Draconian New York proposal.
- Thread starter dchapma1
- Start date
+1
If these laws go down, I'm not wasting any more time, energy or $ fighting a losing battle.
PA Guns & Ammo
Member
We had Pataki and he was a republican and look what he did. We also had Guiliani a republican as NYC mayor and look what he did. NY republicans are basically conservative democrats so do not hold your breath.
James
It is times like this, that even as an Illinois resident (temporarily I hope), I am thankful that some of my relatives live in free states. Now if I could only find a job in SC I will be king of the world!
EdNewman
Member
I wrote a long respectful email to Diaz expressing why I believe this bill is unconstitutional and does not serve the best interest of the citizens of NY. Whether he will care or not, it's another voice against it. I also met with my Senator last week for over an hour and went over in great detail the current law, the statistics and the media misrepresentations. It was very educational for him and very well received. He may even come out to the range to see some rifles first hand. I always find it fun to put a .22 a .223 a .308 and .30-06 on the table and ask them to pick out the "high powered military" ammunition that the AR fires. Needless to say, everyone guesses wrong.
PA Guns & Ammo
Member
IMPORTANT READ
Let's makes some calls: New York Firearms Ban
Make sure you post this in other forums that you visit.
James
Let's makes some calls: New York Firearms Ban
Make sure you post this in other forums that you visit.
James
Good link James.
sgt.207
Member
PainterlyShotgroup
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 633
- Reaction score
- 263
Sent them all emails. Going to send snail mail out as well.
WillP
Member
I got a reply from Schumer's office even though it is a robo message... Someone clicked the send button.
Here's what I got:
Dear Mr. P:
Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court decisions reinforced this fact, but I believed that this was the case prior to those decisions.
While I certainly respect the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that we have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance. I have long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, I proposed S. 436, the Fix Gun Checks Act to provide more funding to states to compile required background data for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This legislation builds on the National Rifle Association-supported NICS Improvements Amendment Act, passed by Congress in 2007. Ensuring that this information is comprehensive and up to date will protect law enforcement from criminals with illegally obtained weapons while speeding up the process for purchasing legal firearms.
You may also be pleased to know that I have successfully fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. For example, in the 109th Congress, I secured federal money to expand the scarce hunting grounds in New York State by creating a financial incentive for private landowners to allow hunters access to their property.
Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at https://schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm . Thank you.
Here's what I got:
Dear Mr. P:
Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court decisions reinforced this fact, but I believed that this was the case prior to those decisions.
While I certainly respect the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that we have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance. I have long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, I proposed S. 436, the Fix Gun Checks Act to provide more funding to states to compile required background data for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This legislation builds on the National Rifle Association-supported NICS Improvements Amendment Act, passed by Congress in 2007. Ensuring that this information is comprehensive and up to date will protect law enforcement from criminals with illegally obtained weapons while speeding up the process for purchasing legal firearms.
You may also be pleased to know that I have successfully fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. For example, in the 109th Congress, I secured federal money to expand the scarce hunting grounds in New York State by creating a financial incentive for private landowners to allow hunters access to their property.
Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at https://schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm . Thank you.
EdNewman
Member
Just emailed Senator Skelos to thank him for his rational proposal on how to reduce criminal use of guns which is the real problem
I love this part:
"You may also be pleased to know that I have successfully fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns."
"use" guns...not possess them, not to even "own" them...but to just "use" them at some club or hunting area like one rents bowling shoes...
we got room to stretch out here in Texas fellas, and no state income tax!! AND, I bet the Brady bunch scores us lowest on their scale of "gun responsible states"...
"You may also be pleased to know that I have successfully fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns."
"use" guns...not possess them, not to even "own" them...but to just "use" them at some club or hunting area like one rents bowling shoes...
we got room to stretch out here in Texas fellas, and no state income tax!! AND, I bet the Brady bunch scores us lowest on their scale of "gun responsible states"...
PA Guns & Ammo
Member
I emailed my assemblyman Clifford W. Crouch of the 122nd district and here is what he said:
Dear James:
We are all saddened and shocked at the recent shooting in Connecticut. As we try to comprehend the horrific event, our hearts and our prayers go out to the families who have suffered such a devastating loss. I believe as we look at this senseless act of violence and others that are similar it is important to step back and look at the real issues that are behind this. Many people are calling for more gun control but I believe this is a “knee jerk” reaction and we should work to construct something more meaningful and effective to prevent as much as possible a similar scenario from occurring.
The quick response is to call for a ban on “assault weapons” or military style guns. In previous legislation that we have debated against, these weapons are described as having a pistol grip or thumbhole in the stock and capable of having a large capacity magazine. The pistol grip and/or thumb hole is preferred by the military because it affords more stability and control of the rifle in difficult or assault situations. What hunter wouldn’t want more stability and control when hunting to be more safe and accurate? The AR-15 or the Bushmaster does have a pistol grip and is typically configured with large capacity magazines but I don’t believe this is the issue. Connecticut already has a ban on “assault weapons” since 1993. The shooter was not licensed to possess or operate firearms so enacting another ban would not have prevented the massacre. The shooter in Connecticut took four guns to the school, three of which he carried into the school. He could have gone in with four revolvers and would have had 24 shots.
I believe the issue is much more complicated than the type of gun or tool of destruction. It relates to changes in our society values and how we deal with or accept violence, bullying, morality and ethics. In many cases these shooters were misfits in society, having mental issues that were ignored. We need to step back and look at how we address people with mental defects or even temporary mental health problems which could make them unsafe not only with a firearm but with any other tools of destruction. There are a high percentage of people who have had mental health counseling who would be of no concern with ownership of firearms, but we need to address the recognition and treatment of those who are at risk of causing violence to others.
Most of the shooters that have caused the deaths in Connecticut, Colorado or even in New York are intelligent people capable of figuring out how to cause destruction even without the use of a gun. Pipe bomb technology is available on the internet or they could have resorted to the old technology of the Molotov cocktail. Three quarts of flaming gasoline tossed into a classroom or movie theater certainly would have been devastating.
I firmly believe that we need to address the information available through the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS). Under Section 400.00 of Penal Law, the new Office of Mental Health Background Check allows members of certain local law enforcement officials to perform searches of the database automatically. Unfortunately this system is used by local governments to conduct background checks for pistol permits and the data would not be accessed by firearm retailers who would still be getting their information from the Federal NICS System.
Additional gun control legislation is not the answer. We have a number of very effective laws in place that need to be enforced and tweaked to be more effective. Many times shooters have followed all of the existing laws but would have been prevented from acquiring firearms or possessing firearms if other safeguards were in place. Passing bans on certain types of firearms or rifles only would give a false sense of security to an unknowing public and allow lawmakers to claim they fixed the problem. Meanwhile the root of the issues persists only to inflict more violence in the future.
As always, I appreciate your comments and thank you for writing especially as we address this vital issue.
Sincerely,
Cliff
Clifford W. Crouch
Member of Assembly
122nd District
Dear James:
We are all saddened and shocked at the recent shooting in Connecticut. As we try to comprehend the horrific event, our hearts and our prayers go out to the families who have suffered such a devastating loss. I believe as we look at this senseless act of violence and others that are similar it is important to step back and look at the real issues that are behind this. Many people are calling for more gun control but I believe this is a “knee jerk” reaction and we should work to construct something more meaningful and effective to prevent as much as possible a similar scenario from occurring.
The quick response is to call for a ban on “assault weapons” or military style guns. In previous legislation that we have debated against, these weapons are described as having a pistol grip or thumbhole in the stock and capable of having a large capacity magazine. The pistol grip and/or thumb hole is preferred by the military because it affords more stability and control of the rifle in difficult or assault situations. What hunter wouldn’t want more stability and control when hunting to be more safe and accurate? The AR-15 or the Bushmaster does have a pistol grip and is typically configured with large capacity magazines but I don’t believe this is the issue. Connecticut already has a ban on “assault weapons” since 1993. The shooter was not licensed to possess or operate firearms so enacting another ban would not have prevented the massacre. The shooter in Connecticut took four guns to the school, three of which he carried into the school. He could have gone in with four revolvers and would have had 24 shots.
I believe the issue is much more complicated than the type of gun or tool of destruction. It relates to changes in our society values and how we deal with or accept violence, bullying, morality and ethics. In many cases these shooters were misfits in society, having mental issues that were ignored. We need to step back and look at how we address people with mental defects or even temporary mental health problems which could make them unsafe not only with a firearm but with any other tools of destruction. There are a high percentage of people who have had mental health counseling who would be of no concern with ownership of firearms, but we need to address the recognition and treatment of those who are at risk of causing violence to others.
Most of the shooters that have caused the deaths in Connecticut, Colorado or even in New York are intelligent people capable of figuring out how to cause destruction even without the use of a gun. Pipe bomb technology is available on the internet or they could have resorted to the old technology of the Molotov cocktail. Three quarts of flaming gasoline tossed into a classroom or movie theater certainly would have been devastating.
I firmly believe that we need to address the information available through the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS). Under Section 400.00 of Penal Law, the new Office of Mental Health Background Check allows members of certain local law enforcement officials to perform searches of the database automatically. Unfortunately this system is used by local governments to conduct background checks for pistol permits and the data would not be accessed by firearm retailers who would still be getting their information from the Federal NICS System.
Additional gun control legislation is not the answer. We have a number of very effective laws in place that need to be enforced and tweaked to be more effective. Many times shooters have followed all of the existing laws but would have been prevented from acquiring firearms or possessing firearms if other safeguards were in place. Passing bans on certain types of firearms or rifles only would give a false sense of security to an unknowing public and allow lawmakers to claim they fixed the problem. Meanwhile the root of the issues persists only to inflict more violence in the future.
As always, I appreciate your comments and thank you for writing especially as we address this vital issue.
Sincerely,
Cliff
Clifford W. Crouch
Member of Assembly
122nd District
Freeway
US Veteran
That seems like a very reasonable response. Better than others I have seen around here.
Similar threads
