Can anything be done about NYC's draconian gun laws?

[Ter]

Voting the anti-gunners out doesn't appear to be an option, so how about legal action in the courts?

[movonne]

1. How do you want to change things????

[Ter]

8. Through the courts

The SC striking down our illegal laws would be a start.

[Cassandra]

2. Why?

[Jackson1999]

4. Because in NYC

You can only get a gun if you are wealthy or white enough.

[Cassandra]

5. There's no shortage of guns in NYC.

Did you mean legal handguns. What for?

[bossy22]

6. what for?

for hunting, target shooting, home defense....etc. (btw we are talking about legal guns). NYC allows Handgun ownership its just that the licensing process is overly-strict and enforced unfairly. It takes up to 16 months sometimes before you are issued a license. They will also revoke such license for such things as getting a speeding ticket. Do you think thats fair?

NYC wants to have gun control- fine...but there is a way to go about doing it without infringing on peoples rights- or treating them like dirt (in which the licensing board does)

imagine that your driver's license got revoked everytime you get a parking ticket for an expired meter

[Cassandra]

14. Most people I know who hunt...

have a rifle and they use it outside of the city (is there anything to hunt in the outer boroughs?). Is there target shooting in NYC and how would you take the gun there? On the subway?
Home defense? I've lived here all my life (with 6 years off for college and grad school) and never felt the need for a gun (except to pop some asshole whose car alarm has gone off at 3am).
I will agree that once you have a permit, you shouldn't lose it for just a speeding ticket (although that may be justified in some cases).

[PavePusher]

20. Yes, there is target shooting in NYC:

Search "New York City, shooting range".

What would be the problem with transporting legal firearms on the subway?

I am sure there are people who live in NYC, but like to get out of town to go hunting. This seems improbable to you? Hmmm...

You may not need a firearm for self defense, but I will note that NYC does not have zero crime...

[Cassandra]

35. Did you read my post?

I said I know hunters in the city who hunt outside the city. Not improbable at all and I'm fine with it. I don't think automatic weapons are appropriate for hunting (I believe in giving the animal a sporting chance) but the Northeast has an excess of deer, so be my guest.
Some people do need weapons for self-defense and some people have the same psychological state as neo-cons; they don't feel safe no matter what, regardless that the danger may be minor, and they would be the first to whip out that gun on any pretext. That's the type of person I'm worried about.
BTW, I'm a jeweler and I know other jewelers who walk around their offices with a (legal) gun on their hip. However, most of the robberies of jewelry manufacturers (upstairs offices in high-rises) have been inside jobs with automatic weapons. A handgun, even if you can reach for it, just doesn't cut it there.

[SteveM]

39. Respectfully, I would like to point out some errors and misconceptions...

"I don't think automatic weapons are appropriate for hunting (I believe in giving the animal a sporting chance)..."
(1) Automatic weapons are already strictly regulated since 1935, and at any rate are forbidden for hunting. I do not believe you will find ANY record of automatic weapons being used for hunting. There are SEMI-automatic rifles/shotguns used for hunting, weapons which have utilized for over a century.

(2) This notion of a "sporting chance" is a very curious one. Which would you have folks utilize when hunting deer? A short-range muzzle-loading musket or a modern-era Remington 742, a semi-automatic which can be purchased in .30-06? If you were to shoot the deer (and actually hit it) with a musket, the result might give pause to your idea of sporting. I find it curious when a rifle or slug shotgun will put down a deer quickly, and thereby render it more likely to be recovered, that some haughty notion of "sport" is imposed that would INCREASE the likelihood a wounded and unrecovered deer, left to die slowly. THIS is why some hunters use a semi-automatic weapon: it increases the likelihood of downing and recovering a deer by using a quick follow-up shot.

(3) You seem to impose a politically charged version of parlor psychology, easily abused by politically-motivated police authorities. The "maybe I will; maybe I won't" method of license issuance is precisely the method (among others) used in the Jim Crow South for voter registration as well as gun-ownership. The method is rife with corruption and abuse.

(4) "However, most of the robberies of jewelry manufacturers... have been inside jobs with automatic weapons. A handgun, even if you can reach it, just doesn't cut it there." Believe me, if these "insiders" were using 'AUTOMATIC' weapons, we would be hearing about it on the national news. I'll stand by this: you will see more crime involving the discharge of AUTOMATIC weapons on CSI: MIAMI in one week than you will see in real life in this country in five YEARS. You may be confusing AUTOMATIC with SEMI-AUTOMATIC; if you are, then the "gun on their hip" is likely to be a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon as well, and probably a match for the crims' weaponry.

[PavePusher]

43. "Automatic weapons"?

What are you talking about?

P.S. I think Steve nailed it.

[Jackson1999]

24. I lived in NYC

And I hunted. I couldn't keep a gun there, however. It is bogus. And who has the right to say what reasons are "good enough"?

[bossy22]

46. i know plenty of people

who hunt with a handgun. I also know of a good many shooting clubs in the city (and yes you can transport your handgun on the subway as long as you have a locked box- that is according to NYPD regs)

[Ter]

9. Because I can't get a gun

And if I could, I don't want to wait a ridiculous 6 months for a permit. Even then, I still won't be able to get a carry permit or a semi-auto rifle. I have no criminal record either.

[Cassandra]

11. What do you need a gun for in NY?

[rd_kent]

12. Could you BE more obtuse?

[57_TomCat]

17. What does "NEED" have to do with it?

Original Message Posted by Cassandra
What do you need a gun for in NY?



I do not drive a nice car because I need a nice car. I have a nice car because I want one. I do not need a gun. The government provides me with one to do my job. I like guns and collect guns and compete with guns and I want guns so I buy them and use them responsibly. Need has nothing to do with it.

As for needing one...when I lived in the City back in the 70's I needed one several times and suffered injuries as a result of not having one. Street crime was a serious problem back then and there never seemed to be a cop nearby when it happened.

The NYC pistol laws are an abomination.

[Cassandra]

19. NYC is much safer than it was in the 70s...

which I can attest to as my family moved from the Bronx into Manhattan in 1970. My brother was mugged twice back then at gunpoint but he was on the subway at 4 in the morning (there were fewer people working a late shift back then).
I have neither car nor gun and don't feel the desire to caress either to make myself feel good. (I collect dishes).
You may be the most responsible gun owner on Earth but the law wouldn't only be for you.

[rd_kent]

27. You keep dancing around the obvious, because it doesnt fit your narrow minded view.

[Euromutt]

29. ... when the same laws were already in force

The law hasn't changed significantly since the 1970s, so you can't credit it with any improvement in the crime rate.

And being committed to freedom means allowing other people to do stuff they want (not need, want), provided it neither picks anyone's pocket or breaks anyone's leg (to paraphrase Jefferson), even if you don't see the attraction of that activity. Nobody needs to engage in BDSM or sky-dive, but that isn't a valid reason to prohibit it.

[Glassunion]

30. Your right.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

I mean surely if these words can come from one of our presidents, they must be right? Let's limit speech, let's remove the security of certain individuals to be free from search and seizure of their homes and personal effects. If you know the government can kick in your door at any moment, would you not be a better citizen?

Right? Come on who's with me?

:sarcasm:

[bossy22]

49. thats all well and good

its great that you feel safe, but others don't. And being a new yorker myself i can tell you there is still a good amount of crime in the city (much less than in previous years but still). If you don't want to own a handgun, fine, you have a right not to. But i should be allowed to make the choice for myself- maybe i don't live in a safe neighborhood (which there are those still around in new york).

Your reasoning is silly- you are basically saying "since i don't need one, no one needs one". Everyone is different; everyone has different beliefs, feelings, and values.

[Euromutt]

51. It's worse than that

The argument essentially boils down to "since I don't want one, nobody needs one."

And of course, even the NYPD licensing department can be convinced that certain people supposedly need to carry a firearm in NYC, like Donald Trump, Robert de Niro, Steve Tyler and Joe Perry, Arthur Sulzberger, Don Imus, etc.

[Ter]

33. For whatever reason I want it for

It's not the city's, state's, or federal government's business, nor anyone's but mine.

[rd_kent]

13. Because its a CIVIL RIGHT!

Does there need to be any other reason?

[Cassandra]

15. In a city this crowded...

where people can get set off by being irritated for the 6th time in one day, yes, there needs to be another reason other than your right to carry a gun. In this city, having a gun is a right that wouldn't stay civil for very long.
BTW, your agitation over this issue makes me wonder if you are a good bet for a carry permit.

[rd_kent]

16. Agitation, huh? Perhaps you should look in a mirror and study the FACTS

instead of relying on your obviously misleading "feelings" about this subject.


There needs to be only ONE reason, and one reason alone, as to why someone needs to carry a gun....here it is.. ready for it... wait...wait.



Because it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The Second Amendment of the Constitution.


We already have laws in place to keep those LEGALLY disqualified from owning a gun. We do not need, nor are they Constitutional, laws that impede or prevent citizens from owning and carrying a gun. Legal adults are responsible fro their actions and the use of things they have in their control.

I submit that car is thousands of times MORE DANGEROUS that a gun will ever be, and yet there is barely a speed bump (no pun intended) to keep such a magnificently dangerous object out of the hands of the general public.

I agree with background checks, and if a person if found to be legally qualified to own a gun, then the government has no right whatsoever to prevent that person form obtaining one, whether it is in NYC of BFE.




Agitation on this issue only comes from people like YOU, that cannot grasp the reality of the situation, unable to accept the FACTS of the matter. Your reasons for wanting to keep guns out of the hands of those legally allowed to own them will do NOTHING, zip, NADA, to curb the "gun violence" you so plainly abhor.


So the next time you spew one of your ignorant claims, based in emotion, perhaps you will understand that it is YOU who are the AGITATOR.

[Cassandra]

18. Given your response...

I hope you never get a gun because I would feel less than safe around you. Your level of aggression in your response makes you sound like a scared five year old. I'm a woman, a native NYer, I go all over Manhattan and make forays into other boroughs (without being stupid as to timing and location)and I'm not scared. I'd be more scared of those who think they NEED, WANT, ARE ENTITLED TO, HAVE A CIVIL RIGHT TO OWN a gun. When you wave it around on the subway someday, I hope I'm not there.

[PavePusher]

22. Heck, you don't really NEED that Right to vote...

you just kind of like it...

You don't NEED that Right to free speech, you should have to demonstrate some sort of requirement like work, government service, etc.

And where's your permit, that took over a year and a few thousand dollars to procure, for that exemption from warrentless searches?



See where this goes?

[rd_kent]

25. Even when presented with a rational argument based in FACT, you are unable to respond in kind.

I hope you never get a gun because I would feel less than safe around you

More emotional and irrational response. If you think you can obtain that I am somehow dangerous to be around from an internet post, then you really do not see how misguided and emotionally absurd you really are. I submit that it is YOU, who seems to live in this fantasy world where facts make no different, where emotion and feelings rule, are much more dangerous that I ever will be. People like you, that make decisions based on an emotional response are the ones that go on mass murder sprees.


Your posts are all emotionally motivated and have no place in a rational, factual discussion. Until you are able to bring actual facts and substance to the table, then I am wasting time even trying to argue with you.

[rrneck]

28. You have already admitted

there are places it would be stupid to go. Do you plan to ever venture into those places to stop an assault by an unarmed assailant, or do you just prefer to ignore the innocent inhabitants of those places?

If you don't plan to stop those crimes yourself, do you have a way to insure that those people who are brutalized by an assailant armed with a knife, club, fists or feet to defend themselves?

[PavePusher]

21. Ah! Another adherent to the premise...

that Civil Rights are dependent on geography.

I suppose it's still O.K. to own slaves south of the Mason-Dixon Line, yes?

Fail.

[X_Digger]

23. In a crowded city..

.. do you really need the ability to protest? It clogs up the streets and is a menace to traffic.. :sarcasm:

Seriously, though, there is no Department of Need that determines whether or not one should be able to exercise their fundamental civil rights. Abridgment of rights should follow a constitutional standard (*hint, need isn't part of it*)

For an abridgment of a right to stand up under strict scrutiny, it-
1. Must serve a compelling government interest
2. Must be narrowly tailored
3. Must be the least restrictive means to achieve #1.

[Cassandra]

36. Protesting in NYC requires a permit...

if there are enough people involved. It is a much easier permit to get than one for a gun.

[Callisto32]

37. Requiring a permit for peaceable assembly is just as abhorrent.

However easy it is is not the point. If you have to ask permission, it is not a right.

[X_Digger]

38. What density of people (making me gag to even ask this)..

.. what density of people would you require before throwing out the fourth amendment? (oh wait, NYC already did that- http://gothamist.com/2009/05/01/cops_will_now_stop_and_frisk_and_ex.php )

"According to the NYPD's records, cops stopped, frisked and searched 531,159 New Yorkers last year, up from 468,732 in 2007 and 315,483. In 2008, 51 percent of people stopped by police were black, 32 percent were Latino, and 11 percent were white. And 88 percent were totally innocent and sent on their way."

.. what density of people would you require before throwing out the sixth amendment? (oh wait, there you went again.. http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2009/02/new-yorks-highest-court-rejects-again-sixth-amendment-challenge-to-its-persistent-felony-offfender-l.html)

"In Portalatin, Judge Gleeson concluded that the Supreme Court's work in Cunningham confirmed the unconstitutionality of New York's law. But in Quinones the New York Court of Appeals reads Cunningham and Ice to confirm its prior conclusion that there are no constitutional problems with New York's sentencing structure. Assuming the defendant in Quinones seeks cert., it is interesting to speculate as to whether this state/federal split of authority might lead the Justices to make yet another trip into the crazy mixed-up world that is Apprendi-land."

[spin]

26. So New York City is inhabited by irritable people who will fly off the handle ...

at any minor excuse and therefore can't be trusted with firearms.

I've heard rumors about the residents of NYC and some people that I've known from that city have indeed impressed me as total assholes.

However, you are insinuating that honest New York City residents are far more angry and violent then the residents of many other large cities in the United States who do legally own firearms and have "shall issue" concealed carry licenses.

For example the fifth largest city in the U.S is Phoenix, Arizona. What are the firearm laws in this city and state?

Rifles and Shotguns

* Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
* Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
* Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
* Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No

Handguns

* Permit to purchase handgun? No
* Registration of handguns? No
* Licensing of owners of handguns? No
* Permit to carry handguns? Yes

Purchase:

* It is unlawful to sell or give to a minor, without written consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian, a firearm or ammunition.

* No state permit is required to purchase a shotgun, rifle, or handgun.

* It is unlawful to sell or transfer a firearm to a "prohibited possessor."
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_az.htm

[Cassandra]

32. Number of people who live in apartments in Phoenix?

How many people can crowd on a subway car in Phoenix?
How many people does the ordinary Phoenix resident bump into while walking on the street on any given day?
How many noise complaints are phoned in to the police in Phoenix regarding upstairs neighbors?

There are things in a physically crowded city that make otherwise calm people upset. If they don't have a gun, they just mouth off or they call the police if it's serious enough. Don't compare us with places where people hardly ever get out of their cars.

[rd_kent]

34. So, despite being responded to with facts and reality, you ignore that and continue

to post anecdotal evidence that only reassures yourself that your emotional argument is valid? Thats called cognitive dissonance. You know that right?

[PavePusher]

44. You have never been to Phoenix, have you?

No subways, lots of busses and crowded streets.

And people have been living in crowded conditions for, ummmm, millenia, in many places other than Noo Yawk.

Somehow, they seem to get by. New York's population density is not that bad compared to many places. And it has nothing to do with Civil Rights.

[bossy22]

50. by ur reasoning

off-duty cops should not be able to carry firearms for fear of this situation. New Yorkers like us get irritable, but i wouldnt say we are one step away from being homicidal. We may tell someone to go "F*ck themselves" but that is hardly not the same as pulling out a gun and shooting them.

again- if you don't want a gun- good for you, but don't put ur beliefs on others

plus its the law of the land and the city will eventually have to see that

[russ1943]

47. Residents aren't so different as is the availability of guns.

By most standards your comparison is of a very lax firearm regulated city and state, Phoenix, Arizona to a severely restricted one New York, New York. You ask “For example the fifth largest city in the U.S is Phoenix, Arizona. What are the firearm laws in this city and state?”

I would suggest it is relevant to inquire; What are the most recent results of these different approaches to gun laws? The less gun restrictive city of Phoenix has a murder rate much higher than the more gun restrictive city of New York.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_08_ny.html

The state of Arizona also has a significantly higher murder rate than the state of New York.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html

Murders aren’t just committed with guns however, only about two thirds are. The statistics on firearms deaths are available only through 2006. but they are even more relevant to the discussion of guns and regulations. In 2006 there were 982 firearms related deaths in Arizona. In the same year there were 1,002 firearms related deaths in the largest city in the US. That is a very small difference in numbers considering there is about a 300% difference in population. The rate per 100,000 demonstrates the more pertinent distinction between the different approaches towards firearms and their results. Arizona 15.9 firearms related deaths per 100,000 vs New York’s 4.3 per 100,000. This was while the US rate was 5.4
See CDC's Vital Statistics Report DEATHS Table 29. Number of deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for major causes of death for the United States

Just sayin.

[PavePusher]

48. Arizona is also one of the main traffic routes...

For some of the most violent criminals entering this country(drug and people smugglers). New York has this problem, but to a much smaller magnitude.

Perhaps Mayor Blow-it-out-his-rectum-burger could put some of his personal money where his mouth is and help try to stem the flow....

[spin]

52. The crime rate in NYC...

has been decreasing for years.

Crime in New York City was high in the 1980s during the Mayor Edward I. Koch years, as the crack epidemic hit New York City, and peaked in 1990,<2> the first year of Mayor David Dinkins' administration (1990-1993) and started its current run of lower crime rates. During the administrations of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (1994-2001) and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (2002-present), the drop in crime accelerated. Although many commentators have suggested that the New York City Police Department's adoption of CompStat, broken windows policing, and other strategies during the administration of Rudolph Giuliani were responsible for the drop in crime. Some studies argued that the dramatic reduction in crime was strongly correlated with the increases in the number of police officers that started under Mayor Dinkins and continued through the Giuliani administration. In the 2005 book, Freakonomics, authors Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner provided a statistical argument that attributed much of the drop in crime to the legalization of abortion in the seventies, as they suggest that many of the would be neglected children and criminals were never born.

Starting in 2005, New York City achieved the lowest crime rate among the ten largest cities in the United States.<11> Since 1991, the city has seen a continuous fifteen-year trend of decreasing crime. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now much safer. Violent crime in the city has dropped by three quarters in the twelve years ending in 2005 with the murder rate at its lowest then level since 1963 with only 539 murders that year, for a murder rate of 6.58 per 100,000 people, compared to 2,245 murders in 1990. In 2009, the low would be displaced. Among the 182 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000, New York City ranked 136th in overall crime (with about the same crime rate as Boise, Idaho).<12>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

Firearms were heavily restricted in NYC during the high crime years and after. Obviously, firearm restriction and the decrease in crime do not directly correlate.

[proteus_lives]

31. So rights should be based on population levels?

How crowded would it have to get before you put restrictions on voting?

:puke:

[SteveM]

40. Again, you are using a politically and culturally-charged reason for denying...

someone's right to own a weapon. This is arbitrary and authoritarian.

"BTW, your agitation over this issue makes me wonder if you are a good bet for a carry permit."

Them thar rural county sheriffs in Georgia couldn't have said it better back in the "Old" south.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. CCW permits holders, as a groups, have shown ourselves to be...

far more responsible with guns than the general public. It is extremely rare for a CCWer to do you you have suggested. In fact, you are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally killed by a CCW permit holder.

We simply don't grab for guns because we were irritated for the 6th time that day. We have an excellent record of emotional control.

I suspect that you are imagining how you would be with a gun and projecting that attitude onto others. I would suggest that you not own a gun, as you would likely be the kind of danger that you accuse others of being.

BTW - There are lots of crowded cities that have numerous CCW holders and those cities don't have the blood-in-the-streets problem that you claim would result. Here are some big cities that have shall-issue statewide permit systems. St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Amarillo, Phoenix, El Paso, New Orleans, Atlanta, Memphis, etc. I could easily name many others as 40 states have shall-issue systems.

Why do you claim that NYC would have a problem with something that 40 states have not had a problem with?

[Jackson1999]

3. Yes

McDonald must be won. It it would be awesome if the court included language that 2A, like 1A needs to be treated as a "fundamental right" like 1A. If that happens, states and municipalities will be held to a much higher standard when it comes to putting restrictions in place.

[bossy22]

7. it will happen

Mcdonald will probably rule in our favor and in that NYC's laws will be challenged.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. One step at a time. First we win McDonald. N/T

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

45. We're hoping to not have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Even if the baby is ugly.