Andrew Cuomo | Barack Obama | Guns | New York | News

BigGayDeal.com

NY Senate Passes Landmark Gun Control Bill as Obama Prepares to Take Action Federally: VIDEO

Pc_obama

The New York Senate has passed a landmark gun control bill that would ban assault weapons, the NYT reports:

The state Senate, controlled by a coalition of Republicans and a handful of Democrats, approved the legislative package just after 11 p.m. by a lopsided vote of 43 to 18. The Assembly, where Democrats who have been strongly supportive of gun control have an overwhelming majority, planned to vote on the measure Tuesday...

..The expanded ban on assault weapons would broaden the definition of such weapons, banning semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, as well as semiautomatic shotguns with one military-style feature. New Yorkers who already own such guns could keep them but would be required to register them with the state.

Also:

The legislative package, which Mr. Cuomo said he believed would be “the most comprehensive package in the nation,” would ban any gun magazine that can hold over 7 rounds of ammunition — the current limit is 10 rounds. It would also require background checks of ammunition buyers and automated alerts to law enforcement of high-volume purchases.

The legislation would increase penalties for multiple crimes committed with guns, would require background checks for most private gun sales, and create a statewide gun-registration database.

President Obama is expected to announce 19 separate executive actions he could take without the approval of Congress to limit access to guns and curtail gun violence, the NYT also reports, in a separate story:

Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

White House aides believe Mr. Obama can also ratchet up enforcement of existing laws, including tougher prosecution of people who lie on their background checks.

Watch Obama talk about possible executive orders on guns at his press conference yesterday, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Cue the crazy gun nuts: "Dey tuk ur gunnnz!"

    Posted by: AJ | Jan 15, 2013 9:24:43 AM


  2. Sanity and balls, Obama got them !

    Posted by: Mark | Jan 15, 2013 9:38:43 AM


  3. I look at guns with a similar lens that I do drugs. These incremental changes and inconveniences won't solve a problem, they will just create a stronger black market.

    I am not a gun fan, They are fun to shoot but just waaayyy too dangerous for life, but so is crack cocaine.

    If you want to solve the problem, solve gun violence, you need oversight and control. It is impossible to control something illegal, it is almost impossible to control something legal, that slight difference could mean thousands of lives.

    Gun tax, mandatory licenses and schools, government control on gun sales and oversight on manufacturing. Make them... easier to get, but with more responsibility and pressure to the gun buyers.


    And not the warped responsibility of protecting anything, the real one, the one where you are responsible for whomever is shot with your gun, no matter the situation.

    But we live in America so a bigger guns black market is a big step up. Great can't be the enemy of the good, etc.

    Posted by: Fensox | Jan 15, 2013 9:47:46 AM


  4. I really don't know if this will do anything to help the situation.

    Posted by: Anthony | Jan 15, 2013 10:00:55 AM


  5. Great thoughts FENSOX. As it is Obama is making himself a real target for the gun lobby's worst monster mouth-breathers. Big shudder...recoiling worm in chest. Gah.

    Posted by: SOB | Jan 15, 2013 10:21:41 AM


  6. Yes, organized criminal gangs and others are salivating looking at the potential black market for firearms and ammo.

    Also, Firearms can't be un-invented [word?], they aren't going away. Neither will innovation in their design, and capacity suddenly halt. They're no different than any other tool, machinery, device, etc.,

    I agree that firearm selling and ownership should be strictly regulated in this sense:

    Real background checks must be involved in potential owners, not BS ones, only non-felon law abiding individuals with no serious mental health issue should be allowed to own them, and there should be strict and serious sentences for violations of firearms laws, no plea bargaining. Some types of ammo should be outlawed and violation of said laws should be a serious felony. The federal government must control over-all firearm laws in the U.S. because they inevitably involve inter-sate commerce. The real fact is MANY violent gun related crimes in U.S. states and cities that have additional restrictions on firearm ownership on top of federal regulations involve firearms that originated out of state, usually from one of states with very relaxed firearm laws. But, I also believe in keeping as much power as possible at state levels in the U.S., not at the federal level.

    Finally, I agree 100% with the right for legal, law abiding average citizens of the U.S. to own firearms if they choose. Sorry, er are not the UK or another western Euro country, we have some differences, and this is one of them. Historically and for even practical reasons, firearms have and continue to play a role in many Americans lives, 99% of good, not bad reasons. This is something hard to get across to people who've especially spent their lives in big cities and urban, even suburban areas, especially Brits and some Europeans [not all, some].

    And this has got to be repeated as often as necessary:

    The U.S. has a violent crime and specifically gun related violent crime problem, and it's to a huge extent limited to urban areas and involving gangs and overwhelmingly young minority males, often involved in drug trafficking. Take all the mass shooting that have taken place in the U.S. [a very big country] over say the last decade and they statistically would register as a blip on the radar screen. Part of the reason they receive so much attention is because they're so relatively rare and often occur in places with very low violent crime rates, in fact many mass shootings have occurred not in places with loose firearm laws but in places with very strict firearm laws. But the slaughter that occurs daily in a handful of cities and urban areas across the U.S. barely registers in most people's minds [probably because it's so common and expected].

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jan 15, 2013 10:39:27 AM


  7. Oh boy... here I go:

    Obama the great 'progressive' is a fraud. His government has been responsible for gross abuses of human rights domestically and internationally. His government far from being the most transparent as promised, is in fact arguably the most restrictive and opaque. His DOJ is as bad if not worse than his predecessors [he and Eric Holder will slid regarding the Swartz suicide debacle; Ortiz will take the fall]. But gee...he publicly proclaims after many years of saying otherwise that he's personally for gay marriage, and he repeals DADT. And he's our first black [1/2 black] president [that we know of at any rate]. So the man will continue to get a pass, especially by many gay shills.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jan 15, 2013 10:44:58 AM


  8. Getting a gun should be absolutely legal and getting one should be one of the hardest things to do in our society. People applying for licenses, should have to go through extensive background checks, psychiatric evaluations, and training courses. Then, they should have to renew their license each year with a refresher course.

    Posted by: Jere | Jan 15, 2013 10:51:41 AM


  9. Old gay dudes in bad neighborhoods should be able to own guns if they want. (As long as they don't get like...in "Sunset Boulevard" or "Mildred Pierce" and shoot at others for personal reasons).

    Posted by: Yupp | Jan 15, 2013 11:25:20 AM


  10. as the only people who want guns are the bats**t crazy folks who shouldn't be allowed them, this is a good thing.

    remember that photo of those two white-trash @ssholes last week, walking around "exercising their right" to carrying their sem-automatic assault rifles?

    ok - what's the future? people are allowed to walk anywhere, anywhere at all, carrying weapons like that? So when you go into a restaurant, or a movie theatre, and you see White Trash Jones carrying that weapon...what's your though process going to be?

    Are you going to breathe a sigh of relief because he's a "patriot" who will "protect you" from...some other guy carrying a weapon that night? what do the people carrying guns think when they see someone else carrying? brotherhood? fraternity? patriotism? FEAR? threat?

    the idea that the nation's stupidest and most insecurely fear-based men are allowed to walk around armed to the teeth is the most embarrassing failure of a culture ever.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 15, 2013 11:34:32 AM


  11. Kiwi : Don't worry. Down here in the U.S. I'm sure whites and Asians won't start killing each other off like blacks do. Guns-publicly-displayed or not.

    Posted by: Yupp | Jan 15, 2013 11:40:22 AM


  12. Per usual Lil C*unt has absolutely nothing original, of particular value, or even entertaining to say.

    And Lil' C*unt: Look up Vicco, Kentucky...it has more than it's share of what you'd call white trash aholes [poor/working class white rural people]. It's an easy phrase for an entitled trust fund brat from Toronto to throw around.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Jan 15, 2013 11:52:12 AM


  13. The "most embarrassing failure of a culture ever" would be having guys Kiwi's age still living at home with their parents.

    Posted by: Yupp | Jan 15, 2013 11:58:27 AM


  14. "I'm sure whites and Asians won't start killing each other off like blacks do."

    Well, Yupp, I haven't killed a Black yet. May I kill a White instead? Maybe a frightened middle-aged Gay one?

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jan 15, 2013 12:30:03 PM


  15. Derrick....oh, you'll kill SOMEONE, yet. But you'll at least do it in grand style.

    Posted by: Yupp | Jan 15, 2013 12:35:35 PM


  16. Why should I need to get a license to exercise a constitutional right?

    - Is it any different than requiring a poll-tax before being able to vote?

    - Or to be required to obtain a license before speaking publicly?

    - Or to take a "approved-test" before I can pray?

    Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Jan 15, 2013 1:44:42 PM


  17. so you believe, TrollyTed, that nobody should need a license to own or carry any sort of weapon?

    attempt to elaborate with intellectually-sound specifics.

    that oughta be be funny.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 15, 2013 1:58:28 PM


  18. and how does one define "well-regulated?"

    the 2nd amendment mentions that. why ignore it?

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 15, 2013 2:07:19 PM


  19. Disarm the citizens in order to make them dependent on government assassins for protection.


    Most Indymedia groups refuse to publish any of my reports and many now hide some of my posts. Why is the truth so feared by media authorities? Perhaps my most recent report showing that the NWO under the direction of fbi/cia/mossad/MI6, Sûreté , etc. is hell bent on reducing mankind to an ignorant, fearful, & trembling species as may be needed to control earth and space.

    The following link presents the essence of the human rights offenses that are now accepted by governments and the media that they control; the second link shows how we as a people may begin to proceed to stop the murderous insanity of the USA (fbi/cia) and its allies; the third link presents my ideas on the duty we all owe to humanity and to posterity.


    http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part4-worldinabo.html


    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/11/382350.shtml?discuss


    http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/worldwidenetwork.html


    Opinion: Advances in genomic research and other evolutionary & social studies empirically suggest that the current police state (spearheaded by fbi/cia/dod/police)being formed globally actually has profound, longterm and irreversible effect on civilization by ensuring the ultimate survival of the most violent and corrupt human beings in our culture (homicidal sociopaths), making them the dominant alpha group of the emerging homo sapien species.

    MASS MURDERERS ARE THE SAME, WHETHER BRANDED AS HEROES OR VILLAINS

    http://sosbeevfbi.ning.com/profiles/blogs/mass-murderers-are-the-same-whether-branded-as-heroes-or-villains


    http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v194/__show_article/_a000194-000497.htm

    Reduce mankind to a fearful, trembling species:

    http://sosbeevfbi.ning.com/profiles/blogs/drones-etc

    So,

    http://sosbeevfbi.com/worldwidenetwork.html

    Posted by: geral | Jan 15, 2013 2:37:27 PM


  20. Actually, in the 18th-Century the term "well regulated" with regards to firearms and military affairs referred to accurate and proficient....not legally-legislated. A double-barreled shotgun or dbl-barrel hunting rifle is considered properly "regulated" when it's barrels are properly aligned to cross at a specified distance in front of the barrel down-range. The sights on a rifle are "regulated" for a specific distance on a target range at the bulls-eye.

    Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Jan 15, 2013 2:42:41 PM


  21. the 18th century term also refers to muskets.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 15, 2013 2:45:45 PM


  22. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect Americans from their own government — not simply to ensure self-defense / hunting rights.

    And about the local police: The police are under NO obligation to protect individuals - only society in general. See Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

    Many states have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals..."

    Posted by: bareback rider | Jan 15, 2013 3:36:22 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Jon Stewart Responds to Complaints Obama's Cabinet is Too White: VIDEO« «