SAFE ACT --> New York :::: Let this be a lesson folks...don't let this happen to you

Originally Posted by king kong

illegal assault magazine scares me more than assault rock.

Not me. Assault rocks are more easily concealed and can be disguised as regular rocks. You can't disguise assault magazines as non lethal ones. You just can't

Originally Posted by peytonracer4

Not me. Assault rocks are more easily concealed and can be disguised as regular rocks. You can't disguise assault magazines as non lethal ones. You just can't

Yes you can. Watch....

Assault rifle....



Big furry slippers....



Spray it pink. Thats the secret. Nothing pink is scary.

Safe Act for who, the criminals? Effen NY, glad I left that sh1t hole many years ago.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Yes you can. Watch....

Assault rifle....



Big furry slippers....



Spray it pink. Thats the secret. Nothing pink is scary.

You know, Florida is a nice spot to live man

Originally Posted by Tampa02e46

You know, Florida is a nice spot to live man

1) Too damn hot.
2) Love bugs
3) Love bugs
4) Need to speak spanish.
5) Work isn't easy to come by.


I love Miami for a vacay, but couldnt live there. It's like NY to me...awesome as a tourist, but if you lived there, you'd hate everything.

I will most likely end up in Colorado, gods Jeep country.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

1) Too damn hot.
2) Love bugs
3) Love bugs
4) Need to speak spanish.
5) Work isn't easy to come by.


I love Miami for a vacay, but couldnt live there. It's like NY to me...awesome as a tourist, but if you lived there, you'd hate everything.

I will most likely end up in Colorado, gods Jeep country.

Ohio?

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App

Apparently MD will propose stricter laws than NY in the coming two weeks...

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Apparently MD will propose stricter laws than NY in the coming two weeks...

I want to say I can't believe it and I wonder how they could make it worse than NY, but politicians never cease to amaze me..and they will claim it still upholds our 2nd amendment rights...sickening.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Apparently MD will propose stricter laws than NY in the coming two weeks...

MD is also playing the full retard contest? Wow, lots of winners.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

I hear the rustling of a thousand jimmies. Spare me your BS. In NY there is no stand your ground, so you will instantly be arrested in a HD shoot. There is no castle doctrine, so a grand jury will definitely stick you into a trial. On top of all that, you are almost certainly going to get convicted (if you are charged with something lighter than murder) from the NY libtard jury. The NYPD will really want to help you out though, so enjoy defending yourself.

Stop trying to be cute

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat
by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Sec. 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

1) Too damn hot.
2) Love bugs
3) Love bugs
4) Need to speak spanish.
5) Work isn't easy to come by.


I love Miami for a vacay, but couldnt live there. It's like NY to me...awesome as a tourist, but if you lived there, you'd hate everything.

I will most likely end up in Colorado, gods Jeep country.

Let me rephrase: Tampa is a nice place to live


LOL, I would NEVER suggest Miami!

Also:

1. NO strict gun control
2. NO salt to rust your car
3. 70 degrees all through winter
4. NO state tax
5. Yes, love bugs suck

Originally Posted by Jimmeh

Stop trying to be cute

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat
by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Sec. 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

Blah blah blah. NY has a duty to retreat. End of story.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Blah blah blah. NY has a duty to retreat. End of story.

I really think you need to learn how to read.

"2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor"

KTHXBAI

Originally Posted by Jimmeh

I really think you need to learn how to read.

"2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor"

KTHXBAI

Are you as clueless as you seem to be? Do you even understand basic law....

Why would there be a clause stating that a person has no duty to retreat during a home invasion assuming he was not the initial agressor???? Do you even understand what that little line of text provides the DA?

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Are you as clueless as you seem to be? Do you even understand basic law....

Why would there be a clause stating that a person has no duty to retreat during a home invasion assuming he was not the initial agressor???? Do you even understand what that little line of text provides the DA?

Well apparently not, please explain

Stop getting rustled...

Weapons affected by the new gun laws.

http://troopers.ny.gov/Firearms/NYS%5FSAFE%5FAct/

I'm stunned that the KSG slipped through that law

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

I'm stunned that the KSG slipped through that law

There are a few other brands not on the list...maybe someone can explain to me....legally, since they didn't ban ALL the manufacturers, why aren't all the banned guys suing the state of NY for this? Seems like this is exclusionary.