The NY Democrats’ secret agenda, no longer secret

| January 20, 2013

At Ace of Spades, I picked up a link to Weasel Zippers which linked to the Facebook account of NY Republican legislator, Steve McLaughlin, who lifts the veil of secrecy on the list of Democrats’ wish list for legislation last week. But, we’re paranoid that the Democrats are coming for our guns, right?

Here it is. This is the video where I was asked to keep the Democrat proposals for the NY SAFE Act away from the public. This list was given to me by a colleague and it is not confidential.

This bill was an attack on the 2nd amendment and the Democrats clearly wanted to dismantle the work of the Founding Fathers. None of these amendments were included in the final bill thanks to us fighting back. I will not stand silent while these unpatriotic proposals are pathetically thrown at us a 11 o’clock at night:

1. Confiscation of “assault weapons”
2. Confiscation o ten round clips
3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be replaced to the public
5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11. State issued pistol permits
12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons

My cousin, who still lives in New York State, had to send his guns out-of-state to avoid having to register them, because, you know after reading this list, the Democrats in New York are ginning up a reason to confiscate folks’ guns and registration is the first step.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (29)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. B Woodman says:

    I hope all companies that have to do with the manufacture and sale of guns, ammo, and accessories read this and immediately stop all sales to all gubbment agencies within the New York state.
    Actions have consequencies.
    If this doesn’t shake the people of New York awake, nothing will. At the least, it will seperate the citizens from the serfs, who is against and who is for these proposals.

  2. Green Thumb says:

    Good luck implementing this.

    Have fun Libs.

  3. Ex-PH2 says:

    So, what is goig to stop someone from using a knife? Or poison?

  4. Ex-PH2 says:

    Do we have a list compiled of states in which laws have been passed allowing the state police to arrest Feds who try to confiscate legally-owned guns? I know there are several, and there are also news reports from several states that the state, county and local police will not enforce gun control laws.

  5. Old Trooper says:

    Bah, guys are just being paranoid, as usual. No one wants to take away your guns. Did it pass? No, it didn’t, so you guys are screeching about nothing!……………………………………………..

    said every anti-gunner on the planet

  6. USMCE8Ret says:

    @4 – TX Governor Rick Perry hasn’t outright said it, but I’ll be that state will follow suit. He made some interesting comments, found here:

  7. DaveO says:

    Crossbows and short spears.

  8. Old Trooper says:

    @6: If Perry tried this in Texas, he would be in for a very bad time, if he kept his job at all. However, I don’t think he would even entertain such foolishness, from both a political survival standpoint as well as respect for the Constitution.

  9. Ex-PH2 says:

    @7 – What I keep saying….and I’m really having a difficult time deciding between that pretty pink compound bow at Bass Pro Shops or feeding my cats.

    And I did not know until a few months ago that in Illinois, you can hunt with either broadhead metal arrows or flint, chert, or obsidian knapped points.

  10. USMCE8Ret says:

    Let me clarify what I meant to say in #6 (as it was typed before my AM coffee). Rick Perry would NOT support or enforce anti-gun legislation in my former home state, but he hasn’t outright said it. For years, TX has been a bastion of pro-gun ownership, Conceal-carry, etc.

  11. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Well, we all knew the goal. It’s just amazing that an elected gun nazi is willing to admit it. Of course, the admission is limited and speaks only to confiscation with regard to “assault” weapons. And that will seem okay with many of the stupid sheeple. But then the definition of assault will expand and more weapons will be earmarked for confiscation. They may have to establish a special police agency for this purpose. There are always willing brownshirts, you know. An expanded national database IS coming too. They just have to put an end to private sales first. This battle, chiefly words in stage #1, is moving to the action stage.

  12. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    OFF TOPIC (Sorta)

    The obamaman and the moron were separately sworn in earlier today in private ceremonies. Turncoat Roberts administered the oath to obamaman and Injustice Sodajerkor to Joey. Both swore to protect and defend the Constitution. Bwahahahahaha.

    Tomorrow’s public ceremony is a do-over. Those who attend cannot say that they saw obamman sworn in because it occurred today. But, of course, they will anyway.

  13. Old Trooper says:

    @10: roger that, Marine.

  14. USMCE8Ret says:

    @12 – And both took the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back for sure – just like the last time.

  15. FatCircles0311 says:

    Apparently these politicians don’t care much for the United States Constitution. If you break your oath of office how are you still able to hold that office?

  16. Stacy0311 says:

    Wait, Democrats want to confiscate guns? Politicians lie? You can’t trust anybody these days
    ?sarcasm off/

  17. ron says:

    in today’s sacramento bee, forum section, beginning on page E1, there is an article by dan morain that tells of a department of justice program called the “Armed Prohibited Person Program”. in this group are 33 people whose function it is to go to people’s homes at night and confiscate their weapons. there are a variety of reasons given for this, but the end result is the same. the man referred to in this article is 65 years old, and 9 agents went to his house. the article states this probably would not have stopped lanza, but “undoubtedly” has saved lives. quotation marks are mine. it continues on page E4, saying there are 19, 820 people on the list, and so far they have confiscated over 10,000 firearms, 11,000 magazines and over 120,000 rounds. don’t tell me this won’t happen here, it already is. they grow this list by about 15 people a day. these people had registered their weapons. that’s how they knew where to go to collect them.

  18. Jacobite says:

    @ #17

    According to the article, the primary basis for the data base is actually gun sales records, not registration.

    Even though I am a gun owner, and a very vocal and staunch supporter of the Second Amendment who thinks there are mountains of gun legislation that need to be rolled back, I really can’t find much wrong with what the article is talking about.

    As a gun owner one of the things I’ve often said needs to be done is stronger enforcement of existing laws, ensuring that those who have in some way forfeited their right to own a gun don’t get another one. Felons, and the mentally ill that pop up on the states radar, as a group aught to be easier than most to track, it looks like this program is actually doing something more states should look into.

  19. Ex-PH2 says:

    Maybe, Ron, if you actually had read that article for its content, instead of for words like “seize” and “search”, you’d have an understanding that the agents were going after people who have done things like moved without notifying the parole board, or were judged mentally ill. Some of those people have histories of violence.

    Taking something out of context, the way you did, does not constitute an argument, valid or invalid, regarding abusive gun control laws or repealing them. The laws that are already in place are sufficient in and of themselves.

    That article hardly constitutes a reason to go into a panic attack.

  20. ComancheDoc says:

    The Armed Prohibited Person Program is a great example of a system of laws being used to protect the populace against people who shouldnt have firearms. After reading #17 I did a quick google search to find news stories about it, something to this effect should be in every state, IMHO. People on that list are obviously “bad guys” who dont need guns and maybe it should be rolled into the NICS check. I’m not a lawyer or stay at a holiday inn express but i really cant see anything wrong with this; convicted or adjucated crazy people on a list available everywhere so they are not able to purchase things they shouldnt have…example of an old law that works vs new dubious law…

  21. streetsweeper says:

    Some people do tend to leave out the important details.

    Article by the Sac Bee’s Dan Morain.

    State of California’s DOJ and the law.

  22. MAJMike says:

    When I taught high school World History, I used replica edged weapons to spark student interest and to discuss developing technology. Among those were a Greek Hoplite spear and a Roman pilium. Though replicas, both are quite functional.

    I’ll not surrender them or any firearms I may or may not own.

  23. PintoNag says:

    I think we need further info, such as: Who do they intend to do the confiscating? The police or the National Guard? What are the legal arguments that would support gun confiscation but still also support the rights against unlawful search and seizure? Why hasn’t it been brought up that what is being done in NY is against the ruling of the Supreme Court concerning the right to keep weapons?

  24. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    PN: The standard is “reasonable restriction.” There is no violation of the Constitution to impose a reasonable restriction. The question as to whether a restriction is reasonable is a matter for a court. The confiscation aspect is not something that courts have visited, as far as I know. But if a particular weapon is prohibited in a state by that state, then police can confiscate it. Presumably, they may be do so using the same means that satisfy the warrant requirement and its exceptions.

  25. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @24. I should point out that as an illicit item, a confiscated weapon will not be returned to its owner, just as drugs and other contraband are not returned to their owner.

  26. Hondo says:

    2/17 Air Cav: I agree with you to a point. But don’t DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago define the bounds of what constitutes “reasonable restriction”? As I recall, both essentially say an outright ban of a particular class of firearms (handguns), or administrative measures that are effectively an outright ban, are a “NO GO” under the 2nd Amendment.

  27. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @26. The reasonable restrictions go to type (common use, the court called it) and place (e.g. schools). The court did not identify what other restrictions would be reasonable and did not want its Heller decision to be mistaken for doing so. My view is that the Supremes, as presently constituted, are not likely to find a blanket ban by NY on AR-15s, for instance, an unreasonable restriction. At the ame time, however, the court will not permit NY or any other state to play the game of effectively banning firearms under the guise of exercising its power to impose reasonable restrictions.

  28. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    To be clearer, my last line should have read, ‘At the ame time, however, the court will not permit NY or any other state to play the game of effectively banning ALL OR NEARLY ALL firearms under the guise of exercising its power to impose reasonable restrictions.’