Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

NYPD sends notice to gun owners in NY

profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is sending out letters telling gun owners to turn over their rifles and shotguns — or else face the consequences.

New York City’s ban on rifles and shotguns that hold more than five rounds is now being enforced, according to a letter the NYPD is sending out to targeted city gun owners.

“It appears you are in possession of a rifle and/or Shotgun (listed below) that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess in New York City, as per NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b).”


“You have the following options,” the letter explains.

“1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following…Disposition Report/Registration Certificate…Notarized statement of permanent removal…Utility bill or other proof of residency regarding the address where the firearm will be stored outside the City of New York.

3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance…”

Departing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a major gun-control activist, with his coalition recently sponsoring an ad that depicts an Adam Lanza-type character entering a school full of children.


New York state, meanwhile, passed the NY SAFE Act in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook shooting. The law, which bans “high-capacity magazines” and puts in place other stringent controls, was signed by governor and 2016 presidential hopeful Andrew Cuomo.

------


They're coming for your guns.
Dec 10 2013 12:55PM
542 196
profile picture
KingTaco
Posts: 2510 - Karma: 2,829
where tha TLDR?
Dec 10 2013 12:56PM
3 23
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
There be a shitstorm a brewin'....
Dec 10 2013 12:57PM
5 0
profile picture
Blurst
Posts: 13577 - Karma: 10,169
are you kidding me?

Cool good for New York, doing something proactive.
Dec 10 2013 12:57PM
12 30
profile picture
theBearJew
Posts: 10951 - Karma: 15,633
"They're coming for your guns"
Dec 10 2013 12:58PM
12 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
Oh Lordy jeezus...
Dec 10 2013 12:58PM
5 1
profile picture
first_rodeo
Posts: 2385 - Karma: 7,781
NY safe act is the biggest joke.

Dec 10 2013 1:04PM
29 5
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,375
oh so the people with registered guns are the problem ?
Dec 10 2013 1:04PM
45 5
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
Ja mein Füror!
Dec 10 2013 1:04PM
4 2
profile picture
pat_in_the_hat
Posts: 3019 - Karma: 2,695
its about to get interesting
Dec 10 2013 1:05PM
1 0
profile picture
Bachto
Posts: 400 - Karma: 954
Yeah because violating constitutional rights is being proactive. that's a fucking joke
Dec 10 2013 1:08PM
30 5
profile picture
.AR6rider.
Posts: 15976 - Karma: 8,799
Well this is fucking retarded.
Dec 10 2013 1:08PM
34 3
profile picture
Blurst
Posts: 13577 - Karma: 10,169
probably should just change the constitution.
Dec 10 2013 1:09PM
7 22
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627
Lol... In what way is this proactive? Honestly if anything was to be proactive, it would be for mandatory sentencing for illegal gun owners. There have been so few rifle and shotgun deaths it's really a joke- and a shitty one at that- to take away lawfully owned rifles and shotguns.

This is retard officials making uninformed knee jerk calls and fucking over legit American citizens in the process. Yay safety.


Dec 10 2013 1:13PM
11 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
Hope gramps doesn't still have the M1 he shot nazi's with.

I wonder if they sent notices to the criminals who own guns or just those who don't use their guns to rob and murder folks?

I can not believe folks are still willing to live in that 'constitution free Zone.'
Oh you're a minority? Stand over here while we illegally search you. Hope you have your papers with you.

Whatever the idiots in my city just elected a socialist to city council, so I doubt we are far behind
Dec 10 2013 1:14PM
18 4
profile picture
PASKIINGSUCKS
Posts: 9097 - Karma: 777
Love to see the next step in their plan. Betting they just use this as a way to tax and throw the book at the public in the event they actually have a lawful reason to gain access to your home.

They're definitely not gonna knock on doors looking for guns, but if they come in and you have em look out.

Interested to see how this plays out. Wonder how many rounds a NYPD shotgun holds.
Dec 10 2013 1:14PM
11 0
profile picture
JAHpow
Posts: 7282 - Karma: 17,175
Right, 'cause taking away the firearms of law-abiding citizens is the solution to gun violence. This is absolutely retarded. Thanks Mayor Bloomfuck
Dec 10 2013 1:16PM
12 1
profile picture
iFlip
Posts: 4543 - Karma: 19,132
I saw this a few days ago. Such BS. Making criminals out of the common, law-abiding man with registered firearms. These people are not the problem. Government resources could do so much more good elsewhere.
Dec 10 2013 1:17PM
9 1
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627
Well at least now we can turn our attention to the new and clear path- making the most badass 5 shot gun imaginable. I'm talking something to make an 8 gauge look straight bitchmade, baby. Pull the trigger and a whole city block disappears lol.


Is this what you want NYPD? It's what's going to happen. Niche products are not new and you just created a totally new one.
Dec 10 2013 1:17PM
11 1
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
Well I got guns, and am willing to use them to keep my rights. The same can't be said of those who don't have guns.
Dec 10 2013 1:19PM
10 1
profile picture
Mr.Sloth
Posts: 5091 - Karma: 13,469
inb4 Cannons
Dec 10 2013 1:20PM
8 2
profile picture
Turner.
Posts: 1987 - Karma: 11,892
"Well I am a man and have the anatomy to prove it. The same can't be said of those who are not men."
Dec 10 2013 1:30PM
1 5
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
Destructive device laws are a bit pesky.
Dec 10 2013 1:33PM
0 0
profile picture
cottage_steeze
Posts: 564 - Karma: 58
This argument does not work. When the constitution was written, bearing arms meant at worse you had a gun that could shoot one shot ever minute or so thanks to muzzleloaders. Nowadays the right to bear arms is way to open ended of a statement to try and defend and claim is getting violated. We do not have the right to bear any arms, we have the right to bear government approved arms. I shall now start investing in a personal nuke so the government cant take away my rights!!!
Dec 10 2013 1:37PM
4 6
profile picture
Mr.Huck
Posts: 6096 - Karma: 14,896
Most cops refer to the shotgun they carry in their rides as the "Crowd Pleaser". I wonder what they will call this new weapon. Perhaps the "Block Party"?
Dec 10 2013 1:39PM
8 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51586 - Karma: 161,711
At least all the gangs will finally have to turn in some of their weapons. I wish they would do this in more cities. They should make drugs illegal there as well and force people to turn them over in the same fashion. Lets clean up our streets!
Dec 10 2013 1:43PM
29 0
profile picture
Stose
Posts: 7109 - Karma: 4,123
We only have the right to do what the government tells us. You gotta be fucking kidding me.
Dec 10 2013 1:48PM
2 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10627 - Karma: 7,423
Guns should be banned because they have changed?

i guess that means we should all talk in old style english too or else we don't have a right to free speech.
Dec 10 2013 1:51PM
10 3
profile picture
Bart.Man
Posts: 1742 - Karma: 1,952
But see, when the law was penned, that was all ANYONE had, military and civilians alike. Now the military (and many illegal gun owners) have every citizen ridiculously outgunned, and things like "assault" rifles and such are simply an attempt to level the playing field to some minor degree.
Dec 10 2013 2:01PM
1 0
profile picture
Bart.Man
Posts: 1742 - Karma: 1,952
But in relation to the thread, this is fucked. Removing the guns people go target shooting and hunting with won't save little Timmy in a school shooting. How about you examine the environment/culture in which these shooters are raised, and target that? Oh, that wouldn't be as easy as pointing your finger at guns and yelling that they're the problem. Fuckin ridiculous. I'm glad I live far away from that cesspool of retardation.
Dec 10 2013 2:04PM
6 0
profile picture
cottage_steeze
Posts: 564 - Karma: 58
No i am not saying guns should be banned. I am saying that the argument of ITS OUR RIGHTSSSSS AND THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO doesnt work. The constitution is outdated and so is its definition of Bear Arms.

If I remember my old APUSH teacher correctly, it somewhat goes along the lines of if we follow the constitution strictly then there would be no FAA and flight would be illegal....

I AM NOT SAYING OUR GUNS NEED TO BE TAKEN, IM SAYING THE CONSTITUTION AND WHAT IT REFERENCES AS ARMS IS OUTDATED.
Dec 10 2013 2:04PM
2 4
profile picture
cottage_steeze
Posts: 564 - Karma: 58
There is the answer. Media. but that will never happen.
Dec 10 2013 2:08PM
1 1
profile picture
Bart.Man
Posts: 1742 - Karma: 1,952
Are you claiming the media should examine it or the media is causing it?
Dec 10 2013 2:11PM
0 0
profile picture
LoathesRaisins
Posts: 3612 - Karma: 4,735
Yes. Punish the law abiding citizens. Help those criminals.
Dec 10 2013 2:11PM
4 0
profile picture
cottage_steeze
Posts: 564 - Karma: 58
causing it in many ways. Putting killers on a pedestal for kids to look up to is just one way
Dec 10 2013 2:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627
It's all part of their new "stop and vaporize" policy.
Dec 10 2013 2:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Bart.Man
Posts: 1742 - Karma: 1,952
That is patently false. I understand where you're coming from, but to say that coverage or any depiction of an event causes someone to do anything is an outdated belief that was disproved decades ago.
Dec 10 2013 2:16PM
0 0
profile picture
PASKIINGSUCKS
Posts: 9097 - Karma: 777
I'm certainly not for this action at all.

But, it should be noted that I have 3 shotguns for hunting, none of which would be illegal under this city wide ban. Lots of hunting guns are 5 rounds or less. In fact to legally hunt with many guns in my state(PA) your shotgun or rifle I believe has to hold 5 or less. I could be wrong but I'm not checking, I'm pretty sure that's the limit.

So there are a lot of shotguns and rifles for hunting that this law will have no effect on. Of course then again there are a lot it will.

Either way though I think this law is BS through and through.

Would love to see the penalties in place if there are any.
Dec 10 2013 2:17PM
1 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12794 - Karma: 32,719
I think that's a bit misleading. All they'd do it confiscate the mags, not the gun. A sucky as that may be for people, at least no one is going to have to hand over any guns at all.

In Canada we have a similar rule. All that you do to get by it is pin the magazine at 5 then it's legal. I'm sure it would be the same.
Dec 10 2013 2:20PM
2 0
profile picture
pmw
Posts: 5760 - Karma: 831
the bill of rights is actually a pretty vague document. it makes no specific references, rather assures what at the time were unalienable rights....and what to this day remain unalienable rights.the 2nd amendment was ratified ensuring the public's ability to protect themselves not only from each other but the oppressive government they just freed themselves from. should we just forfeit any ability we have to protect ourselves in the name of public safety?
Dec 10 2013 2:20PM
0 0
profile picture
pmw
Posts: 5760 - Karma: 831
i'd like to add you must be rather daft to believe that referencing explicit rights within our constitution is not a valid argument
Dec 10 2013 2:23PM
0 0
profile picture
PASKIINGSUCKS
Posts: 9097 - Karma: 777
Uh my other shotgun holds 7 or 8 rounds, not sure, but there is no mag.

Click for larger image
This gun is illegal under this law.
Dec 10 2013 2:28PM
2 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51586 - Karma: 161,711
I'm turning you in. I'll give you 1 week to do it yourself but after that I have no choice. I hope you understand it isn't anything personal.
Dec 10 2013 2:33PM
8 0
profile picture
cottage_steeze
Posts: 564 - Karma: 58
Did i say we should forfeit any ability we have to protect ourselves? no. I said the definition of what arms we are allowed to bear needs to be reassessed. It is invalid to say that the right to bear arms is the right to bear ANY arms. The constitution "which I am so daft to go against" actually only grants this right to militias (which we have a large number of in this country) and not to citizens if you take it word for word.
Ill just leave this here: "Not all rights are absolute. The first amendment, for instance, protects free speech. Yet we still have laws against libel, slander and inciting a riot. I cannot stand outside my house at 3.00am and scream my opinions at the top of my voice and claim a first-amendment defence when the police show up to enforce an anti-noise ordinance."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/guns-and-coffee
Dec 10 2013 2:36PM
0 0
profile picture
pmw
Posts: 5760 - Karma: 831
oh i understand, regulation is necessary. it's a tough line to draw however. there are different means of regulation and I feel that this particular ordinance crosses a line. i was more concerned with your notion that referencing a specific right doesn't hold validity.
Dec 10 2013 2:40PM
0 0
profile picture
PASKIINGSUCKS
Posts: 9097 - Karma: 777
I don't nor would I ever live in NYC.

I live in Pennsyltucky, one of the greatest hunting states in the U.S.

Shitty booze laws, but pretty damn lenient when it comes to firearms.
Dec 10 2013 2:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Wallisch_pl
Posts: 5260 - Karma: 1,022
Rights that were made over 220 years ago? Why the fuck can't rights be changed every 25-50 years, according to what is happening in the world
Dec 10 2013 2:45PM
4 1
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12794 - Karma: 32,719
would just have to plug it so it can only hold 5 max.

there are no guns that would be outlawed by a 5 round max law. just magazines. and even then no magazine would be outlawed, you'd just have to pin/plug it to only hold 5.


not that I agree with it, but everyone jumping to the conclusion that all their guns will become illegal is no doubt wrong.
Dec 10 2013 2:48PM
1 0
profile picture
Benson.
Posts: 2739 - Karma: 3,787
Because they're rights... They don't change, that's why they're "inalienable".
Dec 10 2013 2:49PM
4 1
profile picture
PASKIINGSUCKS
Posts: 9097 - Karma: 777
If the plug is removable I don't see them letting you skirt this law like that. What's to stop me from removing the plug whenever I want and going on a shooting spree.

I agree totally with your last statement though.
Dec 10 2013 2:52PM
1 0
profile picture
cottage_steeze
Posts: 564 - Karma: 58
I dont believe it is necessarily right that we hang so tightly to a 200 year old definition of arms and such. Things change in the world and so does peoples opinion and views on a subject. I think it makes more sense to reference current news and happenings related to gun violence or guns being taken by the government and assess from there what types should be allowed or such. I dont believe I ever said I agreed with the point that NYC is limiting the magazines of shotguns, I was criticizing people thinking that the right to bear arms is all inclusive and that it applies to everyone.
Dec 10 2013 2:54PM
1 0
All times are Eastern (-5)