Leaderboard

Heinz gets it....

Hey, folks... I know our Governor doesn't get a lot of respect around here (quite understandably), but please watch what you post. Thx!

Thank you!

The gunsmith's name is Thomas Richardson. He works out of National Range and Armory in Williamsport. https://nationalrangeandarmory.com/

ALBANY — The number of firearms being seized by police from individuals found to be “likely” at risk of harm to themselves or others has soared so much in the past year that evidence rooms in some State Police barracks have had to be reconfigured or expanded to store the weapons. The increase follows an executive order issued last year by Gov. Kathy Hochul that mandated troopers file court applications for “extreme risk protection orders” whenever they encounter a person who is believed to be a danger and in possession of a firearm. The “Red Flag Law” was enacted in 2019, but last year Hochul also signed into law several measures that expanded who may file an “ERPO” petition to include health care practitioners who have examined an individual within the last six months. The law change also requires police and district attorneys to file extreme risk protection orders when they have “credible information” that someone is likely to engage in conduct that could result in serious harm. In 2020, judges issued protection orders against 255 people across New York. This year, in just over four months, the number of individuals subjected to emergency or temporary risk protection orders topped 2,120. And between 2020 and last November, State Police had seized 2,521 firearms under emergency protection orders — a figure that does not include seizures made by more than 150 other New York police agencies More here ---> https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/gun-seizures-ny-soaring-year-extreme-risk-law-17916948.php#:~:text=ALBANY — The number of firearms,expanded to store the weapons

he's probably doing on the down low

Yep - I emailed mine to them - they said "Call us and schedule" - Went there with my wallet and $20 and was in and out with PA LTCF in no time flat. The security guard at the metal detector at the front said "oh - sheriff's office is downstairs - take a left, then take the stairs or elevator to the basement. Went right up to the window, gave 'em my name and the $20 cash and they took my pic and printed it and laminated it. Done.

Here's a thought - the State undermines itself in its arguments. Chapter 131 creates a vastly expanded enumerated list of so-called sensitive locations. The State attempts to justify many of these as locations where particularly vulnerable people assemble. The State fails to explain in what way these people are especially vulnerable. It may be presumed that they are vulnerable because they are less able to defend themselves from violent attack because they are children, mentally infirm, or substance abuse addicts. The State appears to presume that because these categories of people assemble in the defined locations for a specific reason (education, sports events, treatment, etc.) that they are the only people in those locations. This is clearly untrue as children do not educate themselves, referee their own sports matches, nor do the infirm treat their own ailments. There are always responsible, law-abiding adults also present to oversee and run the events at these locations as well as spectate at spots events. Indeed, officials at these events are required to submit to a State background check before engaging in running such events. Even children at playgrounds are required to be supervised by a responsible adult. The State’s blanket ban on firearms prevents these responsible adults from acting in defense of the vulnerable people present. It should also be noted that children, the mentally infirm and substance addicts are categorically prohibited from obtaining permits to carry handguns. Chapter 131 also extends the categories of people associated with law enforcement who are exempt from the prohibition of carrying a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the multitude of sensitive locations. The State argues that these categories of people are at a heightened risk of attack from vengeful criminals. This is unproven, but may be so, but the State saying that they to need to be equipped to defend themselves in the enumerated sensitive locations, is also the State is admitting that regardless of the law prohibiting ordinary people possessing firearms in these locations, there is still a risk that self-defense from a violent attack will be necessary. This is a clear admission that prohibiting firearms from sensitive locations does not eliminate bad actors from committing violent attacks in those places. In contrast, the sensitive locations acknowledged in the Bruen opinion have active measures to ensure the prohibition is observed – metal detectors, armed law enforcement personnel, etc. The vast majority of the new sensitive locations do not have such measures and are a prohibition on paper only. It is very easy to understand how a bad actor ignores the prohibition. Even if an attacker has a particular person as a target, such as one of the newly enumerated exempt people in Chapter 131, it is usual for there to be indiscriminate gunfire from the bad actor. One only needs to look at the number of innocent bystanders injured or killed in the violence perpetrated in our cities to see this is true. Ordinary, law-abiding adults in these sensitive locations have a tangible need for self-defense, no less than the people associated with law enforcement. If the State wishes to persevere with the notion that prohibiting vetted, law-abiding adults from possessing firearms in sensitive locations is effective, they must also admit that it is unnecessary for the newly enumerated associates of law enforcement to be exempt from that prohibition.