Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #1

    Ny poised to be 1st to pass post-massacre gun bill

    By MICHAEL GORMLEY | Associated Press – 1 hr 33 mins ago

    ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Days after calling for an overhaul of gun control in New York following the Connecticut school shooting, Gov. Andrew Cuomo worked out a tough proposal on gun control with legislative leaders who promised to pass the most restrictive gun law in the nation.

    The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored the bills that were once blocked by Republicans.

    The Democrat-led Assembly gaveled out before midnight and planned to take the issue up at 10 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected to pass easily.
    "This is a scourge on society," Cuomo said Monday night, one month after the Newtown, Conn., shooting that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. "At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life.'"

    "It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. "And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.



    "This is going to go after those who are bringing illegal guns into the state, who are slaughtering people in New York City," Skelos said. "This is going to put people in jail and keep people in jail who shouldn't be out on the street in the first place."

    "This will be the toughest gun control package in the nation," said Sen. Jeffrey Klein, leader of the Independent Democrat Conference that shares majority control with Republican senators. "All in all, it is a comprehensive, balanced approach that will save lives," Klein said in an interview.

    Cuomo said he wanted quick action to avoid a run on assault rifles and ammunition as he tries to address what he estimates is about 1 million assault rifles in New York state. He made it a centerpiece of his progressive agenda in last week's State of the State address.

    Republican Sen. Greg Ball called that political opportunism in a rare criticism of the popular and powerful governor seen by his supporters as a possible candidate for president in 2016.

    "We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."
    The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, called for a tougher assault weapons ban and restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns, as well as a mandatory police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands.

    It would create a more powerful tool to require the reporting of mentally ill people who say they intend to use a gun illegally and would address the unsafe storage of guns, the governor confirmed.

    Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features spelled out in the law. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip.
    Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.

    Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

    In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report the incident to a mental health director who would have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

    The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.

    Legislators wouldn't comment on the tentative deal or the provisions discussed in closed-door conferences.
    "It's a tough vote," said Senate Deputy Majority Leader Thomas Libous of Broome County. "This is a very difficult issue depending on where you live in the state. I have had thousands of emails and calls ... and I have to respect their wishes."

    He said many of constituents worry the bill will conflict with the Second Amendment's right to bear arms while others anguish over shootings like at Newtown, Conn., and Columbine, Colo.

    A vote Monday would come exactly one month after a gunman killed 20 children and six educators inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.

    The closed-door meetings prompted about a dozen gun workers to travel more than two hours to Albany to protest the legislation they say could cost 300 to 700 jobs in the economically hard-hit Mohawk Valley.

    "I have three small kids myself," said Jamie Rudall, a unionized worker who polishes shotgun receivers. "So I know what it means, the tragedy ... we need to look at ways to prevent that, rather than eliminate the rights of law-abiding citizens."

    In the gun debate, one concern for New York is its major gun manufacturer upstate.
    Remington Arms Co. makes the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut shootings and again on Christmas Eve when the two firefighters were slain in Webster. The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.
    Assemblyman Marc Butler, a Republican who represents the area, decried the closed-door meetings by Senate Republicans and the Democratic majority of the Assembly as "politics at its worst."

    The bill would be the first test of the new coalition in control of the Senate, which has long been run by Republicans opposed to gun control measures. The chamber is now in the hands of Republicans and five breakaway Democrats led by Klein, an arrangement expected to result in more progressive legislation.

    Former Republican Sen. Michael Balboni said that for legislators from the more conservative upstate region of New York, gun control "has the intensity of the gay marriage issue." In 2011, three of four Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for same-sex marriage ended up losing their jobs because of their votes.
    ___
    AP Writer Michael Virtanen contributed to this report from Albany.

    http://news.yahoo.com/ny-poised-1st-...181248937.html

  2. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    I think it's funny that people are against gun control so the government can't take over their home are perfectly in favour of that same government placing their children under the watch of armed guards.
    Basically saying, "The government might attack my house, but they'd never take my kids hostage," and then handing them over to armed government guards. The government is too incompetent to serve lunch, but they're capable of this.

    Makes no sense on two levels.
    I actually agree with you here, or how about you are ok with the government pretty much raising your kids. If you are so against the government then why send them to their schools for 6-7 hours a day?

  3. Kronozio
  4. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by boba View Post
    I actually agree with you here, or how about you are ok with the government pretty much raising your kids. If you are so against the government then why send them to their schools for 6-7 hours a day?
    You forgot letting the government put the fear of God in them. What better way to brain wash kids than to put an armed government representative at the door. Subtle but effective.

  5. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    I think it's funny that people are against gun control so the government can't take over their home are perfectly in favour of that same government placing their children under the watch of armed guards.
    Basically saying, "The government might attack my house, but they'd never take my kids hostage," and then handing them over to armed government guards. The government is too incompetent to serve lunch, but they're capable of this.

    Makes no sense on two levels.
    i'm not asking the government to protect my child, I am asking a police officer to. not sure why that doesn't make sense.

    so you mock people who say gun control measures won't work and you mock the one option that would actually help with the issue of school shootings.
    bucket:Hidden Content

    Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches

  6. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by ensbergcollector View Post
    i'm not asking the government to protect my child, I am asking a police officer to. not sure why that doesn't make sense.
    Owning a gun to protect against government and then sending your kids to a government agent with a gun for protection makes no sense. If you think they'll attack your home, what makes you think they won't take your kids? Last I checked, most police get paid by governments.

    Quote Originally Posted by ensbergcollector View Post
    so you mock people who say gun control measures won't work and you mock the one option that would actually help with the issue of school shootings.
    I'm not mocking, I just think it's funny. Ironic, really. The government is not only hellbent on taking over your homes, and they're also too incompetent to properly feed children lunch, but you trust them to watch over your kids with guns. You're also putting your kids into a microcosmic police state. I have no problem with higher police presence in schools. I actually support it quite a bit. I don't agree with placing an armed guard(s) at the door(s) from 8am-5pm. You do that with the schools now and when the kids grow up, the idea of armed government guards on every corner. It's not far from there to have the government controlling every aspect of life.

    But you keep your guns to fight the government. They want in your kids' heads, not your house, though, so you'll never get to use your guns. You won't have time, you'll be too busy systematically handing your children off to the government for brainwashing.

  7. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    Owning a gun to protect against government and then sending your kids to a government agent with a gun for protection makes no sense. If you think they'll attack your home, what makes you think they won't take your kids? Last I checked, most police get paid by governments.


    I'm not mocking, I just think it's funny. Ironic, really. The government is not only hellbent on taking over your homes, and they're also too incompetent to properly feed children lunch, but you trust them to watch over your kids with guns. You're also putting your kids into a microcosmic police state. I have no problem with higher police presence in schools. I actually support it quite a bit. I don't agree with placing an armed guard(s) at the door(s) from 8am-5pm. You do that with the schools now and when the kids grow up, the idea of armed government guards on every corner. It's not far from there to have the government controlling every aspect of life.

    But you keep your guns to fight the government. They want in your kids' heads, not your house, though, so you'll never get to use your guns. You won't have time, you'll be too busy systematically handing your children off to the government for brainwashing.
    i guess we can agree to disagree. a police officer, from my town, who I possibly even know, might be paid for by the government, but that does not equal him being the same as "the government". Also, I never said a police officer at the door all day. Our school had a three officer rotation at our high school. they walked the halls, spent time with the kids. It didn't make us accustomed to a police state, it made us respect the job they do and trust instead of fear the police.

    And again, while all the talk is on "stopping future school shootings" all the measures being talked about wouldn't do that. The one measure that would is to increase police presence on campus.
    bucket:Hidden Content

    Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches

  8. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by ensbergcollector View Post
    i guess we can agree to disagree. a police officer, from my town, who I possibly even know, might be paid for by the government, but that does not equal him being the same as "the government". Also, I never said a police officer at the door all day. Our school had a three officer rotation at our high school. they walked the halls, spent time with the kids. It didn't make us accustomed to a police state, it made us respect the job they do and trust instead of fear the police.
    What you just described is what I've been saying schools need regardless of shootings.

    Quote Originally Posted by ensbergcollector View Post
    And again, while all the talk is on "stopping future school shootings" all the measures being talked about wouldn't do that. The one measure that would is to increase police presence on campus.
    You're assuming I'm only worried about school shootings. I'm not. I'm worried about gun violence over all. School shootings are an important, but very small part of it.

  9. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    What you just described is what I've been saying schools need regardless of shootings.


    You're assuming I'm only worried about school shootings. I'm not. I'm worried about gun violence over all. School shootings are an important, but very small part of it.
    i think we are probably on the same page for the most part. in fact, most of the gun control threads have us agreeing. Most of the talk about gun control has been under the banner of "protecting our kids" so that is where my comments have been focused. Not necessarily you, but many seem to be crying out for gun control and things to protect our kids, but the one thing that would make the largest difference, they aren't ok with. That seems very strange to me.
    bucket:Hidden Content

    Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches

  10. #28
    I'm with you there. One extreme is no better than the other. My biggest problems are people who think "gun control" literally means "gun ban" and people who look at an idea, see it doesn't fix everything all at once, and dismiss it. The first is misinformation the second is a bad attitude and both are detrimental.

    I think this issue has got to a point where neither side can be happy and compromise is impossible. There are people discussing it on these boards who don't understand what the issue even is or that multiple steps in many areas need to be taken. These people are impossible to talk to on the subject and stop any discussion dead in its tracks. Thank you for not being one of them.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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