Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   "Well gooooollly, what do you mean I can't take a loaded pistol to the top of the Empire State Building. Do you think you can hold this for me?"   (nypost.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Empire State Building, Tennessee Woman  
•       •       •

5452 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jul 2013 at 12:03 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-24 12:06:11 PM  
i think the book depository would be a good bet
a good bet
a good bet

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-24 12:07:06 PM  
another gun owner who has no idea about how the laws differ in states, i am shocked
 
2013-07-24 12:07:55 PM  
LOL hayseeds
 
2013-07-24 12:08:23 PM  
You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.
 
2013-07-24 12:08:59 PM  
It is cheaper to throw the gun away, than to risk jail time.   They have websites that tell you about the gun laws in other states.
 
2013-07-24 12:09:17 PM  
How could you not know that, I thought people from the south take great pride in the fact that they can legally have these guns on them all the time but in places like NEW YORK CITY! they can't...
 
2013-07-24 12:09:45 PM  
Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.
 
2013-07-24 12:10:47 PM  

Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.


Are you completely naive?  You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the  really strict gun laws in NYC?
 
2013-07-24 12:10:53 PM  

KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay any marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.


There you go!
 
2013-07-24 12:11:02 PM  

Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.


No, the most correct thing a gun owner can do before traveling is to learn the gun laws in the specific area to which he will be traveling.

In NYC, you cannot carry a firearm without a permit issued by the city itself.
 
2013-07-24 12:11:18 PM  
What does this have to do with Gomer Pyle?
 
2013-07-24 12:12:25 PM  

trappedspirit: What does this have to do with Gomer Pyle?


He like homosex. He bad!
 
2013-07-24 12:13:25 PM  

Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.


New York State has no CCW reciprocity with Georgia.
 
2013-07-24 12:13:36 PM  

Skanque: Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.

Are you completely naive?  You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the  really strict gun laws in NYC?


New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:

http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information. ht ml

The only thing I see is that they do not have a reciprocity clause with the state of Georgia. There ought to be a much smaller deal made out of a Georgian with a CC permit carrying in NY than some random guy with no permit from any state brandishing a gun with the serial number filed off.
 
2013-07-24 12:15:09 PM  

Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.


Are you an idiot or trolling again?

You can't just go to random states and just hope you can carry legally there.  As a NY resident you should know that.  And you should damn well know you can be arrested for carrying a pistol illegally in public, in ANY damn state.
 
2013-07-24 12:15:19 PM  
gittlebass
2013-07-24 12:07:06 PM


another gun owner who has no idea about how the laws differ in states, i am shocked

He certainly should, no question about that, but when anti's run around spewing the idiocy they believe are gun facts neither side has a perfect track record here.

Example:
Guns in bars/restaurants being TEOTWAWKI.
Zimmerman was looking to kill someone as evidence by
... the safety being off.
... topping off his mag.
 
2013-07-24 12:17:01 PM  

Tommy Moo: Skanque: Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.

Are you completely naive?  You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the  really strict gun laws in NYC?

New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:

http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information. ht ml

The only thing I see is that they do not have a reciprocity clause with the state of Georgia. There ought to be a much smaller deal made out of a Georgian with a CC permit carrying in NY than some random guy with no permit from any state brandishing a gun with the serial number filed off.



Those are the state laws. Local laws within the NYC boundaries are much stricter, and while a big deal shouldn't be made about this, the guy should have researched the gun laws of the place he was traveling to. It's no secret that NYC is insanely strict.
 
2013-07-24 12:18:43 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.

No, the most correct thing a gun owner can do before traveling is to learn the gun laws in the specific area to which he will be traveling.

In NYC, you cannot carry a firearm without a permit issued by the city itself.


Or, you know, he could just leave it at home. But that would just be a crazy thing to do.
 
2013-07-24 12:18:44 PM  

KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.


Until someone gets killed by or menaced with someone holding a gay marriage license this analogy makes zero sense.
 
2013-07-24 12:18:59 PM  
For those wondering why these people wouldn't just automatically challenge the law on a 2nd Amendment basis, it looks like the courts are a bit inconsistent:
Supreme Court Shoots Down DC Gun Ban
Supreme Court Won't Hear New York Gun Ban Challenge
 
2013-07-24 12:19:17 PM  
Damn liberals with their "Gotcha Journalism Police"
 
2013-07-24 12:20:47 PM  

Mateorocks: Or, you know, he could just leave it at home. But that would just be a crazy thing to do.


Well that's what you'd end up doing, because NYC isn't going to issue you a permit anyway.
 
2013-07-24 12:21:04 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: And you should damn well know you can be arrested for carrying a pistol illegally in public, in ANY damn state.


Just FYI, there are several states where "carrying a pistol illegally" may be possible, but it requires a bit more than just carrying a legally owned pistol in public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry
 
2013-07-24 12:22:13 PM  

Tommy Moo: New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:


Good luck getting one.
 
2013-07-24 12:22:26 PM  
Slow news day? These stories just write themselves what with NY gun laws and the visitors who have no idea -- the kind of visitor who would actually go the the Empire State building.

It's not the Texas Capitol building where guns are welcome.
 
2013-07-24 12:23:38 PM  
Damn, a sig?  Thats a nice gun right there... They need to keep the gun, release the guy and tell him to stay out of NYC for at least a year...    But this is NYC, so I am sure this guy will be treated like a sociopath about to murder everyone instead of a dumb-ass like he really is.
 
2013-07-24 12:25:43 PM  
Eejits. I was under the impression that if you get to carry a deadly weapon then you accept extra responsibility to ensure that you obey all related laws. Now they've been arrested and if there is any justice will lose the right to carry a gun having now committed a gun related offence.

penguinssauce.com

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-24 12:28:13 PM  
If you're too stupid to understand that the places you visit around the country might have different laws than those of where you come from, then you are definitely too stupid to have a CCW license and as a license holder I'm glad you got arrested.

Hopefully his gun will be confiscated and melted down by NYC and he will be banned from owning additional guns for many years to come.
 
2013-07-24 12:28:44 PM  

Yanks_RSJ: No, the most correct thing a gun owner can do before traveling is to learn the gun laws in the specific area to which he will be traveling.

In NYC, you cannot carry a firearm without a permit issued by the city itself.


Because of the byzantine nature of local, state, and federal laws, along with the fact that some places chose to ignore federal laws about 'safe passage' (I'm looking at you NJ and NYC), what we really need is national reciprocity.

If you have a permit that passes some federal standard on training and background checks issued by your home state, then why not let them carry everywhere it's legal to carry a gun?

Tell you what:  In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?
 
2013-07-24 12:29:59 PM  

WalkingCarpet: KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.

Until someone gets killed by or menaced with someone holding a gay marriage license this analogy makes zero sense.


Hello? Have you not heard of AIDS?
 
2013-07-24 12:30:01 PM  
He would have walked if not for the extra large soda.
 
2013-07-24 12:32:44 PM  

Gordon Bennett: I was under the impression that if you get to carry a deadly weapon then you accept extra responsibility to ensure that you obey all related laws.


Even the people in charge of enforcing NYC gun laws don't know all the gun laws. But you expect a tourist to know them?
 
2013-07-24 12:32:59 PM  

Tommy Moo: The only thing I see is that they do not have a reciprocity clause with the state of Georgia. There ought to be a much smaller deal made out of a Georgian with a CC permit carrying in NY than some random guy with no permit from any state brandishing a gun with the serial number filed off.


Except that this was NYC. There is no difference. He'll be treated as if though he was seconds away from bullet-murdering a bunch of special needs kindergartners.
 
2013-07-24 12:33:56 PM  

MythDragon: WalkingCarpet: KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.

Until someone gets killed by or menaced with someone holding a gay marriage license this analogy makes zero sense.

Hello? Have you not heard of AIDS?


Maybe he has hearing AIDS...
 
2013-07-24 12:34:04 PM  

dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?


Deal. So this is offically a thing now, right?
 
2013-07-24 12:35:23 PM  

JesseL: Satanic_Hamster: And you should damn well know you can be arrested for carrying a pistol illegally in public, in ANY damn state.

Just FYI, there are several states where "carrying a pistol illegally" may be possible, but it requires a bit more than just carrying a legally owned pistol in public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry


Vermont does not issue Permit/Licenses to Carry a Concealed firearm. Vermont does allow anyone 
who can legally own a firearm to carry it concealed without a permit of any kind.
 
2013-07-24 12:37:25 PM  

dittybopper: Tell you what:  In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.


I'm willing to concede that NYC often treats these issues with an absurd degree of punishment, however I do not want a city full of armed tourists, regardless of the background checks.  Now, if you'd like to make arrangements with NYC law enforcement upon your visit to our city, I'd be more than willing to have them mind your weapon while you sample the fare at a different Applebees or Olive Garden than the one you frequent in your town.
 
2013-07-24 12:41:23 PM  

BitwiseShift: Slow news day? These stories just write themselves what with NY gun laws and the visitors who have no idea -- the kind of visitor who would actually go the the Empire State building.

It's not the Texas Capitol building where guns are welcome.


Do you want the king of England to push you around? Huh?
 
2013-07-24 12:41:24 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Eejits. I was under the impression that if you get to carry a deadly weapon then you accept extra responsibility to ensure that you obey all related laws. Now they've been arrested and if there is any justice will lose the right to carry a gun having now committed a gun related offence.

[penguinssauce.com image 300x157]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x240]


Hows does "if you get to carry a deadly weapon" and a story about an arrest just because someone was carrying a deadly weapon match up in your head?
 
2013-07-24 12:41:42 PM  
Why would someone bother to look into such an obscure issue as carrying a gun with them before they travel?
 
2013-07-24 12:42:02 PM  

dittybopper: Yanks_RSJ: No, the most correct thing a gun owner can do before traveling is to learn the gun laws in the specific area to which he will be traveling.

In NYC, you cannot carry a firearm without a permit issued by the city itself.

Because of the byzantine nature of local, state, and federal laws, along with the fact that some places chose to ignore federal laws about 'safe passage' (I'm looking at you NJ and NYC), what we really need is national reciprocity.

If you have a permit that passes some federal standard on training and background checks issued by your home state, then why not let them carry everywhere it's legal to carry a gun?

Tell you what:  In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?


I'm in.  The NRA is going to crucify your ass though.
 
2013-07-24 12:45:08 PM  

WalkingCarpet: "KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.

Until someone gets killed by or menaced with someone holding a gay marriage license this analogy makes zero sense."



Fine - your killing and menacing of the English language put aside, here's a better comparison: Drivers' licenses from state to state are honored, but gun permits are not. Meanwhile, VASTLY more people each year are killed and injured by cars than by guns. And while driving is a privilege (i.e. nobody technically has to grant it), gun possession is supposedly a constitutionally protected right.

Yet people like yourself are perfectly OK with someone going to jail as a result of the latter being denied, while you would no doubt be up in arms (so to speak) about any infringement on the former. And because there are more people who drive cars than there are gun owners, society condones that. There's a term for this - it's called tyranny of the majority.
 
2013-07-24 12:47:40 PM  
Well, duh - guns at the Empire State building are more dangerous than guns elsewhere. Stupid hayseed should know better than to take a gun where the coriolis effect and the Earth's magnetic leylines interact suboptimally with firearms and render them super-duper dangerous without the knowledge of the person carrying them. It has nothing to do with self defense, or anything about the training or intent of the person carrying, it's all about how deadly these things become in certain geographic places. What a moron.

did I get the point they're trying to make right?

/also, is the NY Post keen on calling people "dopey" in its news stories, or is it one of those rags that publishes everything as an opinion piece and tries to pass it off as news?
 
2013-07-24 12:48:54 PM  

radiumsoup: is the NY Post keen on calling people "dopey" in its news stories, or is it one of those rags that publishes everything as an opinion piece and tries to pass it off as news?


It's both.
 
2013-07-24 12:52:10 PM  
The security at the Empire State Building is a little odd.  I once visited with some friends and they don't let you bring knives or wrenches up there for some reason.  They do have little boxes that they'll store stuff in until you come back down at least.

I guess they don't want anyone to hijack the building and crash it into an airplane or something.
 
2013-07-24 12:54:10 PM  
As much as I understand that NY gun laws are pretty unforgiving....

Yet another tourist brings his gun from out of state into another state, not just anther state, but NY, without checking the gun laws assuming everything will be ok.

I am very reasonable, but you would think that at some point people would farking learn not to assume one state has the same law as the next.

/Note, lack of knowledge about a law is not considered a reasonable defense in other threads, why should it be the same for something concerning gun laws.
 
2013-07-24 12:54:21 PM  
dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

No. Constitutional carry. I don't want the feds validating papers to allow the exercise of inalienable rights.
 
2013-07-24 12:55:39 PM  
Anybody with a CCW/CPL should be aware of reciprocity laws if they travel. Even if you aren't allowed to carry you can find the legal method to transport.

It gets odd when you are driving to one state and the laws vary at each border, but a general rule of thumb is that if you do not break any laws you aren't doing anything illegal.

tmyk.jpg
 
2013-07-24 12:56:11 PM  

dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.


So you're saying I can gay marry my gun dealer to avoid background checks?
 
2013-07-24 12:56:50 PM  
Yankee's - and gun laws - suck
 
2013-07-24 12:58:01 PM  

probesport: a general rule of thumb is that if you do not break any laws you aren't doing anything illegal.


You don't say.
 
2013-07-24 12:58:27 PM  

dittybopper: f you have a permit that passes some federal standard on training and background checks issued by your home state, then why not let them carry everywhere it's legal to carry a gun?


Because NYC is very different them yokelsville, south hickstucky.

The chance of law enforcement or others not being readily available to you if you need help is lower (especially in a place like the farking empire state building). You have a far greater chance of hitting something other than a cow or a barn if you miss your target. What passes for threatening\suspicious behavior in bumblefark is just how we hail cabs or tell the guy selling us a dirty water dog to go heavy on the onions.

and most of all, we don't live in fear afraid of our own shadows every day.

Nothing against guns, but CCW in a place like NYC is far more trouble than it is worth.
 
2013-07-24 01:00:55 PM  

incawarrior: The security at the Empire State Building is a little odd.  I once visited with some friends and they don't let you bring knives or wrenches up there for some reason.  They do have little boxes that they'll store stuff in until you come back down at least.

I guess they don't want anyone to hijack the building and crash it into an airplane or something.


because you know, when I'm up on the observation deck, it strikes me as a perfect time to open some boxes, or fix their plumbing.

Its a famous high profile site with lots of people in close quarters. I
 
2013-07-24 01:01:19 PM  
King Kong was only a movie. Leave your gorilla guns at home.
 
2013-07-24 01:01:19 PM  
spmkk: Fine - your killing and menacing of the English language put aside, here's a better comparison: Drivers' licenses from state to state are honored, but gun permits are not. Meanwhile, VASTLY more people each year are killed and injured by cars than by guns. And while driving is a privilege (i.e. nobody technically has to grant it), gun possession is supposedly a constitutionally protected right.

Yet people like yourself are perfectly OK with someone going to jail as a result of the latter being denied, while you would no doubt be up in arms (so to speak) about any infringement on the former. And because there are more people who drive cars than there are gun owners, society condones that. There's a term for this - it's called tyranny of the majority.


Oh boy, excuse me, killed or menaced by not killed by or menaced with.  I guess that little brain fart makes my entire argument null and void.

And the car analogy is another one I hate.  The main purpose of a car is to get people from point A to point B, the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.  The two should not be talked about in the same argument.  It's just as silly as when someone gets stabbed to death and all the gun nuts snark "lol, let's ban knives!!1!".

How about this?  You don't like NYC's gun laws?  Then please don't go there.  Most people in NYC are perfectly fine with the restrictive carry laws that are in place.
 
2013-07-24 01:02:17 PM  

Mateorocks: Or, you know, he could just leave it at home. But that would just be a crazy thing to do.


If he did that, how would he be able to live out his "Death Wish" fantasy, wherein some street tough in a leather jacket steals his wife's purse, allowing him to waste the guy with one shot through the back?
 
2013-07-24 01:02:48 PM  
If I can grow weed in Washington, can I grow weed in Florida too?

/Yes I know federal law makes this more complicated.
 
2013-07-24 01:02:55 PM  

Enemabag Jones: As much as I understand that NY gun laws are pretty unforgiving....

Yet another tourist brings his gun from out of state into another state, not just anther state, but NY, without checking the gun laws assuming everything will be ok.

I am very reasonable, but you would think that at some point people would farking learn not to assume one state has the same law as the next.

/Note, lack of knowledge about a law is not considered a reasonable defense in other threads, why should it be the same for something concerning gun laws.


When I got my handgun permit, they were very clear in saying, "this is only valid under these circumstances. Anything beyond that, the obligation is on you to figure out the applicable laws, and penalties may be severe for violating them"

In fact I am pretty sure it says that RIGHT ON THE farkING CARD.
 
2013-07-24 01:03:50 PM  

LineNoise: The chance of law enforcement or others not being readily available to you if you need help is lower (especially in a place like the farking empire state building). You have a far greater chance of hitting something other than a cow or a barn if you miss your target. What passes for threatening\suspicious behavior in bumblefark is just how we hail cabs or tell the guy selling us a dirty water dog to go heavy on the onions.


In other words, visitors should be asking themselves "what circumstance could possibly arise that would necessitate my carrying a pistol?"  Other than a subway tunnel rat shoot, or cookin' up some Central Park squirrel or sidewalk pigeon for vittles, there isn't any.
 
2013-07-24 01:05:54 PM  

dittybopper: Yanks_RSJ: No, the most correct thing a gun owner can do before traveling is to learn the gun laws in the specific area to which he will be traveling.

In NYC, you cannot carry a firearm without a permit issued by the city itself.

Because of the byzantine nature of local, state, and federal laws, along with the fact that some places chose to ignore federal laws about 'safe passage' (I'm looking at you NJ and NYC), what we really need is national reciprocity.

If you have a permit that passes some federal standard on training and background checks issued by your home state, then why not let them carry everywhere it's legal to carry a gun?

Tell you what:  In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?


But where is that?  In a bar?  a casino?  a school?  a courtroom?  the statehouse?  the state penitentiary?  Different states have different standards for each of these.
 
2013-07-24 01:07:38 PM  

dittybopper: Tell you what:  In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.


I'd be willing to consider something like that, though the specific details of the background checks and reciprocity agreements would need to be hammered out.
 
2013-07-24 01:08:00 PM  
My understanding on this is they keep the gun, fine the shiat out of you and give you probation. NYC shouldn't be able to set it's own permit regs different from the rest of the state, but they do.
 
2013-07-24 01:08:30 PM  

gittlebass: another gun owner who has no idea about how the laws differ in states, i am shocked


They shouldn't really be all that different.
Does free speech differ from state to state?
 
2013-07-24 01:09:52 PM  

LineNoise: Because NYC is very different them yokelsville, south hickstucky.


Ahh, the self-entitled New York elitist.  Yah, you're just so special there Skippy.
 
2013-07-24 01:09:55 PM  
Typically if you are clean NYC will also let you plead these down to something that doesn't require jail. Provided you don't turn it into a high profile thing that they can use to raise awareness, like cry to a paper, or be a football player who shoots himself in the foot in a club. Then they will throw the book at you.

Also CSB: when unsure on the law or if there is ambiguity, you act on the side of caution. For instance, there used to be a gun range that was walking distance from my house. The law here on transporting a gun was very vague as to if it was ok for me to just walk there with it. So I would drive there, placing the gun in my trunk. Even though it wasn't uncommon for me to end up with a parking space that was just as far as if I walked there to begin with.
 
2013-07-24 01:10:36 PM  

LineNoise: because you know, when I'm up on the observation deck, it strikes me as a perfect time to open some boxes, or fix their plumbing.

Its a famous high profile site with lots of people in close quarters. I


RIP LineNoise, killed in mid-post by a wrench dropped from the observation deck of the Empire State Building.
 
2013-07-24 01:10:58 PM  
Just an FYI for you tourists visiting NYC: the New York of Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver and Fort Apache the Bronx hasn't existed in decades. Most tourist areas are safe and in Times Square there's a big old police substation.
 
2013-07-24 01:11:01 PM  
Yet again the pro-NRA crowd shows how reasonable they can be by invoking Poe's law.
 
2013-07-24 01:13:46 PM  

dittybopper: "Tell you what:  In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?"



While this may sound like a good and reasonable idea on the surface, absolute terms like this scare me. The right of a woman to protect herself and her kids from an abusive ex-husband should NOT be subject to the whims of a background-check system that would deny an Army veteran the right to own a gun based on a single marijuana conviction more than 40 years ago.

Until a system is universally perfect, we should question the wisdom of subjecting people to it universally. That's how we got things like minimum sentencing requirements.
 
2013-07-24 01:16:46 PM  

JesseL: Just FYI, there are several states where "carrying a pistol illegally" may be possible, but it requires a bit more than just carrying a legally owned pistol in public.


And generally, carrying a pistol in a state where you can't legally do so is just that, carrying a pistol illegally.   Anyone with half a brain knows that your cc permit isn't valid in every state.

// owns four handguns, has had concealed carry permits in multiple states, pew pew pew pew
 
2013-07-24 01:18:22 PM  
spmkk
dittybopper: "Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.
Deal?"
While this may sound like a good and reasonable idea on the surface, absolute terms like this scare me. The right of a woman to protect herself and her kids from an abusive ex-husband should NOT be subject to the whims of a background-check system that would deny an Army veteran the right to own a gun based on a single marijuana conviction more than 40 years ago.
Until a system is universally perfect, we should question the wisdom of subjecting people to it universally. That's how we got things like minimum sentencing requirements.


And due to the fact that gun cannot be restricted based on a series of somewhat random physical classifications (as is used with any classification system), the above will be used. Criminal records and arrests, no matter how minor.
 
2013-07-24 01:18:53 PM  

KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.


Your name is appropriate.

Hint: It's a State's right not to honor your permit. Your type is all about state rights, right?
 
2013-07-24 01:20:02 PM  

dittybopper: Yanks_RSJ: No, the most correct thing a gun owner can do before traveling is to learn the gun laws in the specific area to which he will be traveling.

In NYC, you cannot carry a firearm without a permit issued by the city itself.

Because of the byzantine nature of local, state, and federal laws, along with the fact that some places chose to ignore federal laws about 'safe passage' (I'm looking at you NJ and NYC), what we really need is national reciprocity.

If you have a permit that passes some federal standard on training and background checks issued by your home state, then why not let them carry everywhere it's legal to carry a gun?

Tell you what:  In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?


Nope. Lots of families have felons and mentally ill members.
 
2013-07-24 01:21:31 PM  

dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?


No way. You want to take away regulatory power from the local government in exchange for something we're going to get eventually anyway.
 
2013-07-24 01:24:06 PM  

Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.


This.
 
2013-07-24 01:24:08 PM  
hardinparamedic
KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.
Your name is appropriate.
Hint: It's a State's right not to honor your permit. Your type is all about state rights, right?


Don't forget include marijuana on that too.
 
2013-07-24 01:25:15 PM  

MythDragon


dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?

Deal. So this is offically a thing now, right?


I think someone has to second it first (heh).

I second the motion!

There, now it's a thing.
 
2013-07-24 01:27:18 PM  

Well gooooollly



imageshack.us


thanks, Imageshack
 
2013-07-24 01:29:31 PM  
This is why we leave the guns at home whenever we travel out of state. It just isn't worth the hassle.
 
2013-07-24 01:32:21 PM  

James!: I'm in.  The NRA is going to crucify your ass though.


Good thing I'm not a member, huh?

If we had national reciprocity, it would make it significantly easier for me to own a handgun in my own state (NY).

It would essentially turn NYS into a "shall issue" state, which it isn't now.  I'd put up with the crap to get a pistol permit (which is required even to possess a modern handgun) if it meant I could actually carry it outside of "Hunting and Target Shooting Only".
 
2013-07-24 01:34:44 PM  

dittybopper: Because of the byzantine nature of local, state, and federal laws, along with the fact that some places chose to ignore federal laws about 'safe passage' (I'm looking at you NJ and NYC), what we really need is national reciprocity.

If you have a permit that passes some federal standard on training and background checks issued by your home state, then why not let them carry everywhere it's legal to carry a gun?

Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?


Tell you what, you have a deal.

Go to NYC right now with a concealed pistol and tell every police officer that you're armed.  If any of them have a problem with it, have them drop me an email.
 
2013-07-24 01:34:53 PM  
I find it interesting that the National Rifle Association was created because only an estimated 1 in 1,000 of Union soldiers bullets would hit their targets (to teach people marksmanship) and it somehow morphed into Politicon: Derp Transformer and Protector of The Fearfully Helmeted.
 
2013-07-24 01:36:49 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: JesseL: Just FYI, there are several states where "carrying a pistol illegally" may be possible, but it requires a bit more than just carrying a legally owned pistol in public.

And generally, carrying a pistol in a state where you can't legally do so is just that, carrying a pistol illegally.   Anyone with half a brain knows that your cc permit isn't valid in every state.

// owns four handguns, has had concealed carry permits in multiple states, pew pew pew pew


Yes, you're a master of tautology. I was just pointing out that "carrying a pistol illegally" doesn't always mean "carrying without a valid and recognized permit in your current jurisdiction".

/owns 12 handguns, has a carry permit, type 03 & type 07 Federal Firearms Licenses
//despises pissing matches
 
2013-07-24 01:37:58 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?

No way. You want to take away regulatory power from the local government in exchange for something we're going to get eventually anyway.


Sounds fair to me.  Especially since the ability to 3D print a plastic frame for a handgun, to which you can add unregulated parts to build a handgun, would largely nullify the unpleasant possible consequences of universal background checks, and that ability is just around the corner:  They've 3D printed plastic AR-15 lower receivers that lasted 600+ rounds without failing.
 
2013-07-24 01:40:11 PM  

brap


I find it interesting that the National Rifle Association was created because only an estimated 1 in 1,000 of Union soldiers bullets would hit their targets (to teach people marksmanship) and it somehow morphed into Politicon: Derp Transformer and Protector of The Fearfully Helmeted.


I recall reading somewhere that in the 1950s the NRA was all about teaching firearm safety and (as you mentioned) marksmanship and skill. They were even in favor of reasonable laws concerning firearms.

I like the apt description of Derp Transformer but in this case I fear there is less than meets the eye.


Or possibly the same amount that meets the eye. Whatever.
 
2013-07-24 01:41:20 PM  

Thunderboy: Tommy Moo: New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:

Good luck getting one.


Actually, not difficult in upstate NY if you have a clean record, but it does take about 6 months and there's a lot of foolish hoops to jump through.
 
2013-07-24 01:41:24 PM  

dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?

No way. You want to take away regulatory power from the local government in exchange for something we're going to get eventually anyway.

Sounds fair to me.  Especially since the ability to 3D print a plastic frame for a handgun, to which you can add unregulated parts to build a handgun, would largely nullify the unpleasant possible consequences of universal background checks, and that ability is just around the corner:  They've 3D printed plastic AR-15 lower receivers that lasted 600+ rounds without failing.


Well have fun with that, your criminal ambitions are for a matter for the proper authorities.
 
2013-07-24 01:42:08 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?

No way. You want to take away regulatory power from the local government in exchange for something we're going to get eventually anyway.

Sounds fair to me.  Especially since the ability to 3D print a plastic frame for a handgun, to which you can add unregulated parts to build a handgun, would largely nullify the unpleasant possible consequences of universal background checks, and that ability is just around the corner:  They've 3D printed plastic AR-15 lower receivers that lasted 600+ rounds without failing.

Well have fun with that, your criminal ambitions are for a matter for the proper authorities.


Also, thanks for acknowledging you were essentially offering nothing.
 
2013-07-24 01:42:15 PM  
 
2013-07-24 01:43:03 PM  

dittybopper: They've 3D printed plastic AR-15 lower receivers that lasted 600+ rounds without failing.


"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire 600 shots or only 599?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a 3D printed AR-16, a homemade hobbyist replica of one of the most influential selective-fire rifle designs in the world, and could blow up in my face, I've got to ask you one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do I, punk?"
 
2013-07-24 01:43:23 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: dittybopper: Because of the byzantine nature of local, state, and federal laws, along with the fact that some places chose to ignore federal laws about 'safe passage' (I'm looking at you NJ and NYC), what we really need is national reciprocity.

If you have a permit that passes some federal standard on training and background checks issued by your home state, then why not let them carry everywhere it's legal to carry a gun?

Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?

Tell you what, you have a deal.

Go to NYC right now with a concealed pistol and tell every police officer that you're armed.  If any of them have a problem with it, have them drop me an email.


Sure.  Just as soon as Congress passes it and the president signs it (or Congress over-rides the veto).

Secondarily, I'd also accept a Supreme Court decision that does essentially the same thing.

/I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid.
 
2013-07-24 01:44:11 PM  
If you get caught illegally carrying a firearm, what's the difference in charges between carrying a 'loaded pistol' and carrying an 'unloaded pistol?'

On the same note, what's with the sudden frenzy of describing every gun anyone is ever caught carrying as 'loaded?' Anyone with any sense about firearms knows that any gun that is still assembled is loaded... whether that are actually cartridges in the gun or not.
 
2013-07-24 01:46:58 PM  

Enemabag Jones: "I am very reasonable, but you would think that at some point people would farking learn not to assume one state has the same law as the next.

/Note, lack of knowledge about a law is not considered a reasonable defense in other threads, why should it be the same for something concerning gun laws."



Because outside of gun laws, there are VERY few things (about the only two that come to mind are age-of-consent variances and marijuana distribution) that are perfectly legal in one state but will get you charged with a felony in another.

We're also not talking about someone who assumed everything was unregulated and carrying a gun wherever you wanted was cool. He applied for, received and possessed a valid CCW permit. He also respected local regulations (once he learned that they exist) and asked the right people how he could comply with them. In return he got thrown in jail.

It is reasonable for states to have different laws about, say, vehicle emissions standards. It's reasonable for states to charge different tax rates on cigarettes. The variation that exists in gun laws between different states (and in cases like NYC and Chicago, between different cities) is NOT reasonable, and it is unreasonable to expect citizens to possess adequate knowledge of the laws of each place within their own country that they might travel to, given both the volume and obscurity of this information.
 
2013-07-24 01:47:20 PM  
You can argue reciprocity and how unjust it is that there are any restrictions at all on your ability to be armed all you like. If you seriously think it's a good idea to bring a gun to the Empire State Building, you're a complete f*ckwit, and have no business owning things that require a responsible adult to operate.
 
2013-07-24 01:47:26 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: I recall reading somewhere that in the 1950s the NRA was all about teaching firearm safety and (as you mentioned) marksmanship and skill. They were even in favor of reasonable laws concerning firearms.


The change came in 1977, in response to a bunch of enacted and proposed gun control laws.

The NRA changed to be more politically active in *RESPONSE* to gun control.

I mean, would you be surprised if the National Hot Rod Association started becoming more politically active in the wake of attempts to ban 2 seater sports cars, cars with racing stripes, and cars capable of exceeding the national speed limit?  I certainly wouldn't be.
 
2013-07-24 01:50:11 PM  

skinink: Just an FYI for you tourists visiting NYC: the New York of Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver and Fort Apache the Bronx hasn't existed in decades.


Is that good?
 
2013-07-24 01:50:40 PM  

spmkk


We're also not talking about someone who assumed everything was unregulated and carrying a gun wherever you wanted was cool. He applied for, received and possessed a valid CCW permit. He also respected local regulations (once he learned that they exist) and asked the right people how he could comply with them. In return he got thrown in jail.


"Hello Officer. No, I didn't know that the speed limit is 55mph here. How can I go about complying with that? Wait, why are you writing me a ticket?!?"

He had already committed the offense at that point. He should have known how to comply beforehand.
 
2013-07-24 01:54:34 PM  
Wait.. it's ILLEGAL to carry a concealed firearm in NYC?

Geez.. next thing you're going to tell me that I can't carry my legally permitted pistol on a airplane. It's farking tyranny!
 
2013-07-24 01:54:55 PM  

dittybopper


I mean, would you be surprised if the National Hot Rod Association started becoming more politically active in the wake of attempts to ban 2 seater sports cars, cars with racing stripes, and cars capable of exceeding the national speed limit? I certainly wouldn't be.


I don't recall saying or even implying that I was surprised. It was more of a "wish they still did stuff like that" kind of sentiment. They used to have a good mission as an organization and I would like to see them return to their roots.
 
2013-07-24 01:55:45 PM  
In all fairness, the guy DID ask if there was a place to store his pistol. It's not like he barged in and started waving it around like a retard. I just think its kind of stupid that he got arrested. Your tax dollers at work folks.
 
2013-07-24 01:56:02 PM  

dittybopper: Englebert Slaptyback: I recall reading somewhere that in the 1950s the NRA was all about teaching firearm safety and (as you mentioned) marksmanship and skill. They were even in favor of reasonable laws concerning firearms.

The change came in 1977, in response to a bunch of enacted and proposed gun control laws.

The NRA changed to be more politically active in *RESPONSE* to gun control.

I mean, would you be surprised if the National Hot Rod Association started becoming more politically active in the wake of attempts to ban 2 seater sports cars, cars with racing stripes, and cars capable of exceeding the national speed limit?  I certainly wouldn't be.


Can you think of any non-military motor vehicles that are designed for the purpose of killing? Motor vehicles are subject to all kinds of safety, licensing, use, and registration standards at every level of government.
 
2013-07-24 01:56:47 PM  

JesseL: Yes, you're a master of tautology. I was just pointing out that "carrying a pistol illegally" doesn't always mean "carrying without a valid and recognized permit in your current jurisdiction".

/owns 12 handguns, has a carry permit, type 03 & type 07 Federal Firearms Licenses
//despises pissing matches


More of "wanted to lead off some trolls claims of being a liberal who hates guns" type deal.
 
2013-07-24 01:59:06 PM  

Tommy Moo: Skanque: Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.

Are you completely naive?  You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the  really strict gun laws in NYC?

New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:

http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information. ht ml

The only thing I see is that they do not have a reciprocity clause with the state of Georgia. There ought to be a much smaller deal made out of a Georgian with a CC permit carrying in NY than some random guy with no permit from any state brandishing a gun with the serial number filed off.


Because if there is anybody who should be profoundly ignorant about gun laws, it should be CCW holders.  Got it.
Should he be allowed to bag same quota of attractive and successful citizens allowed in Georgia as well?

/went there.
//note Georgia not Florida.  Didn't go there.  Not sure if Florida has a limit on anybody.
 
2013-07-24 02:01:18 PM  
It's NYC. Assume everything is illegal.
 
2013-07-24 02:03:54 PM  
spmkk
Because outside of gun laws, there are VERY few things (about the only two that come to mind are age-of-consent variances and marijuana distribution) that are perfectly legal in one state but will get you charged with a felony in another.
We're also not talking about someone who assumed everything was unregulated and carrying a gun wherever you wanted was cool. He applied for, received and possessed a valid CCW permit. He also respected local regulations (once he learned that they exist) and asked the right people how he could comply with them. In return he got thrown in jail.
It is reasonable for states to have different laws about, say, vehicle emissions standards. It's reasonable for states to charge different tax rates on cigarettes. The variation that exists in gun laws between different states (and in cases like NYC and Chicago, between different cities) is NOT reasonable, and it is unreasonable to expect citizens to possess adequate knowledge of the laws of each place within their own country that they might travel to, given both the volume and obscurity of this information.


Are you saying that the variance in way NY or NYC handles the gun laws is the problem or that guns should be legal to carry in NYC because of reciprocity and the second amendment.

See this first:
Link
See this second:
Link

If you are smart enough to buy a concealed holster and put a loaded gun it it, then you should be smart enough to understand that they are not allowed in all locations in that states.

Then surely you should know that state reciprocity laws are complex per the second website.

/Unless gun rights are just special, where other things are not?
 
2013-07-24 02:05:34 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: JesseL: Yes, you're a master of tautology. I was just pointing out that "carrying a pistol illegally" doesn't always mean "carrying without a valid and recognized permit in your current jurisdiction".

/owns 12 handguns, has a carry permit, type 03 & type 07 Federal Firearms Licenses
//despises pissing matches

More of "wanted to lead off some trolls claims of being a liberal who hates guns" type deal.


My apologies. I'm a bit irritable this morning.
 
2013-07-24 02:07:19 PM  

Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.


Another NY state gun owner trying to pretend that he doesn't know the laws are different in NYC.
 
2013-07-24 02:11:07 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

I mean, would you be surprised if the National Hot Rod Association started becoming more politically active in the wake of attempts to ban 2 seater sports cars, cars with racing stripes, and cars capable of exceeding the national speed limit? I certainly wouldn't be.


I don't recall saying or even implying that I was surprised. It was more of a "wish they still did stuff like that" kind of sentiment. They used to have a good mission as an organization and I would like to see them return to their roots.


You haven't been paying attention, then:  They do *BOTH*.

The NRA still does all of the safety education, etc. stuff it always did.   They spend a bunch of money on things like giving grants to gun ranges to improve safety.  They have extensive training programs for shooters and a certification process for firearms instructors.

The political stuff is "in addition to", not "instead of".  But you wouldn't know that they way it's talked about.
 
2013-07-24 02:14:32 PM  

probesport: Anybody with a CCW/CPL should be aware of reciprocity laws if they travel. Even if you aren't allowed to carry you can find the legal method to transport.


The only reciprocity law that there should be is that like a driver's license, what was issued in one state will work when visiting another.
 
2013-07-24 02:16:24 PM  
The fact that he was from the south is irrelevant. Last year a guy from Michigan was biatching that he couldn't bring his concealed gun into Canada. So instead of generalizing southern gun owners as idiots let's just agree to assume all gun owners are the same.
 
2013-07-24 02:22:54 PM  
dittybopper, ,
You haven't been paying attention, then: They do *BOTH*.
The NRA still does all of the safety education, etc. stuff it always did. They spend a bunch of money on things like giving grants to gun ranges to improve safety. They have extensive training programs for shooters and a certification process for firearms instructors.
The political stuff is "in addition to", not "instead of". But you wouldn't know that they way it's talked about.


I am pretty sure the IRA, Hamas and the Italian Mafia has provided social services in addition to the goals pursued by it's political wing.

The NRA may have started with something else but now they are just another political lobbying organization working for gun makers tied into the Republican party.

I don't mean to call them a terror organization through association, but any 'Eddie Eagle' PR campaigns are secondary. This is not their main goal, it is only PR for the political wing of their organization.
 
2013-07-24 02:30:08 PM  
Oh noes, a gun! Let's all panic even though it's just a regular guy who did not point it at anyone or make any threats. Someone should probably sue over the trauma of a gun being in their general vicinity.
 
2013-07-24 02:31:13 PM  

Richard C Stanford: In all fairness, the guy DID ask if there was a place to store his pistol. It's not like he barged in and started waving it around like a retard. I just think its kind of stupid that he got arrested. Your tax dollers at work folks.





In a just world people would be given the benefit of a doubt when they try to make good on an honest mistake. The problem is it then deprives the authorities of the headline they'd prefer.
What they don't realize is the end result is far worse for their efforts.

A common thug wouldn't be cooling his heels in jail, and he'd still carry his gun wherever he wanted, because he doesn't care about the law or trust the cops. He would have devised a better plan than asking security for advice.
The end result is one less good guy with a gun, fewer gun owners coming to the city, and dozens of bad guys still armed with the intent to use their weapons.
 
2013-07-24 02:33:13 PM  

dittybopper


You haven't been paying attention, then: They do *BOTH*.

The NRA still does all of the safety education, etc. stuff it always did. They spend a bunch of money on things like giving grants to gun ranges to improve safety. They have extensive training programs for shooters and a certification process for firearms instructors.

The political stuff is "in addition to", not "instead of". But you wouldn't know that they way it's talked about.


That's a fair assessment: I am not an NRA member and I do not follow them in any way except via news items from time to time. However, here is my experience so far:

I get a membership solicitation from them (snail mail) several times a year. Every single piece is political and leads off with "Your 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away!" or some variant thereof. I have not received anything that describes their range grants or their training, etc. If they're still actively involved in those things they do a damn good job of hiding it, or at least in prioritizing the political angle over everything else.
 
2013-07-24 02:35:56 PM  

WalkingCarpet: Most people in NYC are perfectly fine with the restrictive carry laws that are in place.


Coincidentally, this is also a perfectly valid reason to sneer and be an asshole to anyone with NY plates that you might happen to come across...
 
2013-07-24 02:38:15 PM  

OwnTheRide: Thunderboy: Tommy Moo: New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:

Good luck getting one.

Actually, not difficult in upstate NY if you have a clean record, but it does take about 6 months and there's a lot of foolish hoops to jump through.


Sorry, my comment was specific to NYC.  Of course it's several orders of magnitude easier once you are beyond city limits.
 
2013-07-24 02:40:33 PM  

WalkingCarpet: "Oh boy, excuse me, killed or menaced by not killed by or menaced with.  I guess that little brain fart makes my entire argument null and void."


You know what? You're right - I had no reason to get snarky there, and it didn't add any value to the discussion. My apologies.


"And the car analogy is another one I hate.  The main purpose of a car is to get people from point A to point B, the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being."


That is patently bollocks. The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat. (Note that the vast majority of firearms accomplish this purpose admirably without ever being taken out of their holsters.) A firearm can be misused like any other tool, but someone going postal and shooting six of their coworkers with a Glock isn't using it for it's "main purpose" any more than Julio Acevedo was using his BMW for its "main purpose" when he took out a Brooklyn couple driving to the hospital to give birth.

The car analogy is, in fact, quite appropriate. The reason that you bristle at it is that you (in all likelihood) own a car, rely on it, and are quite uncomfortable with any suggestion that you, too, should be restricted from owning or using something that's important to you because somebody else used one just like it in a harmful way.


"How about this?  You don't like NYC's gun laws?  Then please don't go there.  Most people in NYC are perfectly fine with the restrictive carry laws that are in place."

I live here, thanks. And just like anywhere else, most people in NYC are completely self-absorbed coontil it comes to something like the soda "ban" that affects them directly or a populist cause like marriage equality) and are perfectly fine with restrictive laws that restrict...somebody else. That's why nobody said anything when Bloomberg outlawed smoking in city parks and there isn't much of an outcry when the toll on the GW Bridge goes up to $13 per car -- because most people here don't smoke or drive. Just because most people are perfectly fine with something, it doesn't mean it's right.
 
2013-07-24 02:51:31 PM  

spmkk: Just because most people are perfectly fine with something, it doesn't mean it's right.


Well I agree with you there, just disagree that it isn't right.

And I've lived or worked near or in NYC all my life and not once have I ever been there and thought, "you know what would make me feel safer?  If more people were carrying guns".

But that's just me of course.
 
2013-07-24 02:53:56 PM  

Enemabag Jones: As much as I understand that NY gun laws are pretty unforgiving....

Yet another tourist brings his gun from out of state into another state, not just anther state, but NY, without checking the gun laws assuming everything will be ok.

I am very reasonable, but you would think that at some point people would farking learn not to assume one state has the same law as the next.

/Note, lack of knowledge about a law is not considered a reasonable defense in other threads, why should it be the same for something concerning gun laws.


Bet you a bright shiny nickel that this guy's defenders are ALLLLLLL about the States Rights. I don't think I have ever seen any principle as inconsistently applied as the principle of states rights.

/Tenth Amendment! Tenth Amendment!
 
2013-07-24 02:56:53 PM  

Tomji: gittlebass: another gun owner who has no idea about how the laws differ in states, i am shocked

They shouldn't really be all that different.
Does free speech differ from state to state?


Yes - see various laws about obscenity, public nudity and pornography as examples. And in the last few years you can see even it more of it in how various state legislatures have started passing laws to limit protests near or in the state capitol. It can even vary within a state based on local ordinances for disorderly conduct.
 
2013-07-24 02:58:18 PM  

ideamaster: It is cheaper to throw the gun away, than to risk jail time.


I'd hate to waste a perfectly good gun though. Better to give it to some deserving local youth.
 
2013-07-24 03:01:24 PM  

spmkk: That is patently bollocks. The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat. (Note that the vast majority of firearms accomplish this purpose admirably without ever being taken out of their holsters.) A firearm can be misused like any other tool, but someone going postal and shooting six of their coworkers with a Glock isn't using it for it's "main purpose" any more than Julio Acevedo was using his BMW for its "main purpose" when he took out a Brooklyn couple driving to the hospital to give birth.

The car analogy is, in fact, quite appropriate. The reason that you bristle at it is that you (in all likelihood) own a car, rely on it, and are quite uncomfortable with any suggestion that you, too, should be restricted from owning or using something that's important to you because somebody else used one just like it in a harmful way.


I've see lame sophistry, but your little comedy bit above is definitely candidate for politics tab willful blindness comment of the day.
A car is a tool designed to transport people and cargo safely, usually over roads. That's its purpose.

Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.
 
2013-07-24 03:02:11 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

You haven't been paying attention, then: They do *BOTH*.

The NRA still does all of the safety education, etc. stuff it always did. They spend a bunch of money on things like giving grants to gun ranges to improve safety. They have extensive training programs for shooters and a certification process for firearms instructors.

The political stuff is "in addition to", not "instead of". But you wouldn't know that they way it's talked about.


That's a fair assessment: I am not an NRA member and I do not follow them in any way except via news items from time to time. However, here is my experience so far:

I get a membership solicitation from them (snail mail) several times a year. Every single piece is political and leads off with "Your 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away!" or some variant thereof. I have not received anything that describes their range grants or their training, etc. If they're still actively involved in those things they do a damn good job of hiding it, or at least in prioritizing the political angle over everything else.


Here's the thing, though:  If you join, they can't spend any of your membership dues for political lobbying.  You have to make a separate donation to the NRA-ILA if you want money to go to the political wing.

So you can be a member of the NRA, and fully support their mission of firearm safety education, and not send them a dime towards the political stuff.
 
2013-07-24 03:02:29 PM  

spmkk: there isn't much of an outcry when the toll on the GW Bridge goes up to $13 per car


Goddamn, I remember when the toll for the Throgs Neck Bridge was 75 cents.
 
2013-07-24 03:03:15 PM  
I can't help it.. I just want to say fark this guy, if he doesn't do his due diligence regarding gun laws in a place that is notoriously strict, then he shouldn't have one in the first place.

Farking moran.

/I like guns
 
2013-07-24 03:04:48 PM  

LineNoise: Typically if you are clean NYC will also let you plead these down to something that doesn't require jail. Provided you don't turn it into a high profile thing that they can use to raise awareness, like cry to a paper, or be a football player who shoots himself in the foot in a club. Then they will throw the book at you.

Also CSB: when unsure on the law or if there is ambiguity, you act on the side of caution. For instance, there used to be a gun range that was walking distance from my house. The law here on transporting a gun was very vague as to if it was ok for me to just walk there with it. So I would drive there, placing the gun in my trunk. Even though it wasn't uncommon for me to end up with a parking space that was just as far as if I walked there to begin with.


Hmmmm... Hoboken?
 
2013-07-24 03:07:38 PM  

peasandcarrots: Enemabag Jones: As much as I understand that NY gun laws are pretty unforgiving....

Yet another tourist brings his gun from out of state into another state, not just anther state, but NY, without checking the gun laws assuming everything will be ok.

I am very reasonable, but you would think that at some point people would farking learn not to assume one state has the same law as the next.

/Note, lack of knowledge about a law is not considered a reasonable defense in other threads, why should it be the same for something concerning gun laws.

Bet you a bright shiny nickel that this guy's defenders are ALLLLLLL about the States Rights. I don't think I have ever seen any principle as inconsistently applied as the principle of states rights.

/Tenth Amendment! Tenth Amendment!


Settled definitively in favor of the supremacy clause in the case of Lee v. Grant (April 9, 1865).
 
2013-07-24 03:15:07 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.


So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.
 
2013-07-24 03:17:05 PM  

dittybopper


Here's the thing, though: If you join, they can't spend any of your membership dues for political lobbying. You have to make a separate donation to the NRA-ILA if you want money to go to the political wing.

So you can be a member of the NRA, and fully support their mission of firearm safety education, and not send them a dime towards the political stuff.


That's very interesting (seriously); thanks for the tip!

Now if they can just stop having nutbar spokespeople like LaPierre...
 
2013-07-24 03:21:21 PM  

Richard C Stanford: In all fairness, the guy DID ask if there was a place to store his pistol. It's not like he barged in and started waving it around like a retard. I just think its kind of stupid that he got arrested. Your tax dollers at work folks.


He got arrested because he comitted a felony.   It's akin to the idiots who report their drug dealer for ripping them off on a deal.

Now, the man did not threaten anyone and was reasonable with security from what we know so I hope they go light on him for a stupid mistake.   Dumb mistakes happen.

Now to those talking about forcing states to recognize out of state gun permits: the main hurdle to such a thing is checking eligibility when out of state.    State traffic departments have methods to  check out of state drivers' licenses as each state maintains a database that, by regulation, must be accessible to other police forces (as well as medical and national forces, of course.)   The laws between states for driving vary a lot less than those for gun ownership as well.

The only way to really implement a cross state system for gun permits would be building something only a step below a national registry and that's something the gun rights groups would rally against.
 
2013-07-24 03:22:41 PM  

KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.


As far as I know, a marriage license will not fire a bullet into my chest.

I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.
 
2013-07-24 03:22:45 PM  

Enemabag Jones: any 'Eddie Eagle' PR campaigns are secondary. This is not their main goal, it is only PR for the political wing of their organization.


Secondary?  You can read the annual report of the NRA Foundation.  Seems to me that a cash outlay of $22 million in 2012 for the non-political safety and education programs is pretty significant compared to the $18 million the NRA-ILA spent on the 2012 elections.

Yes, they spent more on the safety stuff than politics.  But you don't *SEE* that unless you're actually someone who shoots.  Everyone can see their TV and print ads, but the only people who see the effects of a grant to a gun range to upgrade their indoor air system or backstop, or to increase the height of their berm, or (as in the case at the range where I'm a member) to pay for a new side berm to help keep bullets from straying off the rifle range are the people who actually *USE* those things.
 
2013-07-24 03:24:26 PM  

dittybopper: compared to the $18 million the NRA-ILA spent on the 2012 elections.


Fark choked on the link:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/cnns-confounding-prediction-n r as-failed-electio/191911
 
2013-07-24 03:26:26 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

Here's the thing, though: If you join, they can't spend any of your membership dues for political lobbying. You have to make a separate donation to the NRA-ILA if you want money to go to the political wing.

So you can be a member of the NRA, and fully support their mission of firearm safety education, and not send them a dime towards the political stuff.


That's very interesting (seriously); thanks for the tip!

Now if they can just stop having nutbar spokespeople like LaPierre...


They will still solicit the living fark out of you for donations to the NRA-ILA, however.  But you don't have to send them the money.

/Member for 3 years back in the mid 1990's.
//Was also a member of the ARRL.
 
2013-07-24 03:27:34 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.

So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.


The discussion was whether a car analogy was appropriate for firearms. spmkk claimed that the purpose of firearms is not to launch bullets at lethal velocities and used this as his counterargument: "The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat." You've agreed that that kind of handwaving does not change what firearms are designed to do.
 
2013-07-24 03:28:03 PM  

mokinokaro: The only way to really implement a cross state system for gun permits would be building something only a step below a national registry


You mean like NICS?
 
2013-07-24 03:28:27 PM  

Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?


Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?
 
2013-07-24 03:28:56 PM  

ideamaster: It is cheaper to throw the gun away, than to risk jail time.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

"But always take the cannoli or the wife'll have your stones."
 
2013-07-24 03:28:58 PM  

dittybopper


Yes, they spent more on the safety stuff than politics. But you don't *SEE* that unless you're actually someone who shoots. Everyone can see their TV and print ads, but the only people who see the effects of a grant to a gun range to upgrade their indoor air system or backstop, or to increase the height of their berm, or (as in the case at the range where I'm a member) to pay for a new side berm to help keep bullets from straying off the rifle range are the people who actually *USE* those things.


Counterpoint: I am someone who shoots but does not do so at any NRA sponsored or funded ranges. I shoot at ranges run by state wildlife management.

It's good the NRA is involved in that stuff, though.
 
2013-07-24 03:33:16 PM  

WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.


Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.
 
2013-07-24 03:33:29 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.

So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.

The discussion was whether a car analogy was appropriate for firearms. spmkk claimed that the purpose of firearms is not to launch bullets at lethal velocities and used this as his counterargument: "The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat." You've agreed that that kind of handwaving does not change what firearms are designed to do.


My point is that "designed purpose" is a red herring. It's utterly meaningless.

What matters is what people do with it.
 
2013-07-24 03:34:20 PM  

fredklein: WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet

at a lethal velocity when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.FTFY
 
2013-07-24 03:37:12 PM  
Isn't this the third or fourth time this has happened in the last year or two?  I swear, this story keeps popping up here.
 
2013-07-24 03:38:20 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.

So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.

The discussion was whether a car analogy was appropriate for firearms. spmkk claimed that the purpose of firearms is not to launch bullets at lethal velocities and used this as his counterargument: "The main purpose of a firearm -- we're talking here about handguns that people carry on their person -- is to protect their owners from threat." You've agreed that that kind of handwaving does not change what firearms are designed to do.

My point is that "designed purpose" is a red herring. It's utterly meaningless.

What matters is what people do with it.


A gunsmith who doesn't think that the designed purpose of a tool is relevant?
So when you have to drive nails, you're totally OK with somebody handing you a hacksaw.
/Good to know.
 
2013-07-24 03:39:47 PM  

fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?


The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof. It does not immediately nullify all gun-related laws of any kind. I am sorry that you were apparently the victim of some accident that caused sufficient TBI for you to believe such a thing.
 
2013-07-24 03:44:20 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are tools designed to launch bullets at high speeds. That is their purpose. They aren't fashion accessories, security blankets, first aid kits, or metaphors.
Somebody going postal and shooting six coworkers with a Glock is using that firearm precisely for its designed purpose.

So farking what?

Somebody who uses a Glock to shoot an attacker intent on murdering them is using it for its designed purpose too. The same goes for someone using it to shoot a paper target at a shooting range.

No matter what the designed purpose of a gun is, you can't get away from the fact that it is incapable of doing anything by itself. It can be used by a person for good or evil (and so can a car) and all the moral responsibility for that use lies with the person using it, not the gun itself.


Any weapon is incapable of acting on its own. For example, C-4 requires a person to operate a detonator. This does not make it any safer or less destructive. You may say, "But only bad men use it for bad purposes." Yet I am glad we have restrictions on explosives. I am sorry you cannot ordinarily walk down to the range and explode targets, but I think it is better that we restrict high grade explosives.
 
2013-07-24 03:48:42 PM  
Agree or disagree with the idea of national CCW reciprocity, but trying to differentiate car licensing from firearm licensing on the premise of design is somewhat silly.

Products are seldom based on the designed intent of the product. More often, regulation is based on hazard/risk presented. Automobiles are HEAVILY regulated because they are, quite frankly, dangerous devices. Likewise, firearms are heavily regulated because they are also dangerous devices. Neither is based on the intent of the design, but rather the reality of their capability. You cannot escape the reality that significantly more people are injured by vehicles than by firearms by simply stating that deaths from automotive crashes are OK because the car wasn't meant to do that (which I might argue with - many cars are designed to be far faster than is safe in most driving scenarios). Those people still died, whether the car and its operator wanted to kill them or not. The hazard is still real and present.

Further, both cars and firearms have federal and state levels of regulation that are capable, and can drastically impact the safety of said vehicle and their use.

Some states limit modifications that can be installed on a vehicle (bumper height limits on trucks, auxiliary lighting that can blind other drivers), while others don't. Some states allow use of a cellphone to call or text, others limit these functions. Some states let you drive 70+ on the highway, others limit you to 55.  Some states don't require vehicle inspections for instance, leading to the possibility of a HIGHLY dangerous vehicle in disrepair. Some states require drivers education, others don't. Some states don't even require you to carry insurance. Any number of these can lead to a car and/or driver freely traveling to other states and endanger its residents, yet drivers licenses are still nationally reciprocal. I honestly think even our best drivers education systems are inadequate and that the vast majority of drivers are given autonomy long before they are capable enough to handle it, but we as a nation are fully on board with a largely variable,nationally reciprocated licensing and automotive regulatory system.

I don't see such a glaring difference between the danger or legal status of this comparison to justify the reactions above to someone comparing these two things.
 
2013-07-24 03:51:25 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: dittybopper

Yes, they spent more on the safety stuff than politics. But you don't *SEE* that unless you're actually someone who shoots. Everyone can see their TV and print ads, but the only people who see the effects of a grant to a gun range to upgrade their indoor air system or backstop, or to increase the height of their berm, or (as in the case at the range where I'm a member) to pay for a new side berm to help keep bullets from straying off the rifle range are the people who actually *USE* those things.


Counterpoint: I am someone who shoots but does not do so at any NRA sponsored or funded ranges. I shoot at ranges run by state wildlife management.

It's good the NRA is involved in that stuff, though.


Look through that document.  It's entirely possible that your state funded range has accepted NRA grants for improvements, upgrades, or youth programs.

For example, in 2012, the NRA gave a grant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Law Enforcement.
 
2013-07-24 03:52:26 PM  

radiumsoup: Well, duh - guns at the Empire State building are more dangerous than guns elsewhere . . . It has nothing to do with self defense, or anything about the training or intent of the person carrying, it's all about how deadly these things become in certain geographic places. What a moron.


Well, in fairness to us New Yorkers, there seems to be a lot of collateral damage when people use guns around the Empire State Building. Granted, that's because the NYPD likes to just shoot wildly until anyone/anything in the vicinity stops moving...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

The gun laws for people visiting New York City are quite simple to understand: you can't bring your gun. End of story. And the people who are authorized to bring guns to NYC (federal agents, etc.) would never have any doubt about it.

But maybe someone can explain to me why people always feel the need to ask where they check their gun when they enter a place. Is states where you can carry do you often need to check a gun at buildings or events?
 
2013-07-24 03:53:30 PM  
iambronco: Regulation ofProducts are seldom based on the designed intent of the product. More often, regulation is based on hazard/risk presented. Automobiles are HEAVILY regulated because they are, quite frankly, dangerous devices. 

Oops
 
2013-07-24 03:53:54 PM  

fredklein: WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.


Dammit, I've been wrong about the main purpose of firearms this whole time.  Tonight I'm going open my beer with a bullet or fire into the air to stop my dog from dragging his ass along the carpet.
 
2013-07-24 03:54:12 PM  

dittybopper: mokinokaro: The only way to really implement a cross state system for gun permits would be building something only a step below a national registry

You mean like NICS?


No, like the NICS should be.
 
2013-07-24 03:54:16 PM  

dittybopper: mokinokaro: The only way to really implement a cross state system for gun permits would be building something only a step below a national registry

You mean like NICS?


NICS has too many holes for this to work.   The system would have to be a lot more indepth in regards to the information it stores to work for this purpose due to how much laws differ between states.

And then each state has to agree on how accommodating they'll be in regards to the rules because there's no way you will get every state to agree to blanket allowances of CCW for anyone from, say, Vermont.   At that point they may as well not have their own rules.

Basically there's no real way to implement it without a massive violation of state rights.
 
2013-07-24 03:56:05 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: A gunsmith who doesn't think that the designed purpose of a tool is relevant?
So when you have to drive nails, you're totally OK with somebody handing you a hacksaw.
/Good to know.


If someone designed a hacksaw that actually performs better as a hammer, I might. ;-)

The designer's intentions don't imbue a tool with any particular anima or mystical purpose. Once it's made a tool can be used in whatever way someone finds it useful without regard to anyone else's prior intentions.

Some tools are better suited to some purposes than others. Some tools can be extremely useful in ways that their designers didn't envision. All tools are dangerous if used foolishly or maliciously.

None of that makes any tool good or evil, wrong or right.
 
2013-07-24 03:57:09 PM  
A dopey Georgia tourist

Cut him some slack.  He saw Death Wish III once and was therefore certain that all of Manhattan was just like that.  Everyone back in Macon warned him not to go.
 
2013-07-24 03:57:17 PM  

mokinokaro: Basically there's no real way to implement it without a massive violation of state rights.


Like an FFL?
 
2013-07-24 03:57:37 PM  

Cork on Fork: Well, in fairness to us New Yorkers, there seems to be a lot of collateral damage when people use guns around the Empire State Building. Granted, that's because the NYPD likes to just shoot wildly until anyone/anything in the vicinity stops moving...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

The gun laws for people visiting New York City are quite simple to understand: you can't bring your gun. End of story. And the people who are authorized to bring guns to NYC (federal agents, etc.) would never have any doubt about it.

But maybe someone can explain to me why people always feel the need to ask where they check their gun when they enter a place. Is states where you can carry do you often need to check a gun at buildings or events?


I know a number of people like this.  They're generally highly informed about the dangers of the world and are convinced that if they don't have a gun they'll be raped in murdered, ESPECIALLY in big cities.  So they need to carry a gun everywhere.
 
2013-07-24 03:57:49 PM  
How many times must I repeat this. NY dose NOT recognize the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-07-24 03:58:45 PM  
dittybopper,
Secondary? You can read the annual report of the NRA Foundation. Seems to me that a cash outlay of $22 million in 2012 for the non-political safety and education programs is pretty significant compared to the $18 million the NRA-ILA spent on the 2012 elections.
Yes, they spent more on the safety stuff than politics. But you don't *SEE* that unless you're actually someone who shoots. Everyone can see their TV and print ads, but the only people who see the effects of a grant to a gun range to upgrade their indoor air system or backstop, or to increase the height of their berm, or (as in the case at the range where I'm a member) to pay for a new side berm to help keep bullets from straying off the rifle range are the people who actually *USE* those things.


I am impressed that the political donations are different then the member donations, given that they endorsed Romney over Obama for what I can see was no good reason other then he was a democrat.

But still almost half goes to politics, I am underwhelmed.

/But it is nice they may keep the social services money away from politics.
 
2013-07-24 03:58:48 PM  

Norgle: I am sorry you cannot ordinarily walk down to the range and explode targets,


Actually I can and do :P
 
2013-07-24 03:58:52 PM  

Cork on Fork: But maybe someone can explain to me why people always feel the need to ask where they check their gun when they enter a place. Is states where you can carry do you often need to check a gun at buildings or events?


In some places, yes.

Hell, you have to do that here in New York in certain circumstances.  I have to relinquish my pocket knife upon entering family court.  Security has always been great about it, and I get it back when I leave, but it got to the point where I'd just leave it in the car to avoid the (very mild) hassle.

/Certified foster parent.
//Goes to family court for all the right reasons.
 
2013-07-24 03:59:08 PM  

Maul555: Coincidentally, this is also a perfectly valid reason to sneer and be an asshole to anyone with NY plates that you might happen to come across...


It's what Christ would have done.
 
2013-07-24 03:59:53 PM  
Has anyone ever noticed what a farking hardon Dittybopitty has for guns?

It's alarming.
 
2013-07-24 04:00:33 PM  
WalkingCarpet: Most people in NYC are perfectly fine with the restrictive carry laws that are in place.

Most democrats in Georgia were perfectly happy with restrictive race laws they had passed.


// majority != right
 
2013-07-24 04:02:21 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: A gunsmith who doesn't think that the designed purpose of a tool is relevant?
So when you have to drive nails, you're totally OK with somebody handing you a hacksaw.
/Good to know.

If someone designed a hacksaw that actually performs better as a hammer, I might. ;-)

The designer's intentions don't imbue a tool with any particular anima or mystical purpose. Once it's made a tool can be used in whatever way someone finds it useful without regard to anyone else's prior intentions.

Some tools are better suited to some purposes than others. Some tools can be extremely useful in ways that their designers didn't envision. All tools are dangerous if used foolishly or maliciously.

None of that makes any tool good or evil, wrong or right.


Fine and dandy, but the purpose of firearms is to kill at a distance, and they are highly suited to that purpose. It's what they were designed to be - highly effective and efficient killing machines.
 
2013-07-24 04:04:18 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: A gunsmith who doesn't think that the designed purpose of a tool is relevant?
So when you have to drive nails, you're totally OK with somebody handing you a hacksaw.
/Good to know.

If someone designed a hacksaw that actually performs better as a hammer, I might. ;-)

The designer's intentions don't imbue a tool with any particular anima or mystical purpose. Once it's made a tool can be used in whatever way someone finds it useful without regard to anyone else's prior intentions.

Some tools are better suited to some purposes than others. Some tools can be extremely useful in ways that their designers didn't envision. All tools are dangerous if used foolishly or maliciously.

None of that makes any tool good or evil, wrong or right.

Fine and dandy, but the purpose of firearms is to kill at a distance, and they are highly suited to that purpose. It's what they were designed to be - highly effective and efficient killing machines.


Whoopty shiat.

They're good for plenty of other things too, and even killing at a distance (or close up, which they do well too) isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 
2013-07-24 04:08:37 PM  
OnlyM3:  Most democrats in Georgia were perfectly happy with restrictive race laws they had passed.

// majority != right


Oh please, let's not turn this into a civil rights issue.

I agree that the majority isn't always right but imho they are right here, your mileage may vary and all that shiat.
 
2013-07-24 04:11:16 PM  

WalkingCarpet: Oh please, let's not turn this into a civil rights issue.


How is the right to keep and bear arms not a civil rights issue?
 
2013-07-24 04:12:47 PM  

mokinokaro: dittybopper: mokinokaro: The only way to really implement a cross state system for gun permits would be building something only a step below a national registry

You mean like NICS?

NICS has too many holes for this to work.   The system would have to be a lot more indepth in regards to the information it stores to work for this purpose due to how much laws differ between states.

And then each state has to agree on how accommodating they'll be in regards to the rules because there's no way you will get every state to agree to blanket allowances of CCW for anyone from, say, Vermont.   At that point they may as well not have their own rules.

Basically there's no real way to implement it without a massive violation of state rights.


What?

It would be pretty simple, really:  States report the following information on valid permits to a central database:

Permit number
Birth date of permit holder (but not name)
Last 4 or 5 digits of their drivers license or state photo ID number.

Cop finds an out-of-state person carrying, he queries the database with those 3 pieces of information.  It will come back as one of four results:

Valid (info matches database, state reports permit is valid)
Invalid (Info doesn't match, say, birthdate is incorrect)
Revoked (Info matches, permit has been revoked)
No Info (Permit isn't in the database).

Pretty simple, really, and names, addresses, and what guns the person owns don't have to be on the federal database.
 
2013-07-24 04:14:37 PM  

JesseL: WalkingCarpet: Oh please, let's not turn this into a civil rights issue.

How is the right to keep and bear arms not a civil rights issue?


You're right it is a civil rights issue, I should have put a finer point on that.

I just don't think it's analogous to the history of segregation laws in the south.
 
2013-07-24 04:15:43 PM  

DirkValentine: Has anyone ever noticed what a farking hardon Dittybopitty has for guns?

It's alarming.


You haven't seen my baby picture yet, have you?

img144.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-24 04:17:43 PM  

WalkingCarpet: Oh please, let's not turn this into a civil rights issue.


Why?  Because that means you'll lose?
 
2013-07-24 04:18:36 PM  

dittybopper: WalkingCarpet: Oh please, let's not turn this into a civil rights issue.

Why?  Because that means you'll lose?


Look up two posts.
 
2013-07-24 04:26:43 PM  

WalkingCarpet: JesseL: WalkingCarpet: Oh please, let's not turn this into a civil rights issue.

How is the right to keep and bear arms not a civil rights issue?

You're right it is a civil rights issue, I should have put a finer point on that.

I just don't think it's analogous to the history of segregation laws in the south.


They may be more related than you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29
 
2013-07-24 04:30:32 PM  

Latinwolf: Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.

Another NY state gun owner trying to pretend that he doesn't know the laws are different in NYC.


I have never owned a gun, actually. Believe it or not, sometimes people post questions in forums that the don't, in fact, already know the answer to, because they are interested in learning about a topic that is being discussed.
 
2013-07-24 04:45:39 PM  

Tommy Moo: I have never owned a gun, actually.


god, you're not in crotchfester, are you?
 
2013-07-24 05:04:28 PM  

dittybopper: Yanks_RSJ: No, the most correct thing a gun owner can do before traveling is to learn the gun laws in the specific area to which he will be traveling.

In NYC, you cannot carry a firearm without a permit issued by the city itself.

Because of the byzantine nature of local, state, and federal laws, along with the fact that some places chose to ignore federal laws about 'safe passage' (I'm looking at you NJ and NYC), what we really need is national reciprocity.

If you have a permit that passes some federal standard on training and background checks issued by your home state, then why not let them carry everywhere it's legal to carry a gun?

Tell you what:  In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?


There are no federal standards on CCW. Obtaining a CCW in Georgia means a) going down to the marriage and pistol license office (no, really, that's a thing) at your country courthouse b) letting them take your fingerprints and giving them $44. If you don't show up with a felony record, and you haven't been involuntarily committed to the nuthouse, they issue the license. No training required.

Utah is just as easy, and you can get that one through the mail regardless of where you live. It has the most reciprocity, iianm.

/I need to get my Georgia CCW renewed, not because I need to carry but because I collect guns and if you have the permit, you don't have to pay for the instant background check when you buy one.
//If you don't work at a liquor store or pawn shop, or as a rent collector, you, personally, do not need to carry.
 
2013-07-24 05:08:58 PM  

Cork on Fork: radiumsoup: Well, duh - guns at the Empire State building are more dangerous than guns elsewhere . . . It has nothing to do with self defense, or anything about the training or intent of the person carrying, it's all about how deadly these things become in certain geographic places. What a moron.

Well, in fairness to us New Yorkers, there seems to be a lot of collateral damage when people use guns around the Empire State Building. Granted, that's because the NYPD likes to just shoot wildly until anyone/anything in the vicinity stops moving...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

The gun laws for people visiting New York City are quite simple to understand: you can't bring your gun. End of story. And the people who are authorized to bring guns to NYC (federal agents, etc.) would never have any doubt about it.

But maybe someone can explain to me why people always feel the need to ask where they check their gun when they enter a place. Is states where you can carry do you often need to check a gun at buildings or events?


Pretty much. They've loosened the law in Georgia (which used to be restrictive to the point of uselessness) to where about the only place you can't carry is a government building. If you're approaching a building with a metal detector, like the state capitol, and tell them you have a weapon, I don't think they'll check it for you, but they will just tell you to go lock it in your car.

I think it's hilarious that the majority of the Georgia legislature thinks everyone needs to walk around armed all the time, but NOT in the gallery of the House and Senate. Texas, at least, doesn't have that hypocrisy.
 
2013-07-24 05:22:25 PM  

mbillips: If you're approaching a building with a metal detector, like the state capitol, and tell them you have a weapon, I don't think they'll check it for you, but they will just tell you to go lock it in your car.


Damn... seems like you wouldn't want people to be leaving loaded handguns in cars like that.

I can understand not wanting people to be armed in government buildings though. Too many reasons for someone to be upset at a legislator or judge or whoever and want to do something stupid. I know that in the federal courthouses here in NYC, even law enforcement has to check their weapons at the entrance (not sure about the state ones). As far as I know the only people who are armed in those buildings are the Marshals providing security.
 
2013-07-24 05:23:08 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Eejits. I was under the impression that if you get to carry a deadly weapon then you accept extra responsibility to ensure that you obey all related laws. Now they've been arrested and if there is any justice will lose the right to carry a gun having now committed a gun related offence.

[penguinssauce.com image 300x157]

[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x240]


All right, settle down Bobby.
 
2013-07-24 05:51:08 PM  

JesseL: WalkingCarpet: JesseL: WalkingCarpet: Oh please, let's not turn this into a civil rights issue.

How is the right to keep and bear arms not a civil rights issue?

You're right it is a civil rights issue, I should have put a finer point on that.

I just don't think it's analogous to the history of segregation laws in the south.

They may be more related than you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29


Maybe but until people start getting lynched for owning guns I'm not sure the "gun owners are being persecuted like blacks were in the south" argument really works.

Look, I own a gun and have a concealed carry permit.  There hasn't been a single law passed or proposed that would ever infringe on that right.  I realize that's my own personal experience and not the same for everyone.  The gun rights movement has won, isn't that clear?  When Congress can't even pass a law for background checks that has upwards of 90% of the public's support, it's time to admit that the gun control debate is essentially over.

I just wish the gun lobby would stop grasping for more, no we don't need guns on college campuses and in bars and no we don't need more guns in NYC.

Having lived in or around NYC my whole life there isn't a single time I have ever thought that I'd feel safer if there were more guns around, especially concealed ones.

What, what the hell are we talking about again?  Jesus, I got lost there.
 
2013-07-24 05:52:40 PM  
Is there any one of the amendments on the Bill of Rights that New Yorkers think being in New York City doesn't constitutes consent to suspend?
 
2013-07-24 06:07:12 PM  

Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.


Obviously you've never really scrutinized the laws of your state and NYC.  New York in general doesn't recognize other state's permits, and NYC doesn't even recognize state permits not issued within the city.  Ergo those people were carrying illegally *in* NYC.  On the other hand, if I remember right these criminal cases tend to not end well for the City; most lawyer up and there's relatively high amounts of support from the NRA and such that *want* a good supreme court case to get NYC gun laws tossed out.

Thunderboy: Tommy Moo: New York does allow for concealed carry with a permit:

Good luck getting one.


In certain areas it's not difficult at all (Grandparents live in Ticonderoga, which fits 'upstate NY'), in others like NYC you'd better be ponying up $$$ to the political campaign funds for various officials.

Yanks_RSJ: however I do not want a city full of armed tourists, regardless of the background checks.


Is that because it'd make you 'feel' less safe, or do you have any evidence that said armed tourists would shoot up the place any more than the current residents with (illegal) handguns do?

LineNoise: Typically if you are clean NYC will also let you plead these down to something that doesn't require jail.


I think this is partially so that they actually make a profit from the fines and such(jail wipes that out very quickly) while wanting the person to plead and get the hell out.  They know that if they *don't* offer good pleas there's every chance the NRA or similar organization(GOA?) will take up their cause and attempt to run it up to the supreme court, and that would be extremely expensive and potentially very bad for their extra control.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Nope. Lots of families have felons and mentally ill members.


Yeah, but I know who the felons(couple cousins) and mentally ill(grandfather, sort of) in my family are.  I think there should also be a 'loan' exemption, and that the check should be free without having to visit a FFL.  Knowingly providing a firearm to a disallowed person should still be a crime.

Englebert Slaptyback: I recall reading somewhere that in the 1950s the NRA was all about teaching firearm safety and (as you mentioned) marksmanship and skill. They were even in favor of reasonable laws concerning firearms.


The transformation was spurred by a previously unprecedented attack on the RKBA, followed by more and more stupid legislation.  Technically speaking the NRA is still in favor of 'reasonable' laws, it's just that their definition of 'reasonable' varies a lot from the gun-grabbers.

poot_rootbeer: "I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire 600 shots or only 599?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a 3D printed AR-16, a homemade hobbyist replica of one of the most influential selective-fire rifle designs in the world, and could blow up in my face, I've got to ask you one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do I, punk?"


*Snerk*.  AR-15, not 16.  Lower receiver = trigger section, not the chamber/barrel that contains the 'boom' of the shot.  You're not going to get 3D printed AR Uppers(barrel, chamber, bolt) until the printers are capable of printing something at least as strong as forged steel.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Can you think of any non-military motor vehicles that are designed for the purpose of killing? Motor vehicles are subject to all kinds of safety, licensing, use, and registration standards at every level of government.


So aren't firearms.  Fire one off in an unsafe manner?  Negligent discharge criminal charge.  Fire one in the City?  Noise ordinance violation.  Carrying w/o a permit is illegal in most states, and you can't hunt in most states unless you're hella old or have taken a hunter's safety class.  In addition you also have background checks and licensing of dealers.
 
2013-07-24 06:47:00 PM  

KelvinTheClown: Remember, gay marriage licenses from state to state will be honored, but your gun permit is not.


You have earned your name!
 
2013-07-24 07:17:11 PM  

vudukungfu: Tommy Moo: I have never owned a gun, actually.

god, you're not in crotchfester, are you?


Trying to leave. Why?
 
2013-07-24 07:53:02 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet at a lethal velocity when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.FTFY


Any velocity can be lethal. A boulder approaching you at 1mph can crush you if you don't get out of the way. So what you added is meaningless.
 
2013-07-24 07:56:31 PM  

way south: In a just world people would be given the benefit of a doubt when they try to make good on an honest mistake.


That's oddly inconsistent with your previous statement that "Inconsistent application of the law is akin to tyranny."
 
2013-07-24 07:56:59 PM  

Cagey B: fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof.

"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.

 
2013-07-24 08:09:20 PM  

fredklein: Cagey B: fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof.

"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.


Is a convicted felon also a person?
 
2013-07-24 08:24:40 PM  

iambronco: Agree or disagree with the idea of national CCW reciprocity, but trying to differentiate car licensing from firearm licensing on the premise of design is somewhat silly.


(snip irrelevant sophistry)

Driving a car is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, so your argument is invalid.
 
2013-07-24 08:31:38 PM  
So this fellow didn't hurt anyone, didn't damage anything, and thought he was doing the right thing? Good thing we ruined his life and made him hate the authorities.
 
2013-07-24 08:32:12 PM  

fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet at a lethal velocity when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.FTFY

Any velocity can be lethal. A boulder approaching you at 1mph can crush you if you don't get out of the way. So what you added is meaningless.


You have an multiple-boulder capacity, handheld, concealable boulder-launcher?
Firearms are killing machines by design.
 
2013-07-24 08:38:28 PM  

fredklein: Cagey B: fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof.

"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Very well.
I'll see your out-of-shape, overweight ass at drill Sunday. Have all your weapons, ammunition, and equipment there and ready for inspection: You will be held to military standards. Expect to be sore.

/Just because the Supremes pulled another Plessy does not mean that you get out of the named responsibility.
 
2013-07-24 09:27:47 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet at a lethal velocity when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.FTFY

Any velocity can be lethal. A boulder approaching you at 1mph can crush you if you don't get out of the way. So what you added is meaningless.

You have an multiple-boulder capacity, handheld, concealable boulder-launcher?
Firearms are killing machines by design.


I'm sure it will come as a great comfort when someone beats you to death with a waffle iron, that it wasn't designed for killing.
 
2013-07-24 09:28:34 PM  

DoctorCal: way south: In a just world people would be given the benefit of a doubt when they try to make good on an honest mistake.

That's oddly inconsistent with your previous statement that "Inconsistent application of the law is akin to tyranny."


More like the consistent application of inconsistent laws from people who think judges should be replaced with flowcharts.
We have criminals who carry illegal weapons with total disregard for authority, yet we punish someone more severely for admitting an error.

In the practical sense the government will spend alot of effort prosecuting people who aren't criminally inclined.
It gives politicians something to brag about, but this doesn't actually help anyone.
 
2013-07-24 09:35:21 PM  

way south: DoctorCal: way south: In a just world people would be given the benefit of a doubt when they try to make good on an honest mistake.

That's oddly inconsistent with your previous statement that "Inconsistent application of the law is akin to tyranny."

More like the consistent application of inconsistent laws from people who think judges should be replaced with flowcharts.
We have criminals who carry illegal weapons with total disregard for authority, yet we punish someone more severely for admitting an error.

In the practical sense the government will spend alot of effort prosecuting people who aren't criminally inclined.
It gives politicians something to brag about, but this doesn't actually help anyone.


And yet, in the past, you have rabidly encouraged it. So strange.
 
2013-07-24 09:54:15 PM  

Cagey B: You can argue reciprocity and how unjust it is that there are any restrictions at all on your ability to be armed all you like. If you seriously think it's a good idea to bring a gun to the Empire State Building, you're a complete f*ckwit, and have no business owning things that require a responsible adult to operate.



I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried off by one
 
2013-07-24 09:55:04 PM  
www.wired.com
Now my last post makes more sense
 
2013-07-24 10:12:19 PM  
I agree with Ditty on this one.

All states should honor other states common-sense gun regulations.
 
2013-07-24 10:13:13 PM  
If he drove from Georgia, it's practically certain he also violated the laws on transporting guns through Maryland. A loaded pistol in the glove compartment there is a free GO TO JAIL card if a cop finds out.
 
2013-07-24 11:36:55 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Eejits. I was under the impression that if you get to carry a deadly weapon then you accept extra responsibility to ensure that you obey all related laws. Now they've been arrested and if there is any justice will lose the right to carry a gun having now committed a gun related offence.


I don't usually come down on the side of the gun-nuts, but...

There are too many laws to know them all.  The old, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a weapon of the elites against the masses.

If the police get to carry guns wherever and whenever they want, so should the citizenry.  There should be no "super citizenry" but this is what police have effectively become, above the law, and usually beyond reproach.

Frankly, I would rather see police be nominated and elected within their communities, with term limits.  It should be a community service, not a career, save for a much smaller group of specialized professionals.  We definitely need something to remind police that they are  and "us" and not "us vs. them" in our society.

Statistics prove you are far more likely to be wrongly shot by a police officer than a gun-toting citizen--regardless of the color of his neck.

The rule should be, "No harm, no foul, you get a warning."  We live in a society where it is easy enough to warn someone and attach it to their record, so there is proof they have been "educated" to a law. Habitual and repeat offenders will be caught and then punishment or fines may indeed be merited.

It is the mark of a totalitarian regime to be able to arrest you for any infractions of the law, regardless of intent.  (Read Silvergate's "Three Felonies a Day")

If you are the one who outs yourself with good intent, one should not be arrested.  One should be warned and directed to immediately correct the situation.  Our laws should not be "gotcha" laws, nor should they be to generate revenue for jail owners, nor used to justify the ever expanding police states.

Arrest should be limited to those showing a clear threat to society.   Merely possessing a weapon is not a threat.  Especially one politely asking if there is a place to store it when they see a sign saying they are not allowed to have one on the premises.

The tourist was obviously not of a "criminal mind"  arrest is completely unnecessary here.   Why we are so excited to spend upwards of $50,000 a year to incarcerate people, but not give children pre-school, students a reasonably priced college education, and have minimum wages of employees liked to maximum wages of capitalists?  We are pretty screwed up about what we spend our tax dollars on.

We arrest far too many people and deny far too many people their liberties in our nation for victimless crimes.  We are no longer the home of the free, but the home of the "Pending detention and incarceration at the whim of arbitrary authority."  Not to mention, home of the heavily taxed to pay for the security/police state.

We can and should do better as a nation.
 
2013-07-24 11:37:01 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper: Tell you what: In the true spirit of compromise, I'd be willing to accept universal background checks for all non-family gun transfers in order to get national reciprocity.

Deal?

No way. You want to take away regulatory power from the local government in exchange for something we're going to get eventually anyway.


I say no way because eventually we'll get national reciprocity, regardless of what metropolitan areas want.
 
2013-07-24 11:51:44 PM  

JesseL: demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: WalkingCarpet: , the main purpose of a firearm is to kill another living being.

Wrong. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet at a lethal velocity when triggered. Where that bullet goes and what happens because of it is up to the user.FTFY

Any velocity can be lethal. A boulder approaching you at 1mph can crush you if you don't get out of the way. So what you added is meaningless.

You have an multiple-boulder capacity, handheld, concealable boulder-launcher?
Firearms are killing machines by design.

I'm sure it will come as a great comfort when someone beats you to death with a waffle iron, that it wasn't designed for killing.


Jesse, you misunderstand me. I have no beef with firearms.
I have a beef with idiots with firearms.
(Bonus points for being untrained, or, worse, trained incorrectly, exhibiting conflict-seeking behavior, immaturity, lacking cognizance that death is permanent, unwillingness to put in the time and effort to keep trained and ready, etc.)

If you aren't keenly aware that you're carrying a deadly weapon and that there are no takesies backsies once you've launched a bullet, you shouldn't touch firearms. (Hell, if you're that unaware, you shouldn't be trusted with rubber spatulas.)

/A waffle iron? Seriously? Who swings a waffle iron?
//Dislocated shoulder or broken elbow.
///Hard-headed and one of many brothers.
 
2013-07-24 11:56:02 PM  

Beowoolfie: If he drove from Georgia, it's practically certain he also violated the laws on transporting guns through Maryland. A loaded pistol in the glove compartment there is a free GO TO JAIL card if a cop finds out.


Indeed. OLLAGO.
 
2013-07-25 12:23:31 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: /A waffle iron? Seriously? Who swings a waffle iron?


i40.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-25 01:18:41 AM  
two reasons to visit NY/NYC - see my son receive his Eagle Scout Award  and see my son graduate high school. Otherwise eff that state and all the others that have similar assine gun laws.
 
2013-07-25 02:38:38 AM  

DoctorCal: fredklein: Cagey B: fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof.

"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.

Is a convicted felon also a person?


Yes. And I believe they should be allowed to own guns. Not while actually IN prison, of course, but after they are released. If they have served their time, they should have the same rights as anyone else. If it's too dangerous for them to have a gun, then they should still be in prison.Oh, and sentences for gunall crimes should be higher.
 
2013-07-25 02:43:34 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Very well.
I'll see your out-of-shape, overweight ass at drill Sunday. Have all your weapons, ammunition, and equipment there and ready for inspection: You will be held to military standards. Expect to be sore.


::sigh:: yet another person who doesn't know what "Militia" means.

A militia is a group of citizens who can, in times of trouble, take up arms to aid their country. Nothing there about being in the military. In fact, it's the opposite- the militia is made of CIVILIANS. So, no "military standards".

And the 2nd clearly states "The Right OF THE PEOPLE", and not "the right of the militia". So the right applies to everyone, not just the military, and not just the militia.
 
2013-07-25 02:50:43 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are killing machines by design.


It's very strange then, that cars, which are not designed to kill (in fact, have many safety features to prevent injuries and deaths) kill just about as many people as guns, (which you claim are specifically designed to kill). If guns were indeed 'designed to kill', whoever designed them did a crappy job.
 
2013-07-25 03:33:29 AM  

fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Very well.
I'll see your out-of-shape, overweight ass at drill Sunday. Have all your weapons, ammunition, and equipment there and ready for inspection: You will be held to military standards. Expect to be sore.


::sigh:: yet another person who doesn't know what "Militia" means.

A militia is a group of citizens who can, in times of trouble, take up arms to aid their country. Nothing there about being in the military. In fact, it's the opposite- the militia is made of CIVILIANS. So, no "military standards".

And the 2nd clearly states "The Right OF THE PEOPLE", and not "the right of the militia". So the right applies to everyone, not just the military, and not just the militia.


I'll tell you what.
After you have read and fully comprehended  this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
Then we can have a nice discussion about what a militia is, what the Constitution says a militia is, how the Founders implemented the Militia, the Regulations prescribed by Congress, who belongs in the Militia, and which kind of military discipline militia members are subject to. (Maybe I ought to assign Virginia's Militia Ordinance, too. (Spoiler: Not showing up to drill gets you fined and flogged.)

Hint: I expect to see your overweight, history-ignorant and fact-bereft, out-of-shape, goat-smelling ass, gear, arms, and ammunition in formation, ready for inspection, and ready to drill Sunday morning at 00:30 right beside the Hoosier upthread. Ensure that you are showered and properly shave before you appear in my formation: You would not enjoy the remedial class on personal hygiene. You will be quizzed on the assigned readings. Your weapons and ammunition must meet the unit armorer's function and cleanliness standards.


fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: Firearms are killing machines by design.

It's very strange then, that cars, which are not designed to kill (in fact, have many safety features to prevent injuries and deaths) kill just about as many people as guns, (which you claim are specifically designed to kill). If guns were indeed 'designed to kill', whoever designed them did a crappy job.


Sure.
Or, and I know this may come as a shock to you, personal vehicles are used much, much more often and extensively than personal firearms are.
 
2013-07-25 06:34:57 AM  
Ah, another example of the great quality of repkrting, we've come to expect from the New York Post.

What a 39 year old man might look like:img.photobucket.com

New York Post: A dopey Georgia tourist thought it would be OK to walk into the Empire State Building with a loaded pistol but was arrested on the spot when he casually asked a security guard if there was somewhere he could store it, cops said.
The 39 year-old Georgia man...


NY Daily News: Evon Allen, 79, who was trying to visit the observation deck, carried the firearm in his backpack, cops said.
The bag was put through a metal detector at a security checkpoint, and the gun triggered the alarm shortly before 6 p.m.
The Georgia man then told security he was carrying a weapon in the bag and said he had a permit, police said.
 
2013-07-25 06:46:25 AM  

Sigh...: I don't usually come down on the side of the gun-nuts, but...There are too many laws to know them all.  The old, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a weapon of the elites against the masses.



Thirty seconds with the Googles.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Click the state that issued your permit. Look at the one you are visiting. If it's blue, your permit is valid there. If it's red, it isn't.

Spoiler: Permits issued in Georgia are not valid in New York.
 
2013-07-25 06:48:39 AM  

Oblio13: So this fellow didn't hurt anyone, didn't damage anything, and thought he was doing the right thing? Good thing we ruined his life and made him hate the authorities.


How are security guards and police supposed to know what he is thinking?
Just take his word for it?
For all you know, he could be a severely mentally ill person, who was planning to randomly fire at the street below.
 
2013-07-25 07:15:26 AM  

Dansker: Oblio13: So this fellow didn't hurt anyone, didn't damage anything, and thought he was doing the right thing? Good thing we ruined his life and made him hate the authorities.

How are security guards and police supposed to know what he is thinking?
Just take his word for it?
For all you know, he could be a severely mentally ill person, who was planning to randomly fire at the street below.


Everyone should be in prison. After all, how do we know what they're thinking? Just take their word for it? They could be mentally ill.
 
2013-07-25 07:34:16 AM  

Oblio13:
Everyone should be in prison. After all, how do we know what they're thinking? Just take their word for it? They could be mentally ill.


Nice strawman.
How do you know that this particular person, who was caught clearly violating a law, thought he was doing the right thing?
Should everybody, who is caught illegally carrying a weapon, be let off as long as they promise they weren't going to use it?
 
2013-07-25 08:02:45 AM  
incawarrior:
I guess they don't want anyone to hijack the building and crash it into an airplane or something.

Yep! Red bandannas all over the place.
 
2013-07-25 08:19:47 AM  

Fano: Tommy Moo: You just get arrested for possession of a legal gun at the Empire State Building? Is this like a NYC law? I live upstate, and you are definitely not simply arrested for having a legal gun with permit on you in public. It sounds like going up to a security guard/cop and informing them that you are carrying, and asking what the policy is for the premises, and if you can leave a gun with someone, is just about the most correct thing you can do in this situation.

This.


But that's not what happened.
It was discovered in his backpack with a metal detector.
 
2013-07-25 08:21:43 AM  

skinink: Just an FYI for you tourists visiting NYC: the New York of Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver and Fort Apache the Bronx hasn't existed in decades. Most tourist areas are safe and in Times Square there's a big old police substation.


Everything I know about New York, I learned from The Warriors.
 
2013-07-25 08:32:01 AM  

fredklein: DoctorCal: fredklein: Cagey B: fredklein: Skanque: Are you completely naive? You live in upstate NY and you don't know about the really strict gun laws in NYC?

Are you completely naive? You live in The United States and you don't know about the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment, even under the most recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, does not entitle a person to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access to all weapons or the use thereof.

"the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.

Is a convicted felon also a person?

Yes. And I believe they should be allowed to own guns. Not while actually IN prison, of course, but after they are released. If they have served their time, they should have the same rights as anyone else. If it's too dangerous for them to have a gun, then they should still be in prison.Oh, and sentences for gunall crimes should be higher.


Well, good on you for being consistent. I won't claim I agree, though.
 
2013-07-25 11:51:19 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Very well.
I'll see your out-of-shape, overweight ass at drill Sunday. Have all your weapons, ammunition, and equipment there and ready for inspection: You will be held to military standards. Expect to be sore.


::sigh:: yet another person who doesn't know what "Militia" means.

A militia is a group of citizens who can, in times of trouble, take up arms to aid their country. Nothing there about being in the military. In fact, it's the opposite- the militia is made of CIVILIANS. So, no "military standards".

And the 2nd clearly states "The Right OF THE PEOPLE", and not "the right of the militia". So the right applies to everyone, not just the military, and not just the militia.

I'll tell you what.
After you have read and fully comprehended  this.


Article VI. No State, without the consent of the united States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility,,,.

Um, okay...

And this.


Chapter 1
The arms and accoutrements of the officers, non-commoffioned officers, and foldiers, fhould be uniform throughout.
The officers who exercife their functions on horfeback, are to be armed with fwords, the platoon officers with fwords and efpontoons, the non-commiffioned officers with fwords, firelocks and bayonets, and the soldiers with firelocks and bayonets.


I'll be sure to bring my fword when I report on horfeback. ::eyeroll::

And this.


(Clause 16 - The Militia)

[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


So, they can call me up. But they have to arm me (kinda hard to arm me if I can't keep or bear arms, eh?), and they have to pay me. Until they do that, I don't need to meet 'military standards'.

And this.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war

Pay me, or shut up about my having to meet military standards.

Then we can have a nice discussion about what a militia is, what the Constitution says a militia is, how the Founders implemented the Militia, the Regulations prescribed by Congress, who belongs in the Militia, and which kind of military discipline militia members are subject to. (Maybe I ought to assign Virginia's Militia Ordinance, too. (Spoiler: Not showing up to drill gets you fined and flogged.)

So, do I need to wear my 'fword' to get my Cakes and Ale?
 
2013-07-25 11:54:19 AM  

Dansker: How do you know that this particular person, who was caught clearly violating a law, thought he was doing the right thing?


EVERYONE violates laws.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
 
2013-07-25 11:57:03 AM  

DoctorCal: Well, good on you for being consistent. I won't claim I agree, though.


Look at my post above this one- EVERYONE is guilty of breaking the law. Felonies, even. Thus, you think NO ONE should have a gun?? Or just the unlucky one who get caught?
 
2013-07-25 12:32:32 PM  
fredklein: //weasel words //

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

VII.  And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.

See you Sunday. Better get cracking on acquiring a musket: The armorer is a really demanding SOB.
 
2013-07-25 12:37:02 PM  

fredklein: That the militia employed in the service of the United States


You haven't been called to active federal duty.

fredklein: So, do I need to wear my 'fword' to get my Cakes and Ale?


A whiner is never officer - commissioned, warrant, or non - material.

fredklein: But they have to arm me


Nope. You have to arm yourself, citizen private. (Yes, the word order is correct.)

fredklein: I'll be sure to bring my fword when I report on horfeback. ::eyeroll::


You're infantry. Untrained infantry, at that. (Everybody is infantry.)
 
2013-07-25 12:46:07 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I agree with Ditty on this one.

All states should honor other states common-sense gun regulations.


Part of me really wants to agree with you, but neither side on the gun control issue want that to happen:

The pro-gun lobby would decry it as smacking of over-reaching federalism (AKA KENYAN SOSHULIZM!),
while the anti-gun lobby would rightfully fear that it would undermine existing regulations because such a
scheme would undermine existing laws elsewhere like NY's Sullivan Law (which is what I'm sure the tourist
was booked on).

Personally, I favor keeping military-grade weaponry out of the hands of civilians even as I recognize that
the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment as a back-stop check-and-balance against Federal tyranny have
some validity, even if the people who often make those interpretations tend to need to wear cups at the
side of their mouths to catch the drool that come out.
 
2013-07-25 12:49:01 PM  

fredklein: Dansker: How do you know that this particular person, who was caught clearly violating a law, thought he was doing the right thing?

EVERYONE violates laws.


And if you get caught, you can't get out of it by saying you weren't going to break more laws.
 
2013-07-25 05:18:34 PM  

fredklein: DoctorCal: Well, good on you for being consistent. I won't claim I agree, though.

Look at my post above this one- EVERYONE is guilty of breaking the law. Felonies, even. Thus, you think NO ONE should have a gun?? Or just the unlucky one who get caught?


I am guilty of none of these.
 
2013-07-25 05:18:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: That the militia employed in the service of the United States

You haven't been called to active federal duty.


Exactly- so I don't have to meet 'military standards'!

fredklein: But they have to arm me

Nope. You have to arm yourself, citizen private. (Yes, the word order is correct.)


"[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

Congress has the power to arm the militia.
 
2013-07-25 05:21:17 PM  

Dansker: fredklein: Dansker: How do you know that this particular person, who was caught clearly violating a law, thought he was doing the right thing?

EVERYONE violates laws.

And if you get caught, you can't get out of it by saying you weren't going to break more laws.


The point (which you evidently missed) is that, since literally EVERYONE breaks the laws, therefore, NO ONE should be armed. That is, if you truly believe that lawbreakers shouldn't have guns.
 
2013-07-25 05:26:41 PM  

fredklein: demaL-demaL-yeH: fredklein: That the militia employed in the service of the United States

You haven't been called to active federal duty.

Exactly- so I don't have to meet 'military standards'!


So you're deliberately remaining unfit for duty? Malingering will get you three to five in Kansas at hard labor.     

fredklein: But they have to arm me

Nope. You have to arm yourself, citizen private. (Yes, the word order is correct.)

"[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"
Congress has the power to arm the militia.


Congress did provide for it, and even exempted your arms and accoutrements from bankruptcy seizure. Are you claiming poverty?
 
2013-07-25 05:28:38 PM  

Thunderboy: fredklein: DoctorCal: Well, good on you for being consistent. I won't claim I agree, though.

Look at my post above this one- EVERYONE is guilty of breaking the law. Felonies, even. Thus, you think NO ONE should have a gun?? Or just the unlucky one who get caught?

I am guilty of none of these.


You ARE guilty of something. For instance, there's a law that says you must obey the laws of every other country. Do you make your wife wear a burka? Then you violate the laws of several middle-eastern countries!
Also, even ignoring the foreign laws, I find it hard to believe you have NEVER in your entire life set a single foot onto someone's property without getting formal permission to do so. (aka: trespassing) I also find it incredibly difficult to believe you have never assaulted someone. Ever tap someone on the shoulder to get their attention? Battery! Ever raise your voice? Noise ordinance violation, and possibly assault, depending on what you said.Step out onto the street without a green 'walk'; light? Jaywalking! Etc., Etc., Etc.
 
2013-07-25 05:44:12 PM  

fredklein: "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.


Hint:  Keeping and Bearing are both, by general use by gunnies, not 'using'.  That's actually firing the weapon.  Otherwise you're just keeping it and/or hauling it around.

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll tell you what.
After you have read and fully comprehended this.


Yeah, no true scotsman, huh.
1.  Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect.
2.  Not sure what obsolete military doctrine has to do with advancing your point, whatever it is.
3.  Blocked by the proxy at work(blog).  Sorry
4.  Core point here is that every able-bodied male citizen is part of the militia; the definition has expanded since then.  Also, you're expected to provide personal arms and at least a limited amount of ammunition for same.  I think an updated version would be to require everybody to have at least a semi-automatic rifle, and preferably a full up M-4/16 'just in case'.

I'll keep your reading list short:
1.  Second Amendment
2.  10 usc chapter 13.

The first, by using 'the people' in the wording, makes the second part irrelevant.  With a plain English reading of the 2nd, the militia and 'free state' part is simply an explanatory or declaratory part, while the second part (the right of the people...) is directive in it's 'shall not be infringed'.  I'll grant that a legalese reading of the 2nd not only enables the federal government to regulate the militia, it practically mandates it encouraging effective militias.  It does actually have programs - it's part of the justification for fitness programs in schools, the 'Civilian Marksmanship Program' that offers obsolete military rifles(only semi-autos) at reduced prices, etc...
 
2013-07-25 08:53:13 PM  

Firethorn: fredklein: "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds to me like it DOES entitle a person (a member of "the People") to complete, unlimited and untrammeled access ("shall not be infringed") to all weapons or the use thereof.

Hint:  Keeping and Bearing are both, by general use by gunnies, not 'using'.  That's actually firing the weapon.  Otherwise you're just keeping it and/or hauling it around.


But one cannot USE what one cannot KEEP or BEAR. KEEPING and BEARING are mentioned plainly for the purpose of USING, if necessary.
 
2013-07-25 09:09:24 PM  

fredklein: But one cannot USE what one cannot KEEP or BEAR. KEEPING and BEARING are mentioned plainly for the purpose of USING, if necessary.


The constitution says 'keep and bear' can't be infringed.  That doesn't mean that you can't have plenty of rules on firing them.  BIG difference.

They have to give you access, ability to buy and what not.  They don't have to let you use, IE fire it, outside of serious constraints.  My limits - can't fire outside of a range during open hours(feel free to set up your own range), hunting, or self defense.
 
2013-07-25 11:45:05 PM  

fredklein: You ARE guilty of something. For instance, there's a law that says you must obey the laws of every other country. Do you make your wife wear a burka? Then you violate the laws of several middle-eastern countries!


/citationneeded.jpg

Anyway, you are overlooking the main point - it's not about breaking the law, it's about being caught.

fredklein: Dansker: How do you know that this particular person, who was caught clearly violating a law, thought he was doing the right thing?

EVERYONE violates laws.

 
Displayed 235 of 235 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report