Non-compliance & the NY SAFE Act

[Lurks Often]

Looks like a lot of New Yorkers are refusing to register their guns AND County & State police are saying they WON"T enforce the law.

http://www.oneidadispatch.com/general-news/20140101/opponents-flaunt-lack-of-registration

[ileus]

1. This is what happens when they push through useless laws.

[flamin lib]

2. Law abiding citizens . . . nt

[Straw Man]

5. Prohibition was once the law too, as was Jim Crow.

Not to mention laws against gay sex between consenting adults. Are you on board with all of those?

[flamin lib]

10. Yeah, and it was law so people who were caught paid the price. You up for that? nt

[Straw Man]

12. What makes you think I intend to break the law?

I don't.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. yay drug war! yay segregation! yay corporate bailouts!

IT'S THE LAW!!!

[Lurks Often]

8. I see you missed the most important part of the article

in which the county and state police are refusing to enforce the law.

[flamin lib]

11. And you think those charged with enforcing the law

should have the lee way to enforce law as they see fit? That's a good idea?

So you legally carry but the LEO doesn't like cc and he does what he thinks is right? That cuts both ways, be careful what you wish for . . .

[Straw Man]

13. LEOs practice discretion all the time ...

... with victimless transgressions. It's part of the job.

So you legally carry but the LEO doesn't like cc and he does what he thinks is right? That cuts both ways, be careful what you wish for . . .

What they can't do is charge people with crimes that don't exist. Abuse of power, doncha know.

[flamin lib]

14. I other threads about may/shall issue come down to

hard shall because it has to be cut and dried law. Now I see that law enforcement should have flexibility in enforcing the law. Seems like having it both ways, no? Is that a slippery slope?

If you'd aren't one on the shall issue side sorry if I've misscharacterized you.

[Straw Man]

15. Apples and oranges: making law vs. enforcing it.

I other threads about may/shall issue come down to

hard shall because it has to be cut and dried law. Now I see that law enforcement should have flexibility in enforcing the law.

"May issue" is the denial of rights without due process. There should be no discretion when it comes to the denial of rights; it is only justifiable through a rigorous application of black-letter law and due process.

Law enforcement does have flexibility in enforcing the law. That's a simple fact. Absent political pressure from above, agencies and individual officers have to make decisions about how their time and effort would be best spent.

None of this has anything to do with what you said before:

So you legally carry but the LEO doesn't like cc and he does what he thinks is right?

There you're talking about a LEO using "discretion" to arrest someone who hasn't broken any law. That's as wrong as it gets.

[flamin lib]

17. May issue IS due process if that is the the local law. nt

[Straw Man]

20. No, it is NOT.

When the criteria are not written down and the decision is solely up to an individual's judgement, that cannot be called "due process." It is government by whim and fiat. Because there is no written statute guiding the process, there is no legal recourse for anyone denied his/her rights. Calling a situation "due process" simply because it exists is a meaningless tautology.

[flamin lib]

21. Even Scaia says states can pass laws governing guns.

If the law says MAY, its the law and therefore any judgment by law enforcement IS due process under the law.

Tell yourself otherwise all ya what, doesn't make it true.

I'm bored with this sub thread, you go your way and I'll go mine as we will not change an attitude here and it soon becomes mental masturbation on both our parts.

[hack89]

22. Except the Peruta case that flowed from Heller says otherwise

that is why very shortly there will be no "may" issue states.

[Straw Man]

23. So in your estimation there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law?

If the law says MAY, its the law and therefore any judgment by law enforcement IS due process under the law.

Makes one wonder why we have a Supreme Court. Just so some eminent jurists can dress up in robes and get their pictures taken?

I'm bored with this sub thread, you go your way and I'll go mine as we will not change an attitude here and it soon becomes mental masturbation on both our parts.

Speak for yourself. You may be masturbating, but I'm trying to engage in a substantive discussion.

[Lurks Often]

16. I do when those laws are wrong and arguably unconstitutional

and it does cut both ways, do you really want federal law enforcement enforcing the drug laws in Colorado and Washington? Be careful what you wish for, sometimes it results in consequences and legal precedents that will have a negative impact on other causes we care about and support.

[flamin lib]

18. That's fine if you are willing to pay the price extracted by law.

Costitutional? Individual citizens don't get to determine Constitutional. That's what the Supreme Court does. As it now stands even Scalia says states can pass any law they like and restrict guns any way they like short of a total ban that would prevent self defense.

[Lurks Often]

19. This is about law enforcement

refusing to enforce laws they feel are wrong and arguably unconstitutional and it isn't just in NY.

You might want think long and hard about what it means when rank and file law enforcement, the people who are the first to respond to a shooting, are refusing to enforce the gun laws being passed in NY and CO.

[BigAlanMac]

3. That article is four months old

and the deadline has passed.
A lot has happened in New York state since 1/1/14.

It's still an on going battle to get the SAFE law repealed.

Here are two much more current articles:

Suit Against SAFE Act Claims it Allows ‘Warrantless’ Police Searches

SAFE Act foes fear loss of rifles

[Straw Man]

6. The deadline for registration is 4/15/14.

That's the final piece of the phased roll-in.

[Lurks Often]

9. I believe the relevant point of the article still applies

which is that the county and state police are refusing to enforce the law.

I think it is unlikely that the NY Legislature will repeal the law themselves, rather I think the law will be struck down as unconstitutional. A NY judge has already struck down the clause regarding the 7 round magazine limit.

Additionally I have heard that the NY Attorney General has issued a statement to the effect that law enforcement has NO probable cause to examine a magazine to see if it holds more the 7 rounds in the absence of a crime being committed. I believe the person I heard it from, but couldn't find a link after a brief search.

[jimmy the one]

24. anecdotal evidence from gunnuts, a sure fire fail here

lurkso: ..1 the most important part of the article in which the county and state police are refusing to enforce the law. .. 2 the relevant point of the article still applies which is that the county and state police are refusing to enforce the law.

And what do you base your general non sequitur on? gunnut anecdotal evidence:

anecdotes from Nojay: “The rank and file troopers don’t want anything to do with it,” Assemblyman Bill Nojay (R).. “I don’t know of a single sheriff upstate who is going to enforce it.” .. Nojay said estimates of military-style rifles in private ownership in NY range -- up to 1 million. He predicted compliance with registration would be in the 10% range .. He said the SAFE Act provisions on registration will be ignored the same way the 55 mph Interstate speed limit and Prohibition was {sic} ignored..“I know a few hundred of these (gun owners),” Nojay added. “I don’t know of any of them that are going to be registered, so go figure.”

Wow, lurkso, accd'g to nojay you're right. Nojay doesn't know of any gun owners who are going to register their assault rifles or superclips, so there must be full non compliance, wow, a stupendous failure in the process, per nojay.

In Schoharie County, a rural area.., county legislators passed a resolution to keep the county’s official seal off any websites or publications about the SAFE Act. The county notified state officials that no money would be allocated for local enforcement

scoharie co: Pop: 32,099 (2012) Would fit in a sq mile or two of NY City.

County legislatures in Rensselaer and Niagara counties have also passed resolutions about non-use of their official seals in SAFE Act materials. In Erie Co, retired state trooper Howard’s declaration “I won’t enforce it” was credited with electing him to a third term..

Who credited his safe act opposition to his 3rd election? my bet it was gunnuts. But at least rensselaer & Niagara counties account for 400,000, so, so far we're about at 450,000 of NY's 20 million people, approx. 2% of New York. Erie county would up it to ~10% but that's for full non compliance.

A Schoharie official is organizing a protest on Jan. 11, he asks everyone with a gun in the county to show their opposition to SAFE Act by firing off one round in a safe manner.

He then went back to belching Budweiser & playing grand theft auto video game.

Gun rights groups say State Police refusal to release statistics on gun registrations suggests that the new law is being ignored.
State Police said the FOIL requests for the records will not be granted because registration information is part of a confidential database exempt from disclosure.

But when have facts ever gotten in the way of gunnut propagunda?

[Eleanors38]

4. Lack of enforcement breeds lack of respect...

It's a 2-way street between a government and its citizens, but the state must bare more responsibility when a law is shown to be unviable and unworkable, and is nevertheless foisted onto its citizenry.