True it isn't at the bottom of the heap. Those are some very glaring issues above gun control. I would think dissatisfaction with the government will rise further because the government clearly isn't keeping it's eye on the ball with the bigger issues. Or perhaps it's better to keep the public focused on gun control than on the issues higher up on the list? In terms of the NY deal, this is purely politics. This is grandstanding by a guy with his sights set on a bigger prize in the not-so-distant future. The fact that the entire argument for supporting this bill is couched by the fact that it includes good things which we can all agree on but you have to put up with something that many do not agree on, should tell you all you need to know. Pardon the pun here but based on the NY legislature makeup, it's easy to shotgun something like this through. If anybody believes it will be this easy on the national stage, despite what will clearly be a plea to emotion and the heart strings, they are crazy.
For what it's worth, the NYS senate is currently and traditionally Republican controlled due to the effect of upstate districts.
I would vote no on the New York Legislation before the last syllable was out of their mouth describing it. This legislation won't stand in it's current form and is bound for the Supreme Court. The law over reaches in its scope and once again only touches on the problem that it is trying to fix. Background checks every time you buy ammo? How long is that going to take to just run in and pick up a box of ammo for the range trip/hunting that day? I guess you could buy a bulk supply to last you a while, but I'm sure that's going to raise some Government eyebrows and get you a visit from someone. So, if you buy ammo and are a black male, and a black male shoots someone in your neighborhood do you get a call asking where you were at that time? Max magazine size of 7 rounds? I thought that above 10 was a danger to society. It's fairly easy to see where this goes, next time it'll be 5, then 3. There are more guns out there than not that hold more than 7 rounds, with many manufacturers not even making a 7 round magazine for their guns. How many people are just going to sell the gun or turn it in because they have no idea of how to sell it out of state, and then not replace it? This effectively makes your gun illegal and deprives you of your right to own it. Are the criminals going to wake up and say, "geez...I guess I better go sell this 15 round magazine I have so that when I go rob this guy this afternoon I don't get an extra charge". No they won't. They are criminals and will continue to break the law. This is nothing more than a way to eliminate the gun without really having to have the balls of saying it. J
I'm actually inclined to think that this would stand in the Supreme Court (which isn't the same as something being a good law). It doesn't contradict the rulings of DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago. Heller's ruling, which I agree with insofar as the Second Amendment is the law of the land, actually specifically clarified that it was in no way a sanction of unlimited freedom to carry. It merely said that a full handgun ban and trigger lock requirement was unnecessarily infringing upon the right to self-defense usage. From the majority in Heller: Additionally, the old ban was never successfully legally challenged.
But wouldn't outlawing one of the main components to the operation of the gun, of which there are no complying parts available be unnecessarily infringing? Especially considering that there is no grandfather clause for you to keep what you have, making your gun unusable for self-defense? Now I'm sure the gun companies aren't going to let a whole market of NY compliant magazines go untouched, so in the end I guess the point is moot. J
It's unlikely that the Supreme Court would go that way, because the Heller law was written to apply to any and all firearms as far as trigger locks, and a total handgun ban. The ruling was generally sympathetic to more specific bans. Also, the New York law does in fact have a grandfather clause for already-owned guns, with the requirement that their owners obtain a permit.
Obama's executive orders are out... <a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_c1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_c1</a> More details, directly from the White House- must read: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... e_full.pdf</a>
I'm actually pretty surprised at what he signed. I didn't realize half this stuff wasn't already done. Either way, the majority of it is good and should be supported by gun owners, as it doesn't appear to restrict anything outright. It might be a kick in the balls for HIPAA advocates, but that's another discussion.
Presumably it is meant in the context of mental health and side-effects. For example, if someone is in your office showing symptoms of bipolar disorder, it may be relevant for their health and the health of those around them to ask if they have access to a gun.
Doctors will ask, especially Pediatricians, if firearms are kept in the home. I have heard this happen to people I know already (before Sandy Hook). In other news regarding the AWB: http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/harry-reid-pours-cold-water-on-assault-weapons-ban-20130114
When my kids were younger and I would take them for their well-check, the nurses would ask the children if there were guns in the house. This is when they were about 8 or 9 years old. I asked why they needed to know. They said it was just routine questions. This was years ago.
I have to be honest, I'm kind of confused as to why this is a question they need to ask. I feel like there is no one who isn't already aware that guns must be kept away from children, and those who aren't adequately safe aren't doing so out of ignornace. No one has ever said, "Oh my god, little Jimmy could get ahold of my gun and hurt himself? I had never considered this possibility, sir!" So it's unclear to be what sort of behavioral modification or treatment they would use this information for. My guess is that their next course of action is supposed to be tell you statistics on the frequency of gun-related deaths among children, but that seems to be the only usage I can imagine for a pediatrician.
Spoken like a man who hasn't ventured south quite often. This is just the latest one to happen around here. http://www2.wspa.com/news/2012/dec/26/man-charged-after-2-year-old-sc-child-shoots-self-ar-5245395/T
Well what I mean is what are you gonna tell that guy that is going to make him act differently? Also, it sounds like he didn't live in the home anyway.
Sorry on doubling up, to late to edit. Presented purely for comedy, please don't count me in on either side. Don't own guns, not really worried about the average guy having them. Don't really have a dog in the fight. Spoiler
I would vote for that in a second if it weren't for the things that you quoted above. Well, except for the armor-piercing bullets. It wouldn't break my heart to see those go away, and they're very difficult to get your hands on anyway. I sure as hell don't have a use for them. Most of the guys who have them are military gun buffs and consider them a collector's item to play with at the range once a year.
This right here is all you need to know that the politician know nothing about guns. Like lots of the people said on here, and everywhere they are just going after looks.