NY Mayor Warns Of "Waco-Style Standoff" Over Gun Control Laws

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Yes, because I will not be giving up a single piece of my property by order of a government. Mo matter what anyone says, no matter what piece of paper is signed, I will still have every single gun I own, as long as I am still alive.

As for the first question, I will answer that shortly, for those wishing to read it, you can find the actual amended bill here

reply to post by TKDRL


If i was still living in NY......

(A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE
MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:

(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF
THE WEAPON;
(III) A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
(IV) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
NON-TRIGGER HAND;
(V) A BAYONET MOUNT;
(VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED
BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR
MUZZLE COMPENSATOR;
(VII) A GRENADE LAUNCHER; OR

(B) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
CHARACTERISTICS:

(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
(III) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
NON-TRIGGER HAND;
(IV) A FIXED MAGAZINE CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF SEVEN ROUNDS;
(V) AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE; OR
(C) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE
MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:

(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
(III) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
NON-TRIGGER HAND;
(IV) CAPACITY TO ACCEPT AN AMMUNITION MAGAZINE THAT ATTACHES TO THE
PISTOL OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;
(V) A THREADED BARREL CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A BARREL EXTENDER, FLASH
SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;
(VI) A SHROUD THAT IS ATTACHED TO, OR PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIR
CLES, THE BARREL AND THAT PERMITS THE SHOOTER TO HOLD THE FIREARM WITH
THE NON-TRIGGER HAND WITHOUT BEING BURNED;
(VII) A MANUFACTURED WEIGHT OF FIFTY OUNCES OR MORE WHEN THE PISTOL IS
UNLOADED; OR
(VIII) A SEMIAUTOMATIC VERSION OF AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR
FIREARM;
(D) A REVOLVING CYLINDER SHOTGUN;
(E) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE, A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN OR A SEMIAUTOMATIC
PISTOL OR WEAPON DEFINED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (V) OF PARAGRAPH (E) OF SUBDI
VISION TWENTY-TWO OF SECTION 265.00 OF THIS CHAPTER AS ADDED BY CHAPTER
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND AND OTHERWISE
LAWFULLY POSSESSED PURSUANT TO SUCH CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND
PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER FOURTEENTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR;
(F) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE, A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN OR A SEMIAUTOMATIC
PISTOL OR WEAPON DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (A), (B) OR (C) OF THIS SUBDIVI
SION, POSSESSED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH;

Every single one of my previously legally owned long guns, well if I was still in NY, I would be ordered to turn them all in, or spend money to change them....... Whereas before, it had to be two of those characteristics, they cut it down to only one.

In case it isn't obvious, the definition of "assault" weapon, is convoluted......

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, [ manufactured after September thir-
teenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, ] that (A) has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition, OR (B) CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, OR (C) IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH AMENDED THIS SUBDIVISION AND HAS A
CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION; provided, however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition OR A
FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A CURIO OR RELIC. A FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A
CURIO OR RELIC IS DEFINED AS A DEVICE THAT (I) WAS MANUFACTURED AT LEAST
FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, (II) IS ONLY CAPABLE OF BEING
USED EXCLUSIVELY IN A FIREARM, RIFLE, OR SHOTGUN THAT WAS MANUFACTURED
AT LEAST FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, BUT NOT INCLUDING REPLI
CAS THEREOF, (III) IS POSSESSED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT PROHIBITED
BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM AND (IV) IS REGISTERED
WITH THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF
SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT SUCH FEEDING DEVICES TRANSFERRED
INTO THE STATE MAY BE REGISTERED AT ANY TIME, PROVIDED THEY ARE REGIS
TERED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THEIR TRANSFER INTO THE STATE. NOTWITH
STANDING PARAGRAPH (H) OF SUBDIVISION TWENTY-TWO OF THIS SECTION, SUCH
FEEDING DEVICES MAY BE TRANSFERRED PROVIDED THAT SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 400.03 OF THIS CHAPTER INCLUDING
THE CHECK REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SUCH SECTION

All of my previously grandfathered in mags are now illegal, if I were still living in NY. I thought that was unlawful to do? Silly me I guess.

Ah crap, I just noticed the strike through text didn't copy over as such, I will have to go back and correct it manually. The bolded is now null and void, there is no strike through coding here far as I can tell.

S 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
degree when:

(1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic
stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal
knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles,
metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type sling
shot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or
(2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto,
imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon
with intent to use the same unlawfully against another; or

Wait, what? They just outlawed slingshots.......


Dennis the menace eat your heart out.

FYI it was ruled balisong is not a gravity knife, and are legal to own in NY. Not many people know that one.

No, definitely do not give up. I have seen a few pro-gun-control posters on this site come around to an understanding of and support for the 2nd amendment.

I am of the opinion that TPTB want an armed confrontation, and if they continue the way they have been, they will get it, soon.

can you give a link? even if just one. i have read over so many of these argument threads and the other side never seems to "get it". i'm beginning to think yuo cant change their minds. even "back in the real world" ive had a few friends surprise me with anti gun views. its bewildering to hear their reasons. when i address them with a logical counter argument they just get quiet and change the subject but i don't believe ive changed their minds.

it would be heartening to see the progression of a thread where somebody changed a stance.

i fervently hope we win this fight, and then carry the momentum and steam to expand it to other attacks of the amendments via such things as say, the patriot act?

the direction this country has taken in almost all facets angers and saddens me. from the decay of moral fabric and sense of community, to the fear mongering, the corruption and perversion of our laws and the extent of influence from corporate influence.

too bad there's no reset button smh.*sigh*

Anyone that finds violence to be acceptable without justifiable reasoning such as the protection of ones self or family member,or friend,or for survival from being subjugated to random acts of violence is by definition unscrupulous and not of sound mind.

Originally posted by TKDRL

Wait, what? They just outlawed slingshots.......

Dennis the menace eat your heart out.

They also "outlawed" talking on Cell and Driving.
You gonna Shoot a Cop for that too, Rambo, when you get pulled over.

I tried talking to you, but your like the Others, Reaching for "talking points" when you have no Amswers, and you had no Answers.

Stay Warm out there in the East, Lots of Snow.

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
Anyone that finds violence to be acceptable without justifiable reasoning such as the protection of ones self or family member,or friend,or for survival from being subjugated to random acts of violence is by definition unscrupulous and not of sound mind.

By definition, that would be the government officials.
Nobody is threatening them, their family, nor their friends, yet they are prepared to conduct violent acts against the people to get what they want.
Thanks for posting.

I feel like the whole country is a frog in hot water that's slowly rising to a boil. My only hope is that we realize it as a nation before it's too late. There is power in numbers, but they more they divide us the stronger the hold they have on us is. Only when people stop and realize that now matter how you feel about guns, or gay rights, or abortion, whether your a democrat, republican, libertarian, green party or whatever else. Until WE THE PEOPLE put aside our differences and focus our frustrations where they need to focused which is govt. I don't think we will accomplish anything other then playing right along with whatever "master plan" there may be.


All that being said I do believe they are trying to bait some group into reacting in such a way that they can make an example out of them. "See people with guns are crazy, they had the bad guns that you only need to kill people and wouldn't give them up and now more people are dead". I don't see any good coming out of this, because for a gun owner who believes in the 2nd amendment this is a lose/lose situation. You give up your guns, then your losing your rights and they win. You make a stand to defend your rights, you lose (probably die) they get to label you as crazy and use you to further their agenda, they win.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


lol what?
I don't own, nor want a cell phone, and if I did have it, I don't need some nanny law to tell me that it is not a good idea to be using it when doing things that require my full attention.....
The hell does that have to do with banning slingshots anyways?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

The hell does that have to do with banning slingshots anyways?

edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:36:18 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

On the internet it is know as trolling.

reply to post by jvm222


Whoa there...

Cult or not, Branch Davidians were God-fearing people too. Sure they were led by a guy who thought he was Jesus, but they just wanted to have their own way.

I think it was Koresh and the upper people who wanted the guns.

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

The hell does that have to do with banning slingshots anyways?

edit on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:36:18 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

On the internet it is know as trolling.

Actually , I was trying to show the young man how Ridiculous his Slingshot Referral was.
You may want to be Careful with what Ideas you push on the Internet yourself Sir.
Some young Readers may not be Able to Distinguish between your Bravado talk, which is all B.S., and the Truth.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


What are you on about? Explain yourself......
They banned slingshots, and you are saying it means what?

reply to post by TKDRL


you think the law they passed is bad look what they wanted to get passed......but luckily for us a few republicans stood up and stopped their madness.
www.menrec.com...

In the video, McLaughlin is speaking to Democrat Assemblyman Joseph Lentol. Here is the transcript: McLaughlin: ... Something that we received from the Senate, Democrat proposals in this gun bill. And I don't know if you've seen this, or if you know that these are there or not. Lentol: Well we don't have our own list of rejected proposals, that the Senate rejected, so I don't have anything to show you. McLaughlin: Okay. Alright, then I won't address it then if you haven't seen it. I'll leave that one alone. Okay, thank you, Joe. Appreciate it. Lentol: And by the way, I would recommend not to have that list shared because it has the capacity to dampen the enthusiasm of compromise. McLaughlin: Well, it sure does when we talk about the confiscation of assault weapons. It absolutely has the ability to dampen a compromise. The list of proposals that Democrats would rather you didn't see, can be seen below. 1. Confiscation of "assault weapons" 2. Confiscation of ten round clips 3. Statewide database for ALL Guns 4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public 5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons” 6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines 7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines 8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month 9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners 10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years 11. State issued pistol permits 12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State 13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers 14. Mandatory locking of guns at home 15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons

so after seeing what they WANTED to pull off it just shows you they will settle for nothing less then getting all the guns off the street and violating the constitution so we must keep fighting their attempts at insane laws . as to any WACO's happening well im sure some people will not go quietly if the state tries to violate their right to bear arms so i guess it will be on them if and when it happens

Originally posted by TKDRL

They banned slingshots, and you are saying it means what?

Im saying, I guess you wont be able to defeat a Tyrannical Gov Now.
That is the reason for all this Hoop-la, isnt it?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


"Not going to end well."

Like how it didn't "end well." in China when they came for the people's
land because they wanted to build giant condominiums on top of them,
and if they refused, they shot them.

But hey; China needed to house it's "growing economy."

reply to post by Tw0Sides


You completely lost me dude......
I was making fun of them banning a frikken toy, something prettymuch all of us had as children to pop coffee cans with a rock......
I thought it was pretty funny and poked fun at it.
Then you come off asking me if I am gonna shoot a cop for pulling me over for driving and talking on a cell phone. You are somewhere in left field right now, please come back to the infield.

If elected Prime Minister I will make sure that Canadians understand their rights in relation to
gun control, and to understand that their gun rights are not threatened by my administration.

You may want to be Careful with what Ideas you push on the Internet yourself Sir. Some young Readers may not be Able to Distinguish between your Bravado talk, which is all B.S., and the Truth.

bravado talk? pointing out your nonsense about a sling shot?