NY Sending Out Confiscation Notices

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems like that website is purposefully stirring the pot. First its not the state, second, NYC's law has been that way well before the Safe Act was in place. They even note it has nothing to do with the State as a whole or the safe act, while simultaneously trying to use it as evidence to denounce the safe act. Which isn't to say the safe act is a good thing, but that one thing has nothing to do with another.
 
Seems like that website is purposefully stirring the pot.
Click to expand...
That's Farago. 10-306 has been law for a long time, and these notices are usually given after someone applies for a permit for a prohibited weapon.

Throwing around words like confiscation and tyranny with only a small disclaimer correcting the main point is not just irresponsible, it's dishonest.
 
If and or when confiscations starts, I believe there will be huge problems with compliance. Who is going to surrender what they paid there hard earned money for that was legal at the time they bought it and now Cuomo or anyone else says is illegal now ?
 
Regardless of whether one likes the law or not, getting upset because one put themselves either knowingly or through intentional ignorance into the situation of breaking the law does not seem appropriate.

It would be akin to being upset for getting a speeding ticket after passing the speed limit sign, either enough attention wasn't being paid to the task at hand or it was ignored anyway. The major difference is, this letter is like the traffic cop telling you, "ok, I can give you this ticket, or just in case you really didn't see the sign, you can drive back and do it legally, here are you options for doing so."

Even if portions of the argument made are legitimate concerns, attempting to support them with disinformation makes the argument as a whole lose credibility and people stop listening. It is one thing to appeal to people's emotions to get them engaged in a topic, it is another to get people riled up and send them forth with weak arguments and disinformation that any unemotionally involved person will see right through.
 
I fail to understand how confiscation and tyranny aren't appropriate terms, whether this is a new law, or one on the books for a couple decades.

Doesn't much matter when YOUR 2A rights are effectively banned or you go to prison for something that is completely lawful in about 45-48 states... This is an outlier rule. And as everyone knows, strips people of FUNDAMENTAL rights.

It would be like outlawing Christianity (practiced by the majority of the nation) and ordering the surrender or destruction of bibles.
 
They are appropriate terms.

That's a completely separate question.

The law (and the letters) aren't new and they're not related to the safe act.

I want my arguments to be characterized by truth, logic and high-ground, not deception and spin.

Does the law violate rights and needs to be changed? Yes and yes. Lying about what it is and does and why should be a tactic of the other side, not ours.
 
And the article clearly says:
[ED: This notice was sent for New York City residents, based on New York City laws, not necessarily SAFE Act provisions.]
Click to expand...


I think that saying it's because of ABC or XYZ is largely missing the point, nor is it 'dishonest' argument. And could it ALSO be due to the SAFE act? (I have no idea, but illegal is illegal as far as I'm concerned and it should be stopped.)
 
It says "And so it begins:"

That's a lie. It's not "beginning", it's BEEN happening, before the SAFE Act was passed.

The first sentence below the letter says "NY's SAFE Act is a bad, bad thing."

Well, yes it is, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with that letter. The letter specifically says "As per NYC Administrative Code 10-306(b), no mention of the SAFE Act whatsoever.

It's not a "confiscation letter". It gives several remedies, none of which are acceptable from a rights stand-point but none of which involve confiscation. One of the options is "surrender". Unacceptable, but wholly different from "confiscation".

The premise and implications are all lies.
 
The passage of the "Safe Act" probably had something to do with the enforcement of the existing law, as well as Bloomberg's exit from the mayoral position. Some interesting things to note here. 1) The enforcement of the law would be impossible without the registration of firearms. This should be a clear message to gun owners about the ultimate aim of registration. As usual, only law abiding citizens are affected, as they are the only ones who would consider registering a weapon. 2) The law effecively removes from private ownership every practical self defense weapon out there. The right to keep and bear arms can be claimed to still exist, but in effect, that right has been for all intents and purposes, gutted.
 
The passage of the "Safe Act" probably had something to do with the enforcement of the existing law
Click to expand...

Based on what?

The law effecively removes from private ownership every practical self defense weapon out there.
Click to expand...

Really? This NYC law that only addresses long guns, some how affects handguns? or a stock 870 is suddenly inadequate to protect one's home with?

I really dislike defending the NYC's system, but the real point is if you're going to argue against something, argue from a solid foundation and not from left-field with conjecture.
 
Please explain how being ordered to surrender as one option how that is different than confiscation....

Its the same thing in my book.

It's also not very practical to ship the gun out of state.

Yes defending New York's laws is a poor position to be in.... Or the semantics of a pretty effective web attack.

Finally to the person receiving the letter it has begun...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In response to the questions raised, the passage of the safe act probably encouraged the appetites of the anti's in NYC and it provided appropriate motivation to begin the process of consfigation. Let's face it, something did. The law existed for a while without attempts at outright seizure. The registration of a pistol in NYC is difficult at best, and prohibits most from even attempting to own one legally. While an 870 is a good HD weapon in some instances, that is not so for most women and those of slight build to whom the recoil is too severe. If that 870 holds more than 5 rounds, it is subject to seizure. The big question here is: Why would you even attempt to justify such laws to begin with?
 
leadcounsel said:
Please explain how being ordered to surrender as one option how that is different than confiscation....

Its the same thing in my book.

It's also not very practical to ship the gun out of state.

Yes defending New York's laws is a poor position to be in.... Or the semantics of a pretty effective web attack.

Finally to the person receiving the letter it has begun...
Click to expand...

Confiscation is when they come and take it with no compensation. A letter giving you several legal options is not confiscation.

The "semantics" of that web attack suck. The whole thing is a lie. Nothing has "begun", it's not new. It's not related to the safe act.

I'm not in any position defending any law. I despise the Safe ACT, I despise NYC's Sullivan Act (in effect since 1911, ironically) and I despise NYCs entire firearms permit system. I defend none of it.

I also don't defend spin, out right lies or lying by implication.

And let's leave out the Nazi nonsense.
 
Ronl, I'm not trying to justify them, just pointing out that arguing against them without proper evidence and support is not very useful. Much like the article attempting to create false correlations and implied causation, it does no good. You have provided no evidence that NYC policy of enforcement has changed since the safe act, you're just assuming it has. The point about the 870 and handguns is that you stated "The law effecively removes from private ownership every practical self defense weapon out there" (emphasis mine) while in fact the law in question only deals with long guns, and that there are in fact long guns that are still available that fit the criteria.

Leadcounsel, the difference is that in confiscation they wouldn't send a letter offering several options, of which only 1 includes actually forfeiting property to the government, they would show up and take it.

And no it's nothing like Nazi Germany. That type of extreme hyperbole is really not useful.

Again, the point isn't that NYC or NYS laws make sense or that they're good, but that if you're going to argue against them, or anything for that matter, do so from an informed position and not by confounding issues that do not provide evidence for each other. I think the laws stink, and would love to see them changed, but if someone with that outlook, doesn't accept arguments based on conjecture and emotional appeals, why would someone who thinks the laws are just do so?
 
Oookkkaayyy... First, let's address confiscation.

con·fis·cate (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.

2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.

adj. (knf-skt, kn-fskt)
1. Seized by a government; appropriated.

2. Having lost property through confiscation.
Click to expand...

Confiscation is 1 of 3 equally bad options.
1) Turn it over to the government forever.
2) Disable and/or turn it over to the government so that it be made effectively useless.
3) Get rid of it.

The NET EFFECT is the loss of the inherent right of ownership. "Confiscation" in this sense really is a confiscation of the RIGHT, and not so much the property at question. Would be similar to being restricted to practice religion for 15 minutes on Sunday morning. It makes the right toothless, and hence an effective confiscation.

Next let's discuss whether it's the law called the SAFE ACT or a different law... while it would matter if I were to go to the proper legislation branch of NY and sit down and work out a new law, repeal the old, etc... IT DOES NOT matter if it's call the "Blue Banana" law or the "Sugar and Spice" law or the "blah blah blah..." Frankly, calling it a SAFE law is a misnomer. Just like the nicknames give to many laws - the "Assault Weapon Ban" was technically probably something else. But EVERYONE knew what you were talking about.

Whether SAFE actually kicked this off, or just accelerated the enforcement, who the heck actually cares.

The END result is that in NOVEMBER 2013, residences of the friendly city of liberty are receiving Nazi-style letters to turn over or destroy or remove private property and effectively 'surrender' their liberties to the Constitution. I do think it is akin to Nazi-ism. I value my 2nd Amendment right more than nearly anything. And the Nazis used the exact same tactics. Identified Jews. Isolated Jews. Then took Jews away.

Perhaps it is not due to the SAFE act. Perhaps this 'began' a year or 10 years ago. Does that make it any less relevant, personal, or important?

I think folks are missing the bigger picture.

conjecture and emotional appeals
Click to expand...
Does it really matter to the person surrendering a life collection of guns, or sending them out of state at a significant expense, or moving out of state also at a significant expense, whether it was due to the SAFE or another law, both unfair?
 
Last edited:
Whether SAFE actually kicked this off, or just accelerated the enforcement, who the heck actually cares.
Click to expand...
I do, because this whole thing hinges on an article that is dishonest. That affects our ability to argue with any effectiveness.

The END result is that in NOVEMBER 2013, residences of the friendly city of liberty are receiving Nazi-style letters to turn over or destroy or remove private property and effectively 'surrender' their liberties to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
AR-15's are legal for civilian ownership. One could argue that the "END result" is the murder of innocents. Does that sound right? No. But that's the argument you're making. It's pretty late in the game to be getting angry about these notices now.

And let's all drop the Nazi references. They're inapt, insulting, and out of line.
 
I refuse to support lies and innuendo.

The entire article is false and misleading.

Your own posted definition doesn't support your argument of confiscation. Did you even read the letter? It essentially says "You can't have that here. Here's your options." ALL the options involve either continued ownership outside the city or selling the item.

This isn't about supporting the law. I don't and won't. It sucks.

It's about honest arguments. If the argument can't be made with truth, it must not be true. If the argument is not true, the arguer believes a lie. Make the argument honestly or don't make it.

The laws suck. There's enough truthful things to argue without hurting our reputation with lies and false correlations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top