7 ms·

Your state's gun laws prevent me from ever living there.

by kyrra 14y ago

untog 14y ago
Don't come to New York, then. If your access to rifles is more important than the tax codes your startup may or may not face, stay where you are.
- cullenking 14y ago
  I think it might be something more about the fact that New York's interpretation of the 2nd amendment differs so greatly from mine that I am fearful for what they might do in regards to other constitutional amendments. As a side note, I cannot move to most cities in Colorado because I happen to have two dogs who are banned by their breed. The point is, there is way more to the conversation than just taxes alone.
  - king_magic 14y ago
    Seriously, I've been throw into the gulags and tortured at least 5 times while living in NY. It's awful - just awful. Don't come here, whatever you do. Don't say I didn't warn you!
    - untog 14y ago
      I've been throw into the gulags and tortured at least 5 times while living in NY Seriously, stop going to bars around Times Square. You should know better by now.
      - king_magic 14y ago
        I feel like this joke would also work for "rush hour subways" in place of "bars around Times Square" :)
- Osiris 14y ago
  To other child post: FUD. What the heck does NY have to do with the federal constitution? It takes 3/4 of states to pass a new amendment, so it's not like NY can do it on it's own. The second amendment limits the federal government from passing certain kinds of laws.
  - elliptic 14y ago
    Completely false. Like much of the rest of Bill of Rights, the second amendment has been incorporated (see Chicago vs McDonald), and thus held to apply to the states. It slightly irritates me when people say this, because usually those people have no problem accepting that other amendments that they hold to be more important (e.g, the 1st) apply to the states.
    - nthj 14y ago
      > It slightly irritates me when people say this, because usually those people have no problem accepting that other amendments that they hold to be more important (e.g, the 1st) apply to the states. Heck, people try to apply the 1st amendment to private corporations & online forums set up by 14 year olds.
    - strlen 14y ago
      Exactly. A sensible position is: "Second amendment recognized an individual right, but I don't think New York's gun laws infringe on it any more than their copyright right laws infringe on first amendment rights." Of course, now you'll need a rational argument to back that position up. I personally think this will be a rather difficult case to argue, whereas most parts of a less restrictive assault weapon ban (like the one they had on books before) could probably withstand immediate scrutiny. Similarly, gun enthusiasts can't claim that all gun control is unconstitutional. The easy days of magical thinking (whether one side arguing "Second amendment does not protect an individual right!" or the other side arguing "Thomas Jefferson wrote ``Thou needeth an HK-416 with a magazine of thirty cartridges lest black helicopters invade thy farm''!") are done.
  - bdunbar 14y ago
    I believe the poster is referring to Cuomo's press conference this morning (1/15) where he announced his intention to enact a ban on rifles, sales of rifles, ammunition, restrict magazine capacity and so on. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013
koenigdavidmj 14y ago
As compared to California?
- strlen 14y ago
  It's feasible (perhaps easier than it should really be) to legally buy a handgun in California: take a test (written test and basic handling of the firearm), pass a background check, 10-day waiting period, and a limit of one per month. Far more difficult in New York: I've heard "must wait six months", "need to document a specific reason", and both... The overall message being "don't bother."
sl4yerr 14y ago
At this point, mentioning gun legislation is almost an extension of Godwin's law.
flagnog 14y ago
and you can't legally buy a Big Gulp. Seriously, and city/county/state govt that would do that, you can't trust them with your livelihood.
- smsm42 14y ago
  If the government thinks they need to tell you how big a drink you can have, and the citizens agree with it, there's something seriously wrong with both. OTOH, we have plastic bag ban in California and lightbulb ban federally, if I remember correctly, so it's not that easy nowdays to find a place to live where there's not something seriously wrong with it.
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    You remember incorrectly. There is no statewide plastic bag ban in California (though some California municipalities have restrictions on plastic grocery bags). And there is no federal lightbulb ban (there is a federal rule providing energy efficiency standards for certain categories of lightbulbs which sets increasing standards including ones which many currently-popular incandescent bulbs would fail; the intent of the bill was to encourage development and sale of more efficient lighting devices, which it has done.)
    - smsm42 14y ago
      >>>> There is no statewide plastic bag ban in California OK, I agree - I should have said "in many places in California". Using weasel words like "restriction" - as if only "very dangerous assault bags" were prohibited but there was no problem with regular plastic bags - does not change the fact the bags are banned - in SF, in San Jose, in LA county and in some others. In fact, in most places the regulators themselves flat out call it a "ban" in their explanatory materials. >>>> And there is no federal lightbulb ban (there is a federal rule providing energy efficiency standards for certain categories Which is effectively a ban on certain - very widely used - categories of lightbulbs. The fact that the it is called more verbosely does not change the fact that it is a ban. The intent also does not change the fact - I'm sure every governmental ban has tons of supposedly good intents behind it, it does not stop being a ban because of it.
w1ntermute 14y ago
Take a look at the Great State of Texas. It is quite free when it comes to gun laws. For example, I believe it is the only state in which you are allowed to use lethal force to defend your property. And there's the added benefit that if you learn some basic Spanish, you can hire illegal immigrant labor to do all your housework and gardening for a pittance (this can be done without knowing Spanish, but then you end up wasting money on a middleman, and there are other benefits to knowing Spanish in Texas anyway).
- msmith 14y ago
  More than half of the states in the Union have some sort of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law [1]. It's not just Texas. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_St...
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    There's a difference between just having a Castle Doctrine and being allowed to use lethal force. Because if you are not allowed to use lethal force, you always have to worry about the consequences of killing the intruder.
    - redspark 14y ago
      Having grown up in Wyoming. While Wyoming is definitely not a tech hub, they do protect your right to use lethal force to protect your property. Plus if they steal your horse, you can hang them and shoot them. win/win
- strlen 14y ago
  > Take a look at the Great State of Texas. It is quite free when it comes to gun laws. For example, I believe it is the only state in which you are allowed to use lethal force to defend your property. Actually a "duty to retreat" is rather rare. In California, there's a right to use lethal force if you are in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they are in risk of life or limb. I also don't think you can shoot someone for just being on your property in Texas when there's no reason to suspect they are a danger to you, or if they're just trying to steal your car while you're inside the house, etc...
rdl 14y ago
Congratulations :) That's one of the main factors in why I'm moving in the next year or two. It's a toss-up between WA (which has good gun laws) and TX/NV which have excellent gun laws. (I'll probably be an FFL-07 anyway, so WA's laws aren't substantially different for me, but for someone who wants regular civilian ownership of SBRs, WA is inferior to NV or TX)

Your state's gun laws prevent me from ever living there.

by kyrra 14y ago

Your state's gun laws prevent me from ever living there.

untog 14y ago

Don't come to New York, then. If your access to rifles is more important than the tax codes your startup may or may not face, stay where you are.

cullenking 14y ago
I think it might be something more about the fact that New York's interpretation of the 2nd amendment differs so greatly from mine that I am fearful for what they might do in regards to other constitutional amendments. As a side note, I cannot move to most cities in Colorado because I happen to have two dogs who are banned by their breed. The point is, there is way more to the conversation than just taxes alone.
- king_magic 14y ago
  Seriously, I've been throw into the gulags and tortured at least 5 times while living in NY. It's awful - just awful. Don't come here, whatever you do. Don't say I didn't warn you!
  - untog 14y ago
    I've been throw into the gulags and tortured at least 5 times while living in NY Seriously, stop going to bars around Times Square. You should know better by now.
    - king_magic 14y ago
      I feel like this joke would also work for "rush hour subways" in place of "bars around Times Square" :)
Osiris 14y ago
To other child post: FUD. What the heck does NY have to do with the federal constitution? It takes 3/4 of states to pass a new amendment, so it's not like NY can do it on it's own. The second amendment limits the federal government from passing certain kinds of laws.
- elliptic 14y ago
  Completely false. Like much of the rest of Bill of Rights, the second amendment has been incorporated (see Chicago vs McDonald), and thus held to apply to the states. It slightly irritates me when people say this, because usually those people have no problem accepting that other amendments that they hold to be more important (e.g, the 1st) apply to the states.
  - nthj 14y ago
    > It slightly irritates me when people say this, because usually those people have no problem accepting that other amendments that they hold to be more important (e.g, the 1st) apply to the states. Heck, people try to apply the 1st amendment to private corporations & online forums set up by 14 year olds.
  - strlen 14y ago
    Exactly. A sensible position is: "Second amendment recognized an individual right, but I don't think New York's gun laws infringe on it any more than their copyright right laws infringe on first amendment rights." Of course, now you'll need a rational argument to back that position up. I personally think this will be a rather difficult case to argue, whereas most parts of a less restrictive assault weapon ban (like the one they had on books before) could probably withstand immediate scrutiny. Similarly, gun enthusiasts can't claim that all gun control is unconstitutional. The easy days of magical thinking (whether one side arguing "Second amendment does not protect an individual right!" or the other side arguing "Thomas Jefferson wrote ``Thou needeth an HK-416 with a magazine of thirty cartridges lest black helicopters invade thy farm''!") are done.
- bdunbar 14y ago
  I believe the poster is referring to Cuomo's press conference this morning (1/15) where he announced his intention to enact a ban on rifles, sales of rifles, ammunition, restrict magazine capacity and so on. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013

koenigdavidmj 14y ago

As compared to California?

strlen 14y ago
It's feasible (perhaps easier than it should really be) to legally buy a handgun in California: take a test (written test and basic handling of the firearm), pass a background check, 10-day waiting period, and a limit of one per month. Far more difficult in New York: I've heard "must wait six months", "need to document a specific reason", and both... The overall message being "don't bother."

sl4yerr 14y ago

At this point, mentioning gun legislation is almost an extension of Godwin's law.

flagnog 14y ago

and you can't legally buy a Big Gulp. Seriously, and city/county/state govt that would do that, you can't trust them with your livelihood.

smsm42 14y ago
If the government thinks they need to tell you how big a drink you can have, and the citizens agree with it, there's something seriously wrong with both. OTOH, we have plastic bag ban in California and lightbulb ban federally, if I remember correctly, so it's not that easy nowdays to find a place to live where there's not something seriously wrong with it.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  You remember incorrectly. There is no statewide plastic bag ban in California (though some California municipalities have restrictions on plastic grocery bags). And there is no federal lightbulb ban (there is a federal rule providing energy efficiency standards for certain categories of lightbulbs which sets increasing standards including ones which many currently-popular incandescent bulbs would fail; the intent of the bill was to encourage development and sale of more efficient lighting devices, which it has done.)
  - smsm42 14y ago
    >>>> There is no statewide plastic bag ban in California OK, I agree - I should have said "in many places in California". Using weasel words like "restriction" - as if only "very dangerous assault bags" were prohibited but there was no problem with regular plastic bags - does not change the fact the bags are banned - in SF, in San Jose, in LA county and in some others. In fact, in most places the regulators themselves flat out call it a "ban" in their explanatory materials. >>>> And there is no federal lightbulb ban (there is a federal rule providing energy efficiency standards for certain categories Which is effectively a ban on certain - very widely used - categories of lightbulbs. The fact that the it is called more verbosely does not change the fact that it is a ban. The intent also does not change the fact - I'm sure every governmental ban has tons of supposedly good intents behind it, it does not stop being a ban because of it.

w1ntermute 14y ago

Take a look at the Great State of Texas. It is quite free when it comes to gun laws. For example, I believe it is the only state in which you are allowed to use lethal force to defend your property. And there's the added benefit that if you learn some basic Spanish, you can hire illegal immigrant labor to do all your housework and gardening for a pittance (this can be done without knowing Spanish, but then you end up wasting money on a middleman, and there are other benefits to knowing Spanish in Texas anyway).

msmith 14y ago
More than half of the states in the Union have some sort of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law [1]. It's not just Texas. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_St...
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  There's a difference between just having a Castle Doctrine and being allowed to use lethal force. Because if you are not allowed to use lethal force, you always have to worry about the consequences of killing the intruder.
  - redspark 14y ago
    Having grown up in Wyoming. While Wyoming is definitely not a tech hub, they do protect your right to use lethal force to protect your property. Plus if they steal your horse, you can hang them and shoot them. win/win
strlen 14y ago
> Take a look at the Great State of Texas. It is quite free when it comes to gun laws. For example, I believe it is the only state in which you are allowed to use lethal force to defend your property. Actually a "duty to retreat" is rather rare. In California, there's a right to use lethal force if you are in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they are in risk of life or limb. I also don't think you can shoot someone for just being on your property in Texas when there's no reason to suspect they are a danger to you, or if they're just trying to steal your car while you're inside the house, etc...

rdl 14y ago

Congratulations :) That's one of the main factors in why I'm moving in the next year or two. It's a toss-up between WA (which has good gun laws) and TX/NV which have excellent gun laws. (I'll probably be an FFL-07 anyway, so WA's laws aren't substantially different for me, but for someone who wants regular civilian ownership of SBRs, WA is inferior to NV or TX)