TargetTalk

I have (mostly) read through the 'new gun regs' thread, and propose a discussion of a different direction and focus. I'm proposing a practical assessment of what we can do to protect our sport from any further erosion, and what work we can do to restore what rights and privileges we already lost. I propose we think about this without dwelling on difficulty or probability of success of the undertaking.

I have worked my way through a (non lawyers) reading of the NY Safe Act. While the comprehensive insult and abrogation of rights delivered to Service Rifle shooters, AR owners (preban, and NY configured legal included), and a myriad of other high power shooting disciplines was both unwarranted and unprecedented, I'm not sure it is beneficial to dwell on the elements of the new laws that relate specifically to those areas here, only because there are so many other places that are dedicated to those disciplines. Those disciplines are literally our 'brothers in arms', and we certainly have common cause but TargetTalk's main membership focus has primarily been small bore and air target shooting.

By my first cursory reading of the NY act, a few of the ways the small bore target community is effected are as follows:
1- No more face to face sales, all sales must go through FFL and pay their fee.
2- For NRA sport rifle shooters if your Ruger 10-22 has a thumb hole stock, or compensator you must now register it as an A.W. or you are a criminal. Prepare to go through another background check at registration time to assess whether you may rightfully own your already owned rifle. I do not recall if an indication is made if there will be a fee involved, or if finger printing etc. will be required.
3- If you have any sport rifle mags. of 10 rounds , you can keep them but may not load more than 7 rounds. You may not sell them within NY State. If you have mags. over 10 rounds you must dispose of them out of state within one year.
4- All ammo sales must go through FFL dealer and NICS check. Direct mail order is eliminated. For those of us who rely on Wolf/SK, Eley, RW and Lapua etc. from the usual reliable Ohio, Tennessee, Texas importers life just became miserable. Batch testing is now a multi step process/exercise in frustration.
5- All FFLs are required to report bulk ammo sales to the state. I did not see a definition of 'bulk'. I'm pretty sure if you put in an order for a case (5K rounds) of Wolf that will qualify as 'bulk'. I also have an idea that you are going to get a knock on your door from the State Police and or a mental health professional to assess whether you are stockpiling this for a future rampage. Prepare to have your motives, and your 'arsenal' inspected. I would rather not speculate on what happens after assessment/inspection.

So, as we can see, what was originally sold to us as a legislation initiative to protect citizens from gun violence has ramifications which reach deeply into all the corners of our rights and our sport. (Air gun folks look kind of ok.... for now). Similar legislation is making its way through Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, etc. and at the national level as I write.

So my question is: (aside from the obvious, join NRA, NYSRPA and your state equivalents, and writing your political representatives), what concrete, positive things can we/should we do now?

i fail to see any religion,

And i dont know what to do about our rights, however i am open to anything, and i do what i can to support.

As a first step, I would recommend lobbying to except single-shot weapons from all the new limitations, including face to face sales. I would say a grass-roots movement of target shooters might make THE FIRST TINY STEP. I can imagine a group of Olympic types to get sympathy more than any attempt at major overhaul/repeal.

That's an excellent suggestion Ricardo. Side-stepping the blatantly reactionary approach of the NRA's political activism, forming some sort of voluntary group of competitive shooters whose combined voice could approach Washington and state bodies untainted by the NRA's abusive commentary would certainly be welcome. I suspect politicians and the general public would welcome the perspectives of actual competitors as contrasted with less tolerant, rational contributors to this highly volatile debate. It might be worth approaching the ISSF board for their feedback and potential contributions, as no doubt they have faced restrictions of various sorts in setting up matches around the world. Bringing an international, socially acceptable perspective to the table, representing the needs of competitors in internationally common sports would be helpful.

Ricardo wrote:As a first step, I would recommend lobbying to except single-shot weapons from all the new limitations, including face to face sales. I would say a grass-roots movement of target shooters might make THE FIRST TINY STEP. I can imagine a group of Olympic types to get sympathy more than any attempt at major overhaul/repeal.

Just wanted to point out that air pistols and rifles are not covered by any firearms regulations in the U.S. So what you are essentially saying is that you want to plead for the US to leave free pistol shooters and Olympic Rifle Shooters alone, who are a microscopic fraction of shooters in the US, at the expense of all other Olympic shooting events, and all the other non Olympic events?

When you hold your big rally, fellows, rent a very small room. :-)

And this is just falling into the gun banning trap. start with some, follow up with the rest.

The tool is not the problem. 99.997% of fireamarms in the US killed no one last year (2011).

xnoncents wrote:...I'm proposing a practical assessment of what we can do to protect our sport from any further erosion, and what work we can do to restore what rights and privileges we already lost.
...
...what concrete, positive things can we/should we do now?

Besides my response to you in the other thread, you might consider simple civil disobedience.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_ ... kLBtiTPMfJ

Civil disobedience has a long, proud history in this country. You have to be willing to be arrested, lose the gun, and possibly lose your right to ever own one again. IOW, you must have real commitment to your ideals to follow that path.

Frankly, though, if an ISSF-discipline shooter with the same type of pistol that won medals at the last Olympics isn't the best possible case for testing the law in court, I'd be surprised.

Besides, if no one complies with the law, how much force does it have? Massive non-compliance beat back registration requirements in Canada, iirc.

You did ask for suggestions. With this post and the one I made in the other thread, as well as input from others, you now have a laundry list of actions. Are there any that seem worthy of following through?

To get back to the original question, the shooters in New York MAY want to consider modeling their reaction on what was done in California, where we managed to get an exemption for specific named "Olympic" pistols. I put "Olympic" in quotes because the exemption has grown to cover a number of pistols that are not used in the Olympics but do have an ISSF connection.

The fight to get this exemption was difficult and probably succeeded only because it happened in an Olympic year, and was led by Sandy Santibanez who was fighting to allow his daughter to compete for the USAS team. It was also (mildly) OPPOSED by the NRA and CRPA (Calif. NRA affiliate), because, I imagine, they felt it played into the divide and conquer strategy of the gun-banners. I agree with that position philosophically, but I am immensely grateful that we have the exemption, because, without it, we wouldn't be shooting any of the preferred semi-auto ISSF-type pistols here. And because the California law allowed only specifically state-approved pistols ("not unsafe handguns" - there's an Orwellian phrase for you), we wouldn't be shooting many single-shot FPs either, since they wouldn't qualify for state approval.

Since the exemption was passed, every year seems to bring more proposed restrictions that have to be fought, and this year promises to be the worst ever. I don't know how much longer competitive shooting will be possible in California. So, I guess to sum up, I'd say that the Olympic exemption bought us maybe 15-20 years of competitive shooting, but it was not a long-term solution for the stupid and useless laws that continue to be passed. That's why I say that California MAY be a model. I'm not happy with lobbying for special exemptions to a stupid law, but I want to be able to shoot.

The NRA has been pretty effective at the national level, and we certainly need it to be effective now. But at the state level it's a different story - the NRA didn't help us in California, and it probably won't help you in NY. Some states are governed by a majority of people who have no qualms about running rough shod over the minority. On gun issues it's California, New York, Mass, etc. On social issues such as abortion rights, it's some of the "red" states. In either case it's wrong, but it's a fact of current US politics, so you have to decide what method of accommodation to it is one that you can live with.

And then log on to Target Talk and vent.

FredB

How have the UK olympians done in getting anything back?

Richard H wrote:Richardo, historically how has appeasement worked out?

It's not "appeasement" to try to get something back that's already been taken. I do agree that you should try to get back as much as possible and starting small with the idea that it can grow is not a particularly good tactic. But asking for too much is not likely to work either. The California experience really seems to me the most relevant to what the New Yorkers are facing.

Someone mentioned trying to get Olympians involved. That's exactly what Sandy Santibanez did in California, except his daughter was a serious contender to become an Olympian, and not a full-fledged one yet. She was the perfect poster child for our effort, a 17 year old girl not yet out of high school, who had already represented her country abroad, but was being denied the right to even handle her sports implement, let alone compete, because of a poorly-written law. Even the most dense legislators could see that she was collateral damage to their cause, and many of them voted for the exemption, after she and Sandy made several trips to Sacramento to plead their case.

There was no way the anti-gun-dominated California legislature was going to repeal their stupid law (in fact they keep trying to make it worse), and the NRA and CRPA were totally ineffective here. It was not appeasement; it was a case of something is better than nothing.

FredB

Speaking of Olympic athletes. Here is one taking a stand

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/01/23/wai ... statement/

Thanks for the link,I'm glad I'm not going and glad Jamie pulled out as well as the other venders and sponsors. Too bad that we can't help our friends on the northern border (NY), I hope they don't give in to the eastern side of their state and wish the NRA would help them out.

caveman wrote:Thanks for the link,I'm glad I'm not going and glad Jamie pulled out as well as the other venders and sponsors. Too bad that we can't help our friends on the northern border (NY), I hope they don't give in to the eastern side of their state and wish the NRA would help them out.

Quite frankly Caveman. I wish I didn't live 1500 miles away. I would be going, and would be standing on the closest piece of public property with a picket sign held up......all.....weekend.....long. :-)

Don't think this stuff doesn't affect you. Here in Maryland, we're fighting a bill that is copied largely verbatim from the wretched California law...including the ban on evil, wicked Olympic target pistols.

Which I think is an excellent arguing point. I'm not advocating a "throw someone else under the bus" strategy, merely a "put our best foot forward" tactic. Crack the prejudices against firearm owners by breaking the stereotypes.

Mike show me where they "best foot forward" approach has garnered further gains for the gun community anywhere in the world? Have they seen the light in California that guns aren't bad and allowed more guns, England, Australia? The answer is no, that approach is simply the take his leave mine alone approach and its what they count on to help fracture the resistance.

This time is a bit different. Gunowners in the US are appearing to stand pretty united.

The Eastern Sportsman Show, a huge event with over 1200 vendors, has been cancelled as of approx noon today.

This was due to their reactionary policy of no modern sporting arms or even brochures to be at the event.

Trop's Gun shop started it and Cabela's joined the boycott early on. There wer more big names boycotting than displaying.

Writing was on the wall that if you displayed, you were going to be finished.

Stand Tall, Stand United. I hope the politicians took notice.

As Ben said: We must hang together or we will surely hang separately.

sbrmike wrote:This time is a bit different. Gunowners in the US are appearing to stand pretty united.

The Eastern Sportsman Show, a huge event with over 1200 vendors, has been cancelled as of approx noon today.

This was due to their reactionary policy of no modern sporting arms or even brochures to be at the event.

Trop's Gun shop started it and Cabela's joined the boycott early on. There wer more big names boycotting than displaying.

Writing was on the wall that if you displayed, you were going to be finished.

Stand Tall, Stand United. I hope the politicians took notice.

As Ben said: We must hang together or we will surely hang separately.

The head of Reed's American division lives in Connecticutt. I wonder if that had any influence on his poor decision? Even businessmen sometimes get so caught up over events that they are close to, that they lose their objectivity. If Reeds loses the Shot Show over this, they may be looking for a new American director. This has reallly backfired on them. Rumor has it, they had been planning on the ban for over a month, and failed to tell their vendors in time so they could cancel without losing their shirts. I hear some companies that were flying in from overseas already had non refundable plane tickets.