Tyranny at work in NYC.

[tskin]

Sorry if this is a repost, but I didn't see it anywhere. I have no idea why anyone would live in this freaking city.

Bad Driver? In Debt? Proposed NYC Law Would Ban You From Owning a Gun - FoxNews.com

 

[MACHINEGUN]

"Shall not be infringed".. yeah, right!

 

[rambone]

There are already plenty of INGOers who think that way. Smoke pot? Lawn isn't mowed? No guns for you!

 

[littletommy]

That list will just keep growing, until EVERYTHING is on the "no go" list. **** poor attempt by gun grabbers to make the streets "safer", but the losers that keep electing these ****heads can't figure out why their lives get more miserable with each passing day. Ef em', ef em' all, they deserve what they get for letting these people get the upper hand in the first place. Just another reason on the long list to NEVER visit that bull****, ass crack of a city.

 

[rmabrey]

I thought this said "Tranny at work" upon first glance. Wasnt till I checked to see if Printcraft started the thread that i realized what it said

 

[Vlad the Impaler]

Last I checked the Federal Govenment and the State Govenments excersising the highest levels of gun control are heavily in debt. Their agencies should be relieved of their firearms and defunded to attempt to put them in good standing. When they can demonstrate proper fiscal responsibility the people will allow them to be armed again.

 

[tv1217]

I thought this said "Tranny at work" upon first glance. Wasnt till I checked to see if Printcraft started the thread that i realized what it said

That's how I read it at first too.



Regarding the article, this quote pissed me off the most:

"Child support, taxes, fines and governmental penalties I think are legitimate things. Basically, if someone's not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that's usually a sign that you can't trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun," he said.

To me that's the same thing as saying:

"Basically, if someone's not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that's usually a sign that you can't trust them to write a book or go to church"

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's how I read it at first too.



Regarding the article, this quote pissed me off the most:

"Child support, taxes, fines and governmental penalties I think are legitimate things. Basically, if someone's not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that's usually a sign that you can't trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun," he said.

To me that's the same thing as saying:

"Basically, if someone's not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that's usually a sign that you can't trust them to write a book or go to church"

Here's a question I've suggested before, but no one to my knowledge has ever asked Helmke:

What restriction on gun ownership would you not consider reasonable? (and/or)
What gun would you consider not in need of some form of government control?

He always says any restriction he sees is "reasonable" and, as he said here, that anyone suggesting that restrictions go too far is "stretching it". I want to hear what he thinks are unreasonable restrictions, not that I'd give it any credence. I want to put him on the spot to define a point that would be "too far". Where does he think the restriction of "shall not be infringed" ends and "reasonable restrictions" begins?

As for why people would live in that *feces*-hole? Entertainment, business, proximity to "where things happen"... heck, some of them think the laws are too lax, as this article demonstrates. I think they're out of their minds, but it's their choice. They just have to take the crap that goes with the perceived "benefits".

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ultraspec]

Cant wait to see someone sue Bloomberg and NY state. Instant win for gun owners in that state if someone steps up and does it

 

[jackoctober]

This has got to be the most pointless and moronic idea I've ever heard. I cannot believe adult minds come up with this crap.

 

[Mike_M]

To me, logically, if someone has a bad driving record, the first thing taken has to be the driver's license. Anything else is blatant abuse.

I just hope the rumors about Bloomberg becoming head of ATF are false........

 

[Love the 1911]

If anyone thinks this is new territory for "gun control", be happy that you live in Indiana. Being a shall-issue state, there is no subjective control who is allowed to receive a permit, meet criteria a,b,c, etc., and get your permit. In states that are may-issue, the local official, whether sheriff, police chief, etc., can decide if he wants you to have a permit. You can have have a squeaky clean criminal history, driving record, and a credit score of 1,000,000 and because you screwed the sheriff's daughter, you won't be able to get a permit in those states.

 

[ocsdor]

...and because you screwed the sheriff's daughter...

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

If anyone thinks this is new territory for "gun control", be happy that you live in Indiana. Being a shall-issue state, there is no subjective control who is allowed to receive a permit, meet criteria a,b,c, etc., and get your permit. In states that are may-issue, the local official, whether sheriff, police chief, etc., can decide if he wants you to have a permit. You can have have a squeaky clean criminal history, driving record, and a credit score of 1,000,000 and because you screwed the sheriff's daughter, you won't be able to get a permit in those states.

Before you go too far with that thought... While Indiana is Shall Issue, a resident needs the Chief Leo's chop (recommendation) as part of the package sent to the ISP to obtain an LTCH. While I was never denied a four-year LTCH before I obtained my lifetime LTCH, I have encountered a Town Chief of Police where I lived for a few years that did not recommend anyone to the ISP for an LTCH unless they were politically connected in the town. It didn't negatively affect any town resident that I have knowledge of, as anyone from that town that I know applied for an LTCH that was qualified received one.

The CLEO also delayed people in applying for the LTCH by supplying outdated packages (wrong paperwork) to residents, costing them time. He also claimed to be "out of packages", forcing residents to wait whatever time he determined (weeks to two months is the longest I personally heard) before "finding them in another drawer" to give to the person.

My overall point is that, while no one that I know of was denied because of the CLEO's negative recommendation, the CLEO delayed the paperwork as long as he could before sending it to the ISP with his recommendation not to issue to that person. While never outright denying a town resident the ability to apply for an LTCH, he sure made it a difficult process for many.

Complaints to the Town Board fell on deaf ears.

 

[Wink and the Gun]

All it will take is one of the conservative Supreme Court justices stepping down (or having a heart attack, stroke, etc) and being replaced by another Obama appointee for stuff like this to become acceptable in the eyes of the government. The DC and Chicago gun laws were overturned by a 5-4 majority...a one justice swing the other way will have the liberals falling over themselves to enact more and more stuff like this.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Before you go too far with that thought... While Indiana is Shall Issue, a resident needs the Chief Leo's chop (recommendation) as part of the package sent to the ISP to obtain an LTCH. While I was never denied a four-year LTCH before I obtained my lifetime LTCH, I have encountered a Town Chief of Police where I lived for a few years that did not recommend anyone to the ISP for an LTCH unless they were politically connected in the town. It didn't negatively affect any town resident that I have knowledge of, as anyone from that town that I know applied for an LTCH that was qualified received one.

The CLEO also delayed people in applying for the LTCH by supplying outdated packages (wrong paperwork) to residents, costing them time. He also claimed to be "out of packages", forcing residents to wait whatever time he determined (weeks to two months is the longest I personally heard) before "finding them in another drawer" to give to the person.

My overall point is that, while no one that I know of was denied because of the CLEO's negative recommendation, the CLEO delayed the paperwork as long as he could before sending it to the ISP with his recommendation not to issue to that person. While never outright denying a town resident the ability to apply for an LTCH, he sure made it a difficult process for many.

Complaints to the Town Board fell on deaf ears.

Did anyone complain to ISP?

When Jim Tomes heard about Evansville PD requiring applicants for a LTCH to be photographed for the application, he responded to the request for help in 2009. IIRC, he made a couple of phone calls which resulted in him being angrily hung up on by whichever office worker/clerk answered his calls, so he made an appointment and was told (surprise surprise) "What, that? Oh, that's just voluntary.... Anyone can refuse to have their picture taken." (That's a paraphrase, not a direct quote.) So he wrote to ISP and told them what was happening. Lo and behold, the practice was quickly ended.

Town boards don't help much in a "good ol' boy" town. ISP has a few more tools at their disposal and if needed, is not shy about using them.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[thompal]

That's how I read it at first too.



Regarding the article, this quote pissed me off the most:

"Child support, taxes, fines and governmental penalties I think are legitimate things. Basically, if someone's not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that's usually a sign that you can't trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun," he said.

To me that's the same thing as saying:

"Basically, if someone's not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that's usually a sign that you can't trust them to write a book or go to church"

How about "If someone didn't get good enough grades in school, and speak English, then they are too stupid to vote."

 

[rfontes]

sorry, i thought it said tranny at work. wait, who said that..

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Did anyone complain to ISP?

Not to my knowledge, no, no one complained. I was young, just out of the military and newly married with a baby on the way. I also didn't know the law and there was no INGO to turn to for help!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not to my knowledge, no, no one complained. I was young, just out of the military and newly married with a baby on the way. I also didn't know the law and there was no INGO to turn to for help!

Sorry, though the answer was to your post, it was more of a rhetorical nature so that others in the future can follow the example that wasn't there for you to follow at the time. Thanks for providing the springboard for me to use to present it.

Blessings,
Bill