Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: NY Atty Gen 'warns' about national CCW reciprocity

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    NY Atty Gen 'warns' about national CCW reciprocity

    He's not too pleasant about it, either.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1021800.html


    And this character weighs in:

    NY Atty General blasts, misrepresents CCW Reciprocity bill


    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ciprocity-bill
    Last edited by Dave Workman; 10-20-2011 at 05:17 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Good breakdown Dave. I have a feeling that he probably does know and doesn't care.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  3. #3
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    "CCW reciprocity" sounds like a state issue. Feds should keep their hands off. The right to carry is already set in a constitutional amendment anyways.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Good breakdown Dave. I have a feeling that he probably does know and doesn't care.
    +1

    Oh I think he does know and does care.

    He "know"s and he "care"s very much..........about control.........of the little people.

    Ask him if he is protected by guns and how many?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Wow, this AG is really gambling with that bald face lie about which states law must be followed. My guess is he banking on people taking him at his word, at-least, in his own state and others like it.

    Still, to intentionally mis-represent the wording of the proposed law is ballsy. Dumb, but ballsy.

    I hope SAF and NRA crucify him on that "slip".

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    Wow, this AG is really gambling with that bald face lie about which states law must be followed. My guess is he banking on people taking him at his word, at-least, in his own state and others like it.

    Still, to intentionally mis-represent the wording of the proposed law is ballsy. Dumb, but ballsy.

    I hope SAF and NRA crucify him on that "slip".


    What he said was:

    "Specifically, it would force nearly every state in the Union -- including those, like New York, with reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership and transport, that are essential to public safety -- to abandon its own gun laws by allowing out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms based on their home state's less safe laws, rather than those of the state they are entering."

    I think he refers to the permitting process/laws only, but he really muddied up the water good and likely intentionally. Most people will read and interpret his words just as you imply.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    SNIP What he said was:

    "Specifically, it would force nearly every state in the Union -- including those, like New York, with reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership
    I would love to hear his definition of reasonable....
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  8. #8
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    I would love to hear his definition of reasonable....

    I would like to hear his definition of 'less safe'..

    WA, OR,ID, and MT all have lower crime rates, and much looser firearms laws. To equate 'less safe' with lawful gun ownership is outright retarded, when statistics show the exact opposite to be true.

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    it would increase the threat of gun violence against New Yorkers,
    It might also give visitors the ability to defend themselves when a "New Yorker" who doesn't give a rip about any laws tries to threaten them with violence.

    Here's just one such incident http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...-street-cousin

    Here are NYC's crime Stats http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...ics/cscity.pdf

    38,498 Murders, Rapes, Robberies, and Felonious Assaults in 2010 and that's just in NYC. 105 major crimes against people every day. (sure makes me want to visit NYC "unarmed")

    You bet the "politicians" in NY know what's best for their people. Apparently they feel they should be left defenseless.

    As for an increase in gun violence against "New Yorkers", they seem to be doing quite well against themselves. Maybe when they take on a few tourists that are legally able to defend themselves some of the "offenders" might be history.
    Last edited by amlevin; 10-21-2011 at 10:19 AM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    This is normal of the anti gun group to muddy the waters since they do not have a solid foundation to oppose the legislation.

    Hopefully our legislatures can read beyond the lies and b.s., even though we have anti senators here in Washington State I still remind them they represent us and we want less restrictions.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    "CCW reciprocity" sounds like a state issue. Feds should keep their hands off. The right to carry is already set in a constitutional amendment anyways.
    Trouble is, several states are ignoring or blatantly defying that constitutional amendment. I see this as one step towards the federal government enforcing that amendment upon the states, as it should.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Trouble is, several states are ignoring or blatantly defying that constitutional amendment. I see this as one step towards the federal government enforcing that amendment upon the states, as it should.
    They are not calling for adherence to the 2A.

    They are pushing for control of a papered privilege. Once controlled they can change, modify or delete any part thereof..........and they will.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    They are not calling for adherence to the 2A.

    They are pushing for control of a papered privilege. Once controlled they can change, modify or delete any part thereof..........and they will.
    Exactly my fear too.

    Now if only the Feds would just stick to the numerated powers granted them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post

    Now if only the Feds would just stick to the numerated powers granted them.

    The Fed's think they are. The issue is nobody seems to agree just exactly what the "enumerated" powers are. They are subject to interpretation and every Court seems to take a different meaning from whatever one is in question.

    The wording may have been adequate at a time when the only people actually reading the Constitution were the relatively few who actually had an education. Today we have far more educated people, with differing views of what the "enumerated powers" actually are--or aren't.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    It might also give visitors the ability to defend themselves when a "New Yorker" who doesn't give a rip about any laws tries to threaten them with violence.

    Here's just one such incident http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...-street-cousin

    Here are NYC's crime Stats http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloa...ics/cscity.pdf

    38,498 Murders, Rapes, Robberies, and Felonious Assaults in 2010 and that's just in NYC. 105 major crimes against people every day. (sure makes me want to visit NYC "unarmed")

    You bet the "politicians" in NY know what's best for their people. Apparently they feel they should be left defenseless.

    As for an increase in gun violence against "New Yorkers", they seem to be doing quite well against themselves. Maybe when they take on a few tourists that are legally able to defend themselves some of the "offenders" might be history.
    I don't even like being in Milwaukee (even when armed), I surely have no desire to visit NY.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The Fed's think they are. The issue is nobody seems to agree just exactly what the "enumerated" powers are. They are subject to interpretation and every Court seems to take a different meaning from whatever one is in question.

    The wording may have been adequate at a time when the only people actually reading the Constitution were the relatively few who actually had an education. Today we have far more educated people, with differing views of what the "enumerated powers" actually are--or aren't.
    Disagree, because they are numerated and specifically spelled out. And if any one would use their education to actually read the other writing the intent is all there spelled out. It doesn't take a higher education to understand the constitution. It does seem that the "educated" don't like the simplicity of the constitution and how it disagrees with their fascist/socialist desires.

    You can't have a differing view of what is specifically spelled out. It is not a "living breathing" document. But you see the "conservatives" don't want it to mean what it is supposed to mean either or their brand of fascism/socialism is exposed for what it is.

    And on education I again disagree, people are not educated about the constitution and what it means. They are educated to buy the bullcrap people pass of as "rights" of the government (government has no rights). They are hence uneducated I for my part do all I can to point younger generation into the right direction. Thankfully we have folks like Ron Paul who are doing the same.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    What he said was:

    "Specifically, it would force nearly every state in the Union -- including those, like New York, with reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership and transport, that are essential to public safety -- to abandon its own gun laws by allowing out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms based on their home state's less safe laws, rather than those of the state they are entering."
    I've always wondered how one reasonably restricts exercise of an unalienable right.

  18. #18
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    "CCW reciprocity" sounds like a state issue. Feds should keep their hands off. The right to carry is already set in a constitutional amendment anyways.
    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE. I.
    Section. 10.

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    Emphasis is mine

    If Congress wants to nullify reciprocal carry agreements between the states it has the authority granted by the people to do so.

  19. #19
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    What he said was:

    "Specifically, it would force nearly every state in the Union -- including those, like New York, with draconian restrictions on firearm ownership and transport, that are detrimental to public safety -- to abandon its own gun laws prohibiting out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms based on their host state's less safe laws."
    I fixed the State Attorney General's statement to reflect the truth, and the simple answer Mr. State Attorney General, is a resounding YES!

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Originally Posted by Grapeshot

    What he said was:

    "Specifically, it would force nearly every state in the Union -- including those, like New York, with draconian restrictions on firearm ownership and transport, that are detrimental to public safety -- to abandon its own gun laws prohibiting out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms based on their host state's less safe laws."
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    I fixed the State Attorney General's statement to reflect the truth, and the simple answer Mr. State Attorney General, is a resounding YES!
    Now that says what most (all?) here were thinking when we read his unadulterated statement.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    "He is clearly categorizing law-abiding armed citizens in the same column as illegal gun traffickers and other criminals. Legally-armed, law-abiding citizens don’t carry zip-guns, or handguns from which serial numbers have been removed, or sawed-off shotguns, or stolen handguns.

    A citizen’s self-defense rights, same as his or her right to keep and bear arms, does not end at a state line. Schneiderman, as an officer of the court, should fully understand that 16 months after the McDonald Second Amendment ruling."

    The bill will be one of the best pieces of legislation to go through Congress in the last 50 years.
    Last edited by MilProGuy; 10-23-2011 at 04:42 PM.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  22. #22
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    [/B][/I]The bill will be one of the best pieces of legislation to go through Congress in the last 50 years.
    Only to be vetoed by Obama when it reaches his desk. All the more reason to contact Congressmen and encourage their support. If it were to pass with a "veto proof" majority then Obama is of no consequence.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Slightly right of center
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Only to be vetoed by Obama when it reaches his desk. All the more reason to contact Congressmen and encourage their support. If it were to pass with a "veto proof" majority then Obama is of no consequence.
    I have to wonder about that. A veto could blow his whole "Don't be silly - I'm not anti-gun" act. He'd have to figure out a way to explain how vetoing a pro-2A bill isn't really being anti-gun. Then again, he's pretty talented at manipulating the truth.

    By all means, contact your Congressman. The points that I would stress are (1) Concealed carry permit/license holders are statistically one of the most law-abiding demographics in the nation. (2) Schneiderman has absolutely no statistics to back up his hysterical predictions. In fact, the statistics go directly against his claims. Maybe include a few links to Guncite.com or the like. (3) People who have proven themselves responsible in their home state will not suddenly decide to break the law while in New York. Why does Mr. Schneiderman insist on insulting your constituents?


    I liked this comment from the article:

    "Let’s recap.

    You want to ban guns but you’re met with opposition at every turn. Since you have no popular, monetary, or political way to make this happen, you feel completely helpless to change any of this.

    That must suck."



  24. #24
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Obviously a would be ruler of the little people...
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  25. #25
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Flopsweat View Post
    I have to wonder about that. A veto could blow his whole "Don't be silly - I'm not anti-gun" act. He'd have to figure out a way to explain how vetoing a pro-2A bill isn't really being anti-gun. Then again, he's pretty talented at manipulating the truth.
    Obama has "blown" a lot of things he originally presented. First and foremost was the idea that he's actually "Smart".
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •