapons because they are considered mentally unstable."

Reread your link, can you tell how many guns have been taken away from mentally ill people? "Police do not always take away weapons when a permit is revoked or suspended, according to Larkin. That's because permit holders are allowed to co-register their guns with another family member who has a permit. "If the person's son or wife has the weapons co-registered on their permit, the sheriff's office or state police would not confiscate them," she said."

*How many guns do you have?*  

Thank you for finding the link (at least it's legitimate), if it's accurate or not time will tell.

ETA: I think removing pistols (guns in general) from mentally ill people is a good thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The state *does not know* how many permits were suspended and guns confiscated


That doesn't say they confiscated any guns at all



> BTW, how'd ya like the sammich I made ya?


There's nothing there


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by JJ Grandits View Post
> Again you keep referring to guns confiscated under the SAFE act. *You are obviously way over your head on this discussion*.I will try to explain this *using small words*, but you are going to have to pay attention, OK?


Could you explain by posting a link to the statute that says "20 firearm limit"?
It's just 3 words


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> No point in going to either of the links they're just opinion sites, at best. I prefer fact over opinion- I'm funny that way.


Oh come on!
If that was true you would never post anything.

First off, these are not opinion sites. Actually they are very factual.

WNYtalks covers the fallacies of the SAFE act and informs it's readers of what is being done to combat the SAFE act and other gun control issues in NY.

The Shooters Committee On Political Education (S.C.O.P.E.) is an organization of firearm owners and advocates just like the NRA and the New York State Rifle And Pistol Association. They advocate 2nd amendment rights and are involved in various lawsuits dealing with protecting those rights. 
SCOPE was responsible for the suit under the freedom of information act that forced NY to release the number of so called "assault weapons" that were registered under the SAFE act. NY refused to release those numbers as compliance was so low it was an embarrassment to the Cuomo administration.

As usual, you claim to have knowledge on a subject you know nothing about.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Could you explain by posting a link to the statute that says "20 firearm limit"?
> It's just 3 words



Sorry friend, but you are getting really boring. Try taking a rest and go give your Celtic parrot a cracker.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Sorry friend, but you are getting really boring. Try taking a rest and go give your Celtic parrot a cracker.


So you really can't prove what you claimed because it's false, and you now resort to name calling.

It was nearly 90 posts back, and you just keep linking to SCOPE again and again

"Boring" is continuing to post links to the same sites that just repeat the mindless rhetoric without backing up what you stated to begin with.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Crystal ball? Tarot cards? :facepalm: "New York state has identified 278 licensed gun owners who *could* lose their weapons because they are considered mentally unstable."
> 
> Reread your link, can you tell how many guns have been taken away from mentally ill people? "Police do not always take away weapons when a permit is revoked or suspended, according to Larkin. That's because permit holders are allowed to co-register their guns with another family member who has a permit. "If the person's son or wife has the weapons co-registered on their permit, the sheriff's office or state police would not confiscate them," she said."
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't say they confiscated any guns at all
> 
> 
> There's nothing there




You two, REALLY shouldn't have decided to jump on the wrong side of this one.
:nono:
I don't expect an apology from either one of you. But your words are on here for everyone to see, regardless.

From the very same link..........
*"Cayuga County sheriff's deputies confiscated guns and took back pistol permits from three residents, one more than the database shows, according to Sgt. John Leja of the Cayuga County Sheriff's Office.

Police in Cortland County confiscated guns from at least one permit holder, according to Cortland County Clerk Elizabeth Larkin, whose office processes gun permits. "We had another man who came in and voluntarily handed us his permit and gave his weapons to the police and said, 'I don't want them anymore,' " Larkin said."*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Crystal ball? Tarot cards? :facepalm:
> Thank you for finding the link (at least it's legitimate), if it's accurate or not time will tell.
> 
> ETA: I think removing pistols (guns in general) from mentally ill people is a good thing.





farmrbrown said:


> Someone can..........
> 
> http://www.syracuse.com/news/index...._cny_too_mentally_unstable_to_have_weapo.html
> 
> ...




Tarot cards? Crystal ball?
:umno:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't expect an apology from either one of you. But you words are on here for everyone to see, regardless.


Why would anyone apologize?
What you *quoted* before didn't show anything

This one does. Congratulations on seeing the difference

Now bail your buddy out by finding the "20 firearm limit"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

BTW, I believe in Bearfoot's own voluminous link on NYC firearm laws, you will find the 20 firearm limit.
But you'll have to wait.
I have a 1 sammich limit per day............:hysterical:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> You two, REALLY shouldn't have decided to jump on the wrong side of this one.
> :nono:
> I don't expect an apology from either one of you. But you words are on here for everyone to see, regardless.
> 
> ...


I said thank you for the link, did you miss it? I haven't been discussing this issue with you, if I owe an apology to anyone it's JJ Grandits, and he called me a Celtic parrot this morning so I'm not feeling very charitable. I didn't realize the state was already using the Act to remove guns from _mentally ill people_.

Do you think that _mentally ill people_ should own guns? If yes, please explain why. 

How many guns do you own? Does the fact that you can't legally own a gun color your feeling on them? Does it make you feel less of a "patriot"?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would anyone apologize?
> What you *quoted* before didn't show anything
> 
> This one does. Congratulations on seeing the difference
> ...



Same link Bearfoot, same link.
I didn't pull it out and spoon feed it to you though.
Sammichs are free, one per day limit.
Spoon feeding costs extra. I'll ask my wife what the going rate is and get back to ya............:cowboy:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Same link Bearfoot, same link.
> *I didn't pull it out and spoon feed it to you though.*
> Sammichs are free, one per day limit.
> Spoon feeding costs extra. I'll ask my wife what the going rate is and get back to ya............:cowboy:


You pulled out a portion that said they didn't know.

Out of millions of gun owners, you found confirmation of 3-4, and one who turned his in voluntarily. 

Again, congratulations.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I said thank you for the link, did you miss it? I haven't been discussing this issue with you, if I owe an apology to anyone it's JJ Grandits, and he called me a Celtic parrot this morning so I'm not feeling very charitable. I didn't realize the state was already using the Act to remove guns from _mentally ill people_.
> 
> Do you think that _mentally ill people_ should own guns? If yes, please explain why.
> 
> How many guns do you own? Does the fact that you can't legally own a gun color your feeling on them? Does it make you feel less of a "patriot"?



No, I'm not crazy about the idea of mentally ill owning guns,(no pun intended) but that WASN'T what you asked was it?
You emphatically stated the the SAFE act resulted in no, none, nada, zip, zero confiscations to date and dared anyone to prove otherwise.
You also made that condescending remark to me about tarot cards and crystal ball.
I already explained, with a quote in bold in my first post WHY the data base on confiscations won't show how many confiscations or the reasons why, whether it was mental illness or not.
THAT info has to be obtained buy each individual county sheriff, IF they want to tell you.

This is the part where we change the original subject, and get someone to try to defend guns for the mentally ill.
That's another way to try to make people look foolish that you disagree with after making a mistake in your statements.
I could of course make a "deli style sammich" and find the cases where someone sought treatment for depression one time 20 years ago, and they came for their guns, but this deli reserves the right to refuse service for any reason, to anyone at any time.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> No, I'm not crazy about the idea of mentally ill owning guns,(no pun intended) but that WASN'T what you asked was it?
> You emphatically stated the the SAFE act resulted in no, none, nada, zip, zero confiscations to date and dared anyone to prove otherwise.
> You also made that condescending remark to me about tarot cards and crystal ball.
> I already explained, with a quote in bold in my first post WHY the data base on confiscations won't show how many confiscations or the reasons why, whether it was mental illness or not.
> ...


I said thank you for the link, was it missed? Want me to bold it? Color? You found a link- take it like a man. K? Smug gloating is so juvenile. 

Now, does not being able to own a gun make you feel like less of a "patriot"? I'm curious.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

You're not curious.
You're a few OTHER things, but the only reason you want a reply is for the reason I already stated.
No crystal ball needed for that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> BTW, I believe in Bearfoot's own voluminous link on *NYC *firearm laws, you will find the 20 firearm limit.
> But you'll have to wait.
> I have a 1 sammich limit per day............:hysterical:


It makes little sense that a *state *statute would be in that link of* city* laws, but you just seem to want to play mind games instead of simply showing the facts.



> Originally Posted by JJ Grandits View Post
> Possession of over 20 firearms in *NYS *is a class E felony. I don't know if the SAFE Act II addresses amounts of ammo or powder.


I'm not going to wade through pages and pages of documents to prove *someone else's* claims. 

If you found it, you can show it, or not.
Until I *see *it, it's just another unsubstantiated claim from JJ and now you :shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> You're not curious.
> You're a few OTHER things, but the only reason you want a reply is for the reason I already stated.
> No crystal ball needed for that.


As are you, sir. As are you. 

I'm a liberal progressive (to some) and I'm able to own several guns. I'd have absolutely no problem getting a pistol permit in NYS _or_ NYC. 

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> As are you, sir. As are you.
> 
> I'm a liberal progressive (to some) and I'm able to own several guns. I'd have absolutely no problem getting a pistol permit in NYS _or_ NYC.
> 
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> > As are you, sir. As are you.
> ...


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> JJ Grandits said:
> 
> 
> > Did I say I had a pistol permit? I don't understand what you're trying to say? Can you explain?
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> > You realize that you make no sense at all, right?
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You *make up* personal things to support your point of view as an example that you are right.


As opposed to those who just make up things in general?



> JJ Grandits
> Possession of over 20 firearms in NYS is a class E felony. I don't know if the SAFE Act II addresses amounts of ammo or powder.


Logically, it should be here:

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm?zoom_highlight=firearm+possession+limits#p265.01b

Or here:
http://newyorkcityguns.com/nyc-title-38-nyc-specific-firearms-laws/

farmrbrown "believes" it's the second one, which does address storage of both firearms and ammo/gunpowder.

Still waiting to see your source, please.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

From the Article... 

*The arsenal was discovered when officers conducted an administrative pistol licensee review at Shou's home Monday. *

I got REAL big issues about this... Why does the government feel they can come into your home and search it just because you want or have a pistol permit? (I won't even get started on the requirement to get a permit...)


What part of *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."* gives the government the right to search a home because a person wants an Arm?

DC v. Heller struck down the requirement DC had which said a gun had to be disassembled, unloaded, and kept in a safe or similar.. 

It's quite evident that NY is breaking the precedent which DC v. Heller set. 

Also from the article:
*"It is extremely disturbing to find such a lethal arsenal of this magnitude in a residential community," Brown said. "Alone, the amount of gunpowder discovered was capable of igniting and causing significant damage to not only the defendant's apartment but to neighboring apartments and the building's exterior walls, as well as injuring or killing anyone unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity."*

I got real problems with that too.... How many people have Natural Gas pumped into their homes? It's not uncommon for leaks to happen, and entire apartment complexes to be blown apart. Once again, the government using people's fear to force the agenda of a few entitled onto the masses.

Also, what is a Lethal Arsenal? Personally, I find one gun to be lethal, if it is used in that capacity. 

If I was the guy in the article, I'd be looking for a really good lawyer endorsed by the NRA...

My guess is, the charges will end up being dropped, so long as he does find a good second amendment supporting lawyer.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

simi-steading said:


> From the Article...
> 
> *The arsenal was discovered when officers conducted an administrative pistol licensee review at Shou's home Monday. *
> 
> ...


It's Queens. NYC has had very strict gun laws for _decades_.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Doesn't matter Irish... DC v. Heller set the precedent that guns do not have to be disabled or locked up because that takes away your ability to defend yourself. The city or borough or what ever you call it is restricting this mans rights.

It doesn't hurt to know what rights the SC has ruled on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

simi-steading said:


> Doesn't matter Irish... DC v. Heller set the precedent that guns do not have to be disabled or locked up because that takes away your ability to defend yourself. The city or borough or what ever you call it is restricting this mans rights.
> 
> It doesn't hurt to know what rights the SC has ruled on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


Move to Queens and fight the good fight. May the force be with you.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I don't need to.. It looks like the people of Queens has someone to take up the fight now... If I was this guy, I'd be looking to hire David Sigale, because it's clear Queens is going against what has been set as legal precedent.

Chicago had similar laws too, but McDonald v. City Of Chicago proved that Chicago was suppressing individual rights,.. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

Sorry Irish, but unless you can produce some kind of legal rulings that say Queens is in the right, I don't see you winning this discussion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

simi-steading said:


> I don't need to.. It looks like the people of Queens has someone to take up the fight now... If I was this guy, I'd be looking to hire David Sigale, because it's clear Queens is going against what has been set as legal precedent.
> 
> Chicago had similar laws too, but McDonald v. City Of Chicago proved that Chicago was suppressing individual rights,..
> 
> ...


Sigh. There is no "win" to this discussion. NYC has very strict gun laws and it has for decades, that's not opinion it's fact.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

You are right, they have had some pretty nasty gun laws there, and have taken many peoples constitutional rights from them.

What I don't get though, is why you seem to be defending Queens more than you want to defend your and our constitutional rights.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

simi-steading said:


> You are right, they have had some pretty nasty gun laws there, and have taken many peoples constitutional rights from them.
> 
> What I don't get though, is why you seem to be defending Queens more than you want to defend your and our constitutional rights.


Dang. I'm not defending anything- is it so difficult to differentiate between defending and making a statement? I know some of you are _really_ confused by it. 

Again. Queens, and all of NYC, have had strict gun laws for decades. Period.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Sorry Irish, but *unless you can produce some kind of legal rulings* that say Queens is in the right, I don't see you winning this discussion.


Unless you can produce rulings overturning their laws, you've already "lost" the discussion.

They don't care if you think it's "right" or "constitutional" unless you're a judge with the proper authority.

All the rhetoric is wasted energy


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

True,. wasted wind, but at least now maybe there's a person who has the ability to set things straight. Arresting this guy may have been Queens' biggest mistake in their fight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> True,. wasted wind, but at least now maybe there's a person who has the ability to set things straight. Arresting this guy may have been Queens' biggest mistake in their fight.


His arrest won't affect anyone but himself and a few lawyers.

It's not the time to be taking 2A cases to the highest courts, so be careful what you wish for


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. There is no "win" to this discussion. NYC has very strict gun laws and it has for decades, that's not opinion it's fact.


Why aren't you this supportive of places who have strict laws against the murder of unborn babies?
Apparently the Supreme Court decisions only matter when you agree.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> His arrest won't affect anyone but himself and a few lawyers.
> 
> It's not the time to be taking 2A cases to the highest courts, so be careful what you wish for


It's already been decided by the Supreme Court.
It's the law, why can't they just accept that? 
(that's what they tell us about Obama's insurance scam and abortion)


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> JJ Grandits said:
> 
> 
> > I once thought I _might_ get a pistol for myself for christmas means I had to get a pistol? Huh, who knew? In your world is this a rule?
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> *It's already been decided* by the Supreme Court.
> It's the law, why can't they just accept that?
> (that's what they tell us about Obama's insurance scam and abortion)


There are no specific Supreme Court rulings on NYC's current laws

Heller set a precedent if someone takes a case that far


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> As opposed to those who just make up things in general?
> 
> 
> Logically, it should be here:
> ...




I'm reading, copying and pasting,..........hang on while I add to this.


*(b) New licensees. A &#8220;Handgun Purchase Authorization&#8221; form shall be issued to the licensee with her/his new handgun license. As indicated previously this form is only valid for thirty (30) calendar days from the date of issuance.

(1) If the licensee does not purchase a handgun within the specified period of time, s/he shall within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration date of the &#8220;Handgun Purchase Authorization&#8221; form, surrender said form and her/his handgun license to the License Division Issuing Unit.

(2) The license is only valid if there is a handgun listed thereon.

(3) Requests for extensions for Handgun Purchase Authorizations shall be made by written request to the Division Head, License Division.

(c) Purchasing an additional handgun. (1) Requests for the purchase of an additional handgun shall be made in writing to the License Division &#8212; Issuing Unit &#8212; One Police Plaza, Room 152, New York, New York, 10038. Pre-printed request forms are available at the Reception Desk in Room 152.

(4) Purchase documents are issued only between the hours of 9 AM to 12 Noon, Monday through Thursday.

Note: The License Division is closed on all legal holidays.

(5) &#8220;Handgun Purchase Authorizations&#8221; shall be returned to the License Division within ten (10) calendar days of their expiration date. Failure to return the document within the specified time shall result in the suspension and/or revocation of the handgun license(s).

(6) All purchasers of handguns shall also be required to prepare a &#8220;Handgun Index Card,&#8221; at the License Division.

(d) Number of handguns allowed on a handgun license. (1) When the total number of handguns possessed by licensee(s) residing in or located in the same household/business exceeds four, the licensee(s) shall utilize a safe when handguns are stored at the premises.

(2) Requests for handguns in excess of four shall not be entertained without proof of the ownership of a safe in which the handguns shall be safeguarded when not in use. Proof of ownership consists of a Bill of Sale for the safe and two color photos of the safe, one with the door open and one with the door closed.

(3) The Division Head, License Division reserves the right to accept or reject the type of safe proposed for safeguarding the handguns.

(4) The number of handguns allowed under each type of handgun license is listed below. Requests for additional handguns shall be reviewed on an individual basis. More than four handguns requires satisfactory evidence of safeguarding to prevent theft, as approved by the Division Head, License Division &#8211; see above.

(i) Carry Business and Special Carry Business &#8212; Two handguns. The Division Head of the License Division may in her/his discretion limit to one the number of handguns that appear on the carry handgun license when the licensee&#8217;s needs do not require possession of two handguns.




(ii) Limited Carry Business &#8212; One handgun.




(iii) Carry Guard and Special Carry Guard &#8212; One handgun.




(iv) Gun Custodian &#8212; Number of handguns shall be determined by the Division Head, License Division, consistent with the demonstrated needs of the applicant.




(v) Premises Business &#8212; One handgun.




(vi) Premises Residence &#8212; One handgun.




(e) Requests for additional handguns for &#8220;Special Handgun Licenses.&#8221;




(1) Holders of &#8220;Special Handgun Licenses&#8221; shall comply with the purchase authorization request guidelines of the county in which they hold their basic handgun license. Once the addition has been made to their basic County License, a request to add the handgun to




their New York City Special License may be made in writing to the Division Head, License Division. If the Division Head, License Division approves the request, the licensee shall be notified when to report to the License Division to effect the addition. The following documents shall be required at that time:




(i) The basic County License.




(ii) A copy of the county Handgun Purchase Authorization form.




(iii) A copy of the Bill of Sale.




(iv) The New York City Special Handgun License.

(2) Inquiries concerning this type of transaction may be made to the Issuing Unit at telephone numbers (212) 374-5522 or 5523.
Â§ 5-26 Disposal of a Handgun Listed on the License. (a) Any person lawfully in possession of a handgun who disposes of the same without first notifying the License Division in writing shall be guilty of Class A Misdemeanor in accordance with the provisions of New York State Penal Law Â§ 265.10(7). Pursuant to New York City Administrative Code Â§ 10-311(a), it shall be unlawful for any person or business enterprise to dispose of any handgun which does not contain a safety locking device, defined as a design adaptation or attachable accessory that will prevent the use of the weapon by an unauthorized user. The following types of safety locking devices will be deemed to comply with this provision:

*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

This (above post) is only a page or two out of, I don't know, 30 or 40 pages.

The short answer is "No".
It doesn't have a statutory limit of 20 guns in NYC.
It does limit you to 10 gun purchases a year, in another section.
It does require a permit for each gun, I believe, stated right before the section I printed. I can't remember if it was $250 per permit (?).
It does say to own more than a few, you'll have to be granted special permission.

But no, it doesn't say you CAN'T own more than 20. It just makes it harder to do than Chinese arithmetic, LOL.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are no specific Supreme Court rulings on NYC's current laws
> 
> Heller set a precedent if someone takes a case that far


The 2nd amendment is the law, NYC is breaking the law


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Unless you can produce rulings overturning their laws, you've already "lost" the discussion.
> 
> They don't care if you think it's "right" or "constitutional" unless you're a judge with the proper authority.
> 
> All the rhetoric is wasted energy


Yet on abortion, you say the Supreme Court ruled on it and it's law
Why is this different to you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The short answer is "No".
> It doesn't have a statutory limit of 20 guns in NYC.


I already knew that, and an entire page of copy and paste was pretty pointless when it was more random statutes


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet on abortion, you say the Supreme Court ruled on it and it's law
> Why is this different to you?


Because it is


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because it is


How is it different?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already knew that, and an entire page of copy and paste was pretty pointless when it was more random statutes


Wait just a minute.
I didn't say anything a few pages ago when you and Pixie were telling me the link I posted contained no proof of any confiscations under the NY SAFE act.
I then copied another section of the link and there it was, in black and white.
You complained ...............




Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would anyone apologize?
> What you *quoted* before didn't show anything
> 
> This one does. Congratulations on seeing the difference
> ...


That's why I went back and copied for you.
Many, many times, you've busted my balls for "rambling" and "posting unnecessary statutes" etc. 
So when I'm brief, you complain I didn't show enough proof.

This time, I clearly stated that I remembered seeing limitations in your link, but would go back and scrutinize it, which I just did.

They don't criminalize ownership of more than 20 guns, but they make it darn near impossible thru their law to own more than ONE.
That were hardly "random statutes."
So I clearly post where that section is.............and you pull out your BLAM hammer again for the OPPOSITE reason!

I realize from your own words in another thread, you come on HT purely for entertainment, but I gotta tell you.........you pull all the joy out of it for ME.

Your jabbing is just a little less fun than a bad hemorrhoid.
:grit:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> How is it different?


Different cases, different districts, different precedents different details in each case.

Ask Google if you want endless details


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Wait just a minute.
> I didn't say anything a few pages ago when you and Pixie were telling me the link I posted *contained no proof of any confiscations *under the NY SAFE act.
> I then copied another section of the link and there it was, in black and white.
> You complained "That wasn't what it said in the part I posted".
> ...





> You complained "That wasn't what it said in the part I posted".


If you'll go back and look, I originally said what *you QUOTED* didn't say anything about confiscation. You don't pay attention to *details*
Words have meanings

You do ramble, and you do copy and paste lots of things that have nothing to do with the actual question, just like posting a page full of details on handgun permits that no one asked about or disputed, when the question was specifically about a "20 firearm *limit*" that JJ claimed was a "class 5 felony"

You're rambling now, since it makes little difference if they "make it darn near impossible". That's still not a "limit", which is what you thought you could prove

That's all in the statutes for anyone *who cares* to read , and I posted the links long ago. 

About half your last post is about you, your favorite subject

Put me on ignore if I bother you so much, but if you don't, then stop the constant complaining and just stick to the actual topic.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Different cases, different districts, different precedents different details in each case.
> 
> Ask Google if you want endless details


I don't want endless details
I just want to know why one Supreme Court decision is law of the land while another that reaffirms the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I don't want endless details
> I just want to know why one Supreme Court decision is law of the land while another that reaffirms the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not?


That falls under "endless details"

You've got to look some things up for yourself if you really want to know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you'll go back and look, I originally said what *you QUOTED* didn't say anything about confiscation. You don't pay attention to *details*
> Words have meanings
> 
> You do ramble, and you do copy and paste lots of things that have nothing to do with the actual question, just like posting a page full of details on handgun permits that no one asked about or disputed, when the question was specifically about a "20 firearm *limit*" that JJ claimed was a "class 5 felony"
> ...



:umno:

I know what I quoted, I'm the one who posted the link.
The link said what it said. I followed the rules about posting and said the results were there. I *chose* the part I DID quote in a reply to Pixie that I knew would be forthcoming. The rest of the proof was there for all who "cared to read it".
I was brief and made my point.
YOU were the one who continued to deny I had proven you two were wrong.
I've told you before, I won't let your errors go unchallenged. 
I can't help it if your pride gets in the way.:shrug:

The topic?
*  Remember when they said New York wasn't confiscating guns?*
Yeah, I remember.

And when I'm NOT sure, I have no problem in verifying it one way or the other and thoroughly stating it, instead of being smug and sneaky.
If I know, I'll say so and if I don't, I say that too.
But I don't need you to tell me anything and if you DO say something about me, you better darn well be truthful.
I'm not your whipping boy, so get used to it.:nono:
:drillsgt:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But I don't need you to tell me anything and if you DO say something about me, you better darn well be truthful.
> I'm not your whipping boy, so get used to it.


And again you think it's got to be about you.
Nothing ever changes.
Just the same old song and dance


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you'll go back and look, I originally said what *you** QUOTED* didn't say anything about confiscation.  You don't pay attention to *details*
> Words have meanings
> 
> You do ramble, and you do copy and paste lots of things that have nothing to do with the actual question, just like posting a page full of details on handgun permits that no one asked about or disputed, when the question was specifically about a "20 firearm *limit*" that JJ claimed was a "class 5 felony"
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> And again you think it's got to be about you.
> Nothing ever changes.
> Just the same old song and dance



Obviously, YOU are the only one that finds that worthy of repeating.

I rarely post off topic and when I do, it's in reply to an off topic post. My answer is relevant and supported by facts.
Even rarer is for me to make a false accusation, and when I do, I promptly correct it and apologize to the poster.
Trolling is not my idea of entertainment.
I'll post what I want about whatever topic I want and take my instructions on that from the moderators.
Get used to it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Get used to it.


Nope. 

I don't care, and it's all been done to death


----------

