Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Don’t hide public information

January 15, 2013

In December, The Journal News, a Gannett-owned newspaper serving Putnam, Rockland and Westchester counties, published maps online that allowed people to zoom in on a neighborhood within Westchester......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-17-13 11:07 PM

PleaseGetAClue re:Jan-16-13 11:22 AM The 2nd Amendment was written so the people could protect themselves from a tyranical government(we are almost there)Whatever arms the gov't has, we can have. What the founders didn't plan on was the decline of society and the freedom allowed those who should be institutionalized, and political correctness.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 1:53 PM

'McDonald decision is redundant as it brought nothing new'

That's false, since the McDonald decision did in fact clarify what DC v Heller did not in that traditional protection of your home with a gun applied to the states, not just 'federal enclaves'.

Probably the biggest reason why you don't get it is because you don't know the definition of a federal enclave, of which DC is included.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 1:50 PM

A Supreme Courts ruling does not 'apply federally'- that's what Congress is for in applying legislation. It applies to the two parties involved as to determine if they have violated the Constitution or if the law they are contesting is unconstitutional. Thats is not the same thing as 'applies federally.'

The ruling in DC v Keller specifically only applied to the District of Columbia and federal enclaves, not the states, so it's an irrelevant case for Hilltopper's question. See: McDonald v Chicago instead.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 10:11 AM

A Supreme Court opinion applies federally, in that respect the McDonald decision is redundant as it brought nothing new. The Heller decision historically is the groundbreaker because for the first time in history it defined the 2nd Amendment as being the right for an individual to possess firearms for self-defence. You can access the Heller decision directly from SCOTUS, no password needed here: ***********

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 2:25 AM

HT the case was DC v Heller, not Heller v US, and Scalia's opinion can be found here, although it's a doozy (I never log out, but I can give you my username/pass if it won't let you view):


and overall NOT a good example of gun rights for home protection for your place in upstate New York since it addressed only 'federal enclaves', of which DC is one (hence being the Plaintiff).

For a better case example, see McDonald v Chicago, which further stated that the right to bear arms for this purpose extended beyond DC and other enclaves to the actual states and even co-cited the due process clause of the Constitution as to how and why.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:06 AM

No problem. Uniformed people that try to push an agenda without knowing the facts just add to the hysteria. If people want to debate this issue they should at least read the NYS law and read the Supreme Court decision Heller v. United States in which Justice Scalia presents the most detailed history of the 2nd Amendment ever written. See how the Supreme Court interprets the right to bear arms, After all is said and done, their authority can only be superseded by a Constitutional Amendment.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 10:07 PM

Skrocki: Thamks a million for the link: ...... "Going forward, individuals will only be able to obtain magazines that can contain up to seven rounds. Those who currently possess magazines that can contain more than seven rounds will only be permitted to maintain up to seven rounds in such magazines."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 8:45 PM

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ? Thomas Jefferson, Complete Jefferson "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 - Elbridge Gerry

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 6:34 PM

I have a link to the actual legislation. I don't know if I can post it here but I'll try:


2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 2:51 PM

Hilltopper I don't know what to tell you. I would think the compromise would be had in ridding yourself of that gun and getting one that is compliant, thereby still allowing you to still have a firearm, albeit one that is 'compliant', but I do see the frustration in needing to rid yourself of it in the first place.

Another thing to consider is that if other states fall in line with NY (and surely they will, if even not as strict as ours), will the gunmakers start making guns to accommodate the new laws?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 2:41 PM

Skrocki: What is your source for that information? The news reports vary station to station.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 1:43 PM

The NYS Gun Control Act of 2013 allows you to keep assault weapons already owned. You just have to register them with the State Police and can't sell them to anyone in NYS. Magazines/clips with a maximum capacity of 10 that are already legally owned can be kept but the maximum allowable number of rounds in that clip cannot exceed seven.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 1:35 PM

The NYS Gun Control Act of 2013 signed into law yesterday provides protection for the gun owner registry in that it is not subject to NYS Public Officer law Article 6 (Freedom of Information disclosure).

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 12:40 PM

I see no compromise here: All my handguns guns are registered, I have no restrictions on my pistol permit, I have never been arrested, and I never drink alcohol or use recreational drugs. Now I must sell one of my guns because the only clip available for it is 2 bullets over the new 7 shot max. Number 1, where is the compromise, and number 2 will you work pro-bono if I choose to challenge this law?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 12:38 PM

swizzer " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What part of that is complicated for you?? Much of the other "stuff" (speech and print limits) are common sense, of which you plainly have none.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 12:23 PM

Hilltopper, that's not entirely true. The right to free speech doesn't mean 'say whatever you want', just as free press doesn't mean 'print whatever you want'. We know this because there have been hundreds if not thousands of 'US v So-and-So' cases argued before the courts contesting just that. The WBC, for example, can enjoy free speech and the right to assemble- so long as it's more than 100 feet away or something. People in NYC can assemble- so long as they have a permit. This is called compromise, and it's incredibly effective at winning over both sides of the debate. I don't see why the same can't be applied to guns.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 11:37 AM

So you say. What really is in play here is the camel's nose in the tent theory. Quite honestly I don't want the camel or the government in my tent. When we can enforce the existing laws then we should make new ones. Right now all this is grandstanding at its "finest".

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 11:22 AM

The 2nd ammendment was NEVER written with the idea that the general public should be allowed weapons with mass killing capabilities. This argument that it is a right to own them is pure nonsense. Now if you'll excuse me I need to make sure my one shot rocket launcher is armed and ready to go so I can sleep securely tonight....give me a break

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 8:55 AM

Druggy: I hope the reporter missed something and that there is such a clause. They listed the options as selling the clip out of state or selling only to a NYS FFL dealer within a year.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 8:34 AM

'topper are you sure there is not a grandfather clause somewhere in there??? just asking

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 8:18 AM

The second amendment allow you the right to bear arms but now restricts the type of sporting arms you may possess. That is no different from the first amendment giving you freedom of speech but restricting how long you can speak and what you can say. We know that as per the WBC there are no such restrictions on the first amendment. We can debate this 'til the cows come home, bottom line is that Cuomo's grandstanding and the legislators' actions will have far reaching implications election time. Gun rights cross party lines, and to punish law bidding citizens for the actions of a crazy is unfortunate.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 7:59 AM

The maximum number of bullets you could carry in a handgun in NYS was 10. Most semi-automatic handguns in the mid to large calibers are available with 10, 12 or 15 shot capabilities. The 9mm semi pistol I have has the smallest clip available for it, 9 plus one in the chamber. Cuomo says that the maximum number of bullets you can have in the clip is 7. They don't make a 7 shot clip for the gun. But since it is 100% registered, and I am licensed to carry it, existing records will force me to sell it out of state or keep it illegally.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 7:52 AM

Yeah about guns and about Big Oli stealing those secret plans for greener cars! The list is far longer though! "rschweizer I don't know what a '9 shot clip' is. I know absolutely nothing about guns. At all. And I'm okay with that." So are our elected that passed this law!

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 7:12 AM

People who do collect public funds should be made public...hence the name Public assistance...people who buy guns legally do so with their own money not public money! If you need to know who they are then you can find out for yourself.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 12:44 AM

HT: 'And your words don't apply equally to the second amendment ?'

Yes, they do, and I've never said they didn't. Not sure where that came from.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 63 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web