Good article on New Yorkers coping with the SAFE Act. (Tom King has been at the forefront of the endeavor to fight this and he deserves every vote for NRA BoD.)

 

AR-15 is front, center in NY SAFE Act debate

 

If you've seen any war movie or walked past an on-duty soldier, you've seen this rifle: an AR-15, the civilian version of the semiautomatic rifle that remains standard issue for the U.S. military.

 

But as Kevin Zacharewicz held his AR-15 alongside other rifles in his Round Lake store, Zack's Sports, he chuckled and called it "my big bad wolf."

 

Depending on where you sit in the debate over appropriate forms of gun control, you could look at an AR-15 and ask one of two questions.

 

The first: What legitimate purpose is there for anybody to own a gun designed for the military?

 

The second: What makes it any more dangerous or problematic than any other kind of firearm?

 

"I can't answer that question. I was raised having these guns," said Zacharewicz, a 41-year-old Clifton Park native. "Why do people golf? Why do you have a standard transmission versus an automatic? I really don't know."

 

Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard says guns like the AR-15 are just deadlier, period, and should be banned for the same reason that a kitchen knife is legal but a switchblade is not.

 

"These rifles are basically replicas of military armament, and they are designed to efficiently kill people," Sheppard said. "In civilian life, that's not something you need or want."

 

After high-profile shootings in Aurora, Colo.; Newtown, Conn.; and the Rochester suburb of Webster, President Barack Obama last week renewed his push for federal lawmakers to tighten gun laws.

 

The Capital Region, too, has seen rifle-wielding outlaws set off dangerous situations. On Jan. 10, 2009, a gang member wanted in Hartford fired 28 rounds at State Police with a semiautomatic rifle during a traffic stop on I-90 in East Greenbush. The resulting standoff left the man dead and shut down the highway for hours. On Dec. 14, 1994, a man with a bolt-action rifle held a classroom full of University at Albany students hostage for several hours. He shot one student as he was wrestled to the ground; a law enforcement official said the outcome could have been worse if the rifle had been semiautomatic.

 

Congress is considering a more stringent requirement for background checks and debating the renewal of all or part of the pre-2004 assault weapons ban that prohibited the sale of automatic weapons like the AK-47 and Uzi.

New York did not wait, and tightened gun control laws at the urging of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo at the start of this year with the passage of the NY SAFE Act.

 

The act broadened the definition of banned assault weapons, reduced the amount of rounds that can be possessed in a gun magazine, increased penalties for illegal gun possession, reduced public access to gun permit information, and required mental health professionals to report concerns about a gun-owning patient who poses a risk of harming himself or others.

 

New York law already included a ban on "assault weapons," which were defined as semiautomatic rifles with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two items on a list of prohibited features: a flash suppressor, a folding or collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a second handgrip for the non-trigger hand, a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher.

 

Under the act, the ban would be triggered by any one of those features. Their sale or transfer is restricted, and gun owners must register them with the state by next January, or be subject to a misdemeanor charge and possible forfeiture.

 

Gun owners have steeled themselves in opposition to the act since it was passed, staging rallies in upstate cities and at the Capitol. Forums, including two last week in Brunswick and Canandaigua, draw hundreds of concerned people. Roughly four dozen upstate county legislatures have passed resolutions opposing the new law.

Read more: http://www.timesunio...p#ixzz2PsnoUIxY

Of course logic and reason are on our side. Our founding fathers intended for us to have access to military weapons, which in those days were muskets. The Supreme Court has even affirmed this in a 1930's ruling.

 

The problem is that the other side ignores reason and appeals to emotion, spouting moronic platitudes, like "If it saves just one life..."

the article starts off with incorrect statements.

Starts off? It's riddled with it, like my targets are riddled with bullet holes after a day at the range.

 

I had no idea we banned automatic weapons like Uzis and AK-47s in "pre-2004."

Starts off? It's riddled with it, like my targets are riddled with bullet holes after a day at the range.

 

I had no idea we banned automatic weapons like Uzis and AK-47s in "pre-2004."

I was only calling out the first obvious one.........

I don't think I've read a single article spawned by the media about firearms that accurately reflects the current definitions surrounding firearms. The clip vs. magazine descriptor has been beaten to death as we all know. Sadly, the unknowing who read these articles, if they do actually read; gain the wrong information.