Goodell Calls Bill ‘Rush Job’

Goodell and Young both have my vote for another term!

20 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

then these lawmakers have no choice but to send a bill called safe act 2 banning cars and steak knives from every residence and business in ny and any other item with a sharp point,its for obviously the right thing to do for the overall safety of new yorkers it has to be done,its the right thing to do

14 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Instead of gun crime, the UK worries about knife crime. And has been practicing knife control. The UK outlawed the switchblade and gravity knife in 1959. In 1988 possession of a pocket knife with a blade larger than 3 inches in public became illegal. In 1996, it became illegal to sell a razor blade to anyone under the age of 16. In 2007, you needed a license to be able to sell “non-domestic knives.” Despite all that knifepoint robberies rose by 10 percent this year and there are some 60,000 stabbings each year. So the push is on to outlaw long kitchen knives. Once that’s done, surely utopia will be at hand." Already trying to do with kitchen knives in the UK.

14 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Me too Yankee!

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Goodell finally says something days after the bill is passed. He had to wait to see which way the wind blew. Way to lead Andy!

2 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The reasons Goodell gave for not using the adequate review legislation are NOT the same as the reasons the Governor used! Another republican lying to make themselves look good.

3 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

This was such a rush job, every law enforcement officer in NYS is violating the law by cafrrying more than 7 rounds. But I read, they are going to fix that portion of the law.

Question: if the law calls for a maximum of 7 rounds in a clip, if there is a round in the chamber can I have 7 in the clip, for a total of 8 rounds - is that legal??

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I diddo yankee and carlaw!!! I can't go against any politician that is in favor of standing up for our Constitutional rights as citizens of the U.S.A.

14 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lilrud, I second what mrinbetween said. Goodell asked some very tough questions and is sticking up for the citizens of this state.

16 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

A defenseless society will be ruled by tyrants, see pattern already with this wacko job governor,first legalize gay marriage, working on legal casino's throughout the state, his will (far from from a republic/democratic valued land)is that of a dictator. hold on for what's next with this millionaire rich boy living on daddies money and name.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Great point Seadog - it doesn't exempt LEOs.

My question is - Why should it exempt LEOs? What good reason do they have for carrying 10 rounds?

Oh, safety? Then why can't law abiding citizens carry 10 as well?

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Then why can't law abiding citizens carry 10 as well? " Because some liberal nut job has seen fit to take it away from us in the middle of the night behind closed doors without the normal 3 day period to review a bill. He has seen fit to force obamas agenda on us before Obama could.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Very well put mrinbetween Jan-18-13 9:16 AM

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kind of like the ACA - you'll have to read it to know what's in it. Oppps!

NEW YORK (WABC) -- "A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws. The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers.

Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March".

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lone, thanks for the info on UK but you left out the final step where they even outlaw plastic knives and everyone is forced to use sporks. Everyone, that is, except politicians and those willing to pay a special tax for a permit to use a plastic knife.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The State Police were fielding so many inquiries about the law that they posted it on their website so people could read it for themselves, but by this morning it was down. Why? Because there is was much seemingly conflicting and ambiguous language in it that reading it raised more questions than it answered?! I'm pretty good at reading legal "mumbo-jumbo" but I ended up with a headache & cross-eyed! Gun dealers calling the SP are politely being told that the organziation just doesn't know what to make of it at this point. Inquiries to the federal NISC check people about getting the now required clearance for every time that you buy a box of 22's or a 5 pack of deer slugs ends up with an unanswered run around. Also there's the question of who pays for the dealer's time in obtaining that federal clearance. Is that $2 box of 22's now going to have $15 service fee tacked on by the dealer? If so I'll buy a bunch at one time, but that'll bring in an inquiry as why I need so

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007 continued: ....as to why I need so much ammo! YIKES! One thing that's absolutely certain about this law is that is has ensnared huge numbers of people who never had any reason to believe that they had anything to do with the matter of assault weapons! For example the grandfather who takes his grandson out back to shoot up tin guns with his 22 rifle. IT'll NEVER occur to him that he can't any longer load that eight, ninth or ten round into the clip in his trusty Ruger 1022! The next thing he'll know will be that some cop will be putting him in cuffs!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

So now the 15 shot .22 cal. tube loading rifle I gave my grandson a few years ago now makes him a criminal. This gun is 50 years old and was well maintained but now illegal because of some moron on the left.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Loneriderrr, KCW and Fedup - isn't it amazing how one moron disagrees with every post that points out how stupid this "feel good lefislation" is, but does not have the b alls to state why they disagree. I guess if their respose was "President Obama and Govenor Cuomo know what's best for the state and country" they would be a laughing stock.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sorry, don't watch tv. Thought it would have been in this paper. Not sure if I'm that moron you're talking about but riddle me this: how does this law affect you? Do you think it stops you from defending yourself? You still have your pistols and rifles and shotguns. What is the definition of "well regulated militia"?

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

so you could walk up to a leo today and ask him how many rounds he has in his weapon including the ar 15 in the trunk and if he exceeds 7 in either of them you could do a citizens arrest on him for each weapon that he is in violation of,ea is a misdemeanor after 40 or 50 of those today that would get there attention

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thankfully not so loneriderr1, for whatever reason tube feeds are specifically exempted from the nonsense! So your grandson can load up the tube with all fifteen rounds! As a matter fact, if the gun will digest "shorts" he may be able to get 30 rounds in there, all legally! However if you take a Ruger 1022 out, you can only put seven rounds into that highly dangerous ten round magazine!

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lilrud, " a well regulated militia" refers to the body public as whole being proficient or effective("a proficient or effective militia"). Reading the 2008 SCOTUS decision District of Columbia v Heller (currently the defining ruling on Second Amendment issues) would answer many questions on the matter.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thank you for answering that KWC and also for your definition for those who harp about "a well regulated militia". None of them seem to understand that it has been answered by SCOTUS. And the meaning posted many times in these forums. But seeing it doesn't fit their agenda then it doesn't matter to them.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court"

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »