Why Guns?

Just to be totally anal-retentive…

Collounsbury, if a .38 special really is enough to “nearly twist your wrist”, I would strongly recommend you not try the .50 Auto that Desert Eagle makes.

Technically, it’s a company called Magnum Research that makes the Desert Eagle. Though a lot of the earlier ones were made in Isreal by IMI from designs supplied by Magnum Research.

The cartridge is called “.50 Action Express” or .50 AE for short. Though, you can swap different barrels on and off a Desert Eagle to make it fire .44 or .357 Magnum ammo, and the newer ones even fire .440 Corbon cartridges. Eesh.

So, my point is… um… that I’m far more pedantic than you! So there! ;]

As for the main substance of this debate, I have no useful contribution that hasn’t already been posted. Not much point in my spouting off. I tend to have opinions on guns and gun control that piss off both major factions. (I generally consider that a sign that I may be on to something…)
-Ben

Read on, Zwaldd; you apparently haven’t gotten to paragraphs a, b or c of 10-303.1.

Note that that website only offers amendments adopted by City Council since 1990; Title 10, Chapter 3 may very well be a law pre-existing the parameters of that website (the scarcity of information suggests that this is so).

I have (yet) been unbale to locate, online, the full meat of Title 10, Ch. 3.

Don’t you think it’s a bit dishonest of you to try to imply that:

[ul][1] They’ve enacted registration
[2] They’ve enacted a ban
[3] They’ve outlined penalties for non-compliance
[4] And that they won’t (or haven’t) use(d) the registration info to enforce the ban?[/ul]

If they don’t trust their citizens with the firearms in the first place, they’re going to trust those same untrustworthy citizens to voluntarily surrender, or otherwise dispose of the banned weapons?

Or perhaps this is a law in name only, not actually enforced, as a sop to gun-control advocates (the worst kind of law, IMHO)?

To confiscate: to take by authority.

The New York City Council and Police Commissioner certainly have the regulatory authority to force registered gun owners to surrender firearms, and have the authority to use licensing and registration info to ensure compliance.

Sounds enough like confiscation to me to be called confiscation.

If you’re implying that the only definition of confiscate is to come into a person’s house by warrant to search for the firearms, or to inspect official “disposal” certificates, then I have no knowledge of that happening in New York City.

But considering the little I have been able to find on New York City’s Gun Control Laws on the previously linked website, factor this: every lawful [licensed] firearm transaction is accompanied by a paperwork trail with the regulatory authorities. Even selling out-of-city or -state.

The only people the authorities can effectively track are the licensed gun owners and their registered weapons.

But to keep this debate centered, I’ve contacted various Gun Stores, Gun Organizations and the New York City Police Dept. via e-mail with a request for more info on this particular subject. Any responses will condensed and posted here, and will be forwarded to anyone requesting such of me by e-mail.

In the mean time, can any New Yorkers shed some light on this?

first off, i want to thank you for returning to this debate. this part of your post alone demonstrates an understanding of my position that i haven’t seen in several days. no i don’t think it’s dishonest. if i’m wrong, then misguided. maybe naive.

it appears so. both permit holders and non-permit holders are allowed to “lawfully remove such assault weapon from the city of new york”. that provision alone makes it impossible to enforce a confiscation program based on a registry. as i said, if you want to keep your banned weapon, just tell the gov’t you got rid of it (if they ask). and again, owning a banned weapon is no more illegal for a formerly registered owner than a never-registered owner.

what’s ‘sop’? in the ny case, it looks like the permit/registration process is nothing more than a futile pain in the butt, unlike the cali registration program which seems like a method of grandfathering gun ownership (if you haven’t already, read my prior posts to see how i came to that conclusion).

but i think the provision allowing all banned gun owners (registered and unregistered) to dispose of the weapon out of state makes this impossible and unlawful.

but the same goes for any registered item - cars, software, whatever. my point all along is that, at least in this country, we don’t use registration info to track down and confiscate items, probably because if we started doing that, nobody would register anything.

good! a new angle. i am interested to hear what you find.

Gee zwaldd

You haven’t thanked me.

All I’ve been trying to do is get you to read all the posts. Don’t take your arguement from context, and understand that confiscation doesn’t have to be forceful and doesn’t have to be today. Maybe a year from now maybe two years, maybe not at all.
Zwaldd, I’m not willing to pave a road for the antis and will erect as many barricades as I can to assure it won’t happen. I can’t understand the reasoning of someone who would.
Your lighthearted unfounded notion “well it hasn’t happened before so it won’t happen” is foolish to say the least.

We have had the right to have guns for 200years. Hard to find precidents,yeah.Why do you think so many here are against it?What do you think they see that you don’t?
What.Do you think?

actually my notion is that it hasn’t happened before so it’s a false argument against registration. in any event, it looks like you’ve conceded to the first half:

see, the nra folks like to say that confiscation is happening today. they don’t say ‘maybe not at all’. they say registration leads to confiscation and there are present and past examples of it here within our 2nd amendment protected borders. what you just said is part of what i’ve been arguing all along: it hasn’t happened and it isn’t happening now.

now, as for the rest of my argument, i think getting you to understand the logistics involved may be a little out of my scope so i won’t press for an agreement on it.

Zwaldd
Quote
actually my notion is that it hasn’t happened before so it’s a false argument against registration.

Bold emphasis mine
Very good chioce of words

Zwaldd quote
in any event, it looks like you’ve conceded to the first half:
Sorry bunky wrong again.
Do you concede that I understand what you are saying ?
I just thank you are very wrong.
Now will you Quit feeling un understood and think about what people in this thread have been telling you?

First of all, can we stop disparaging one another? I’m amazed this thread has gone on this long and remained civil, and I’d really like it to stay this way.

Zwaldd: from what I can gather, you don’t have much understanding of the gun control laws of the state and city of New York.

First of all, the state only has a handgun licensing; Shotguns and Rifles (not of the “Assault” variety) have no such restriction. Handgun licensing requirement are fairly byzantine, but that may merely be my Texas’ libertarian streak talking.

At state level, owners are required to be licensed to own or carry a handgun, and meet all state criteria (records check, fingerprinting and a demonstratable “need” for any circumstances beyond residential or business), but each county and municipality can tac on their own criteria as well. A license will state whether it’s a residential, business, both or any other restrictions.

When someone wants to buy a new handgun, they must get an okay from the local judge, sheriff or controlling authority (it varies by county and municipality) and their license must be amended to reflect the new firearm (this is also the registration process). Each handgun possessed must be listed by make, model and serial number on the license. The controlling authority’s written approval constitutes the “Permit to purchase” a handgun.

At NY City level, it get a lot more onerous, as shotguns and rifles (not of the “Assault” variety) are now also subject to all the provisions of handguns as well.

The gun store in NYC returned my e-mail, but they weren’t very helpful; just provided some links to the New York State Assembly, where a search of pending bills will reveal how schizo that state is. Some proposals are downright pro-gun, others are rabidly anti-gun.

They also provided links to the New York State Senate and the Governor’s Homepage

So, with all the obligations on law-abiding gun owners to jump through bureaucratic hoops (the criminals just have to avoid capture, or have a good lawyer) there are undoubtedly some who may very well be ignoring the “Assault Weapon” ban and just claiming that they sold it out of state. If they get caught…

here, or in life?

now why would you say that? i grew up in nj and once did some research there to find out the requirements for buying a handgun. i was told pretty much what you posted about the permit process in ny. whatever other specifics i’ve been posting has mostly come from the links you provided. please quote something i said about ny laws that is wrong so i can have a chance to rebut or concede.

to do what? purchase guns? get rid of banned guns?

i think this is very doubtable. not that there are people ignoring the assault weapons ban, but that they are put in a position where they have to claim they sold it out of state. did you find evidence that registered owners of banned weapons are being contacted by authorities to find out if they got rid of the weapon? i would be very surprised find out this is really happening.

Quote zwaldd

did you find evidence that registered owners of banned weapons are being contacted by authorities to find out if they got rid of the weapon? I would be very surprised find out this is really happening.

Whatyagonna do if it starts happening tomorrow.

What are you going to do,or better yet,what are you doing today, to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Can’t happen???

There is a whole bunch of twisted minds out there that want it to happen. They think it will fix everything.

Okay, apologies for the delay; wierd stuff at work kept me away yesterday evening and most of today.

Zwaldd: my comment re: “your ignorance of NYC/S gun comtrol laws” was merely an overall impression on my part.

Part II: one of the organizations I contacted was the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, and I received their response on Wednesday (it must have been really late), but haven’t been able to check e-mail 'til today.

I asked them the following questions:

Mr. Patrick W. Brophy, Regional Director NYSRPA, kindly responded:

[ul][1.] There was/is an assault weapon ban in NYC. A complete copy of the banned rifle list follows this text. In addition, a copy of the Administrative Code definition of assault weapon follows the banned rifle list below. [I’m going to leave the “banned” list and administrative stuff out, unless someone specifically requests them, in which case I’ll e-mail them to interested parties. -ExT.]

[2.] Owners were not necessarily obliged to turn in banned weapons. One court opined in dictum that owners had the option of removing such weapons from the jurisdiction (storing them with friends/family elsewhere). I do not know if turn ins were accepted, or compensation paid. Someone at Gun Owners of America may have information on this. Check their website at Gun Owners of America[[I went, I didn’t find anyhting worth noting here. -ExT.]

[3.] I believe registration was used to check up on non-compliant owners, using search warrants. At least one non-compliant owner was raided and busted. “Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city’s tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes].” John Marzulli, “Weapons ban defied: S.I. man, arsenal seized,” Daily News, 5 September 1992. [The NY Daily News on-line archive only goes back to 1996. -ExT][/ul]

Not exactly the resounding font of info I was looking for. His answers lead to more questions (in my mind, at least).

Such as: “how did the authorities know who was/wasn’t in compliance without checking owner’s licenses and/or weapon registration info?”, and redirected that question back at Mr. Brophy.

I’m still waiting to hear back from the NYPD.

Just a little reminder of what can and did happen

Why did the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms raid the Branch Davidian compound on February 28, 1993?

The ATF raided the Branch Davidian compound to serve arrest and search warrants as part of an investigation into illegal posession of firearms and explosives there. (Treasury Department press memorandum, July 13, 1995)

Lest we forget.

so what we have here is one guy from “the only official nra afilliated state association in new york” who believes registration was used to check up on owners who were already known to be non-compliant (didn’t we agree to stay away from the nra and hci sites, in the interest of non-bias?). as far as the guy who was raided and busted, there is no indication that this was a registered owner or that he was arbitrarily tracked down using the registry. while i appreciate your diligence in compling info, this is hardly enough to support your original assertion that you have "rl precedent (i’m still not sure - does that mean ‘real life’?) to claim:

"there are too damned many people in the gun control crowd who will come back and say ‘Well, that didn’t work; I guess we’ll just have to start banning more-and-more types of guns, going door-to-door and confiscating them from registered owners if need be’"

i think to continue to claim that the ‘registration leads to confiscation’ argument is valid based on real-life precedent, you should have more evidence then one new york nra member’s ‘belief’ that this may have happened.

Zwaldd

Seems to me that if they raided someones home after the registration went into effect your point is unfounded and if he did register your point is wrong.
So what is your point???

Who said I was finished? These are real-life people who live in New York. If you doubt me, I’ll forward the e-mail and let you talk to them. One of them (that I e-mailed) is the NYPD, yet to recieve an answer.

Another response from Mr. Brophy readily admitted that his info was incomplete, as at the time it was happening (92-93) he wasn’t interested in/involved with the NYSRPA. I think he underestimated the depth of info I was requesting, and has further directed me to a Mr. Larry Goodman, of New York City, who owns/operates License Services, specializing in the bureaucracy of the firearms licensing process for NY City.

Understand, Zwaldd, that this happened almost a decade ago. Newspaper archives (on-line versions) usually don’t go back that far, and as I don’t live in New York, obtaining access to archive issues is a bit problematical.

You’re asking for a level of proof that isn’t just sitting about on my hard drive, sad to say. People (real people, with real jobs, whom I must ask nicely of their time to respond to my questions) must be contacted; sources identified, scrutinized and verified. I also have a real job in the real world, one that, since a recent change of management, has been placing greater demands upon my time.
I can’t instantly gratify you with a definitive answer right this very second.

If it’s worth knowing, it’s worth waiting for.

But your continued insistence that “it never happened, therefore it can’t happen” seems to me a little silly and deliberately obtuse; there are way too many things in American history alone that “never happened before” until someone (or group of someones) did it.

With so many influential people and groups vocal about more and more “reasonable” gun control (not too many actually use the word “ban” anymore; it’s still political suicide, fortunately) is it not reasonable (as BrianBunnyhurt might say) that, to identify such owners, that a licensing/registration scheme be first enacted? Door-to-door “John Doe” warrants and searches are a bit cumbersome, ya know.

Why not first identify your targets with a clear paper trail with the NYPD and various county and state agencies?

Then, at a later date (a year, five, ten, a hundred; whenever), if the “ban 'em all!” faction of the gun control crowd (a debatable “if”, but largely depending on where you live) gets their legislation through, they know exactly whose doors they should be knocking on, saying “hand it over”, after the mandatory turn-in deadline passes and these firearms are unaccounted for.

The progression is elegantly simple; why you don’t get it baffles me. You don’t even have to believe it will ever happen; just understand that licensing and registration are excellent tools for confiscation (whatever form it takes) if or when a firearm ban, partial or total, is ever enacted

And that some have made it abundantly clear that they are inimical to firearms, firearm owners and firearm sports, and will use whatever power and influence they can marshall to impinge upon us.

well until you have that proof, i don’t think you should be making definitive statements like ‘registration leads to confiscation’. that is what i would call intellectually dishonest.

i defy you to find one place in this entire thread where i made that claim. what i have said is that since it hasn’t happened, it is false to argue that registration leads to confiscation. we have yet to see a single substantiated example of authorities using a registry to confiscate guns in this country. however we have two examples of registration programs that, even after the implementation of a ban, were not used to confiscate guns.

you just said that the ny registration “happened almost a decade ago”, so here’s an example of a registration program that ten years later failed to turn into a ‘use the registry to confiscate guns’ scenario, even after registered guns were banned.

so i’m not saying ‘because it hasn’t happened it will never happen’. what i’m saying is, based on all the links and info we’ve looked at in this thread, that until you find evidence that registries were used to confiscate guns, you should at least agree that the ‘registration will lead to confiscation’ argument is false.

Zwaldd
Quote
well until you have that proof, i don’t think you should be making definitive statements like ‘registration leads to confiscation’. that is what i would call intellectually dishonest.

And then, unbelievably

you should at least agree that the ‘registration will lead to confiscation’ argument is false.
Please define “intellectually dishonest”.

Using your own criteria you should admit that as far as you know,registration has not led to confiscation,yet.

Your whole arguement has been knitpicking. The assumption that you are an intellectual is open to debate.And your lack of understanding is baffeling.

that’s the nicest thing you’ve said to me this whole thread :).

Zwaldd

:slight_smile:
You see what I’ve been telling you. You only talk about the things that are going your way.:wink: