I came across this today. This is simply ridiculous:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_..._odds_with_cops.html

Kaptag and Lads - This is one for some sharp ACLU lawyer to take on and make their mark. It is so far off base it is a joke, but it is ready made for a good lawyer to just tear NYC apart, which they appear to deserve. If the quote from NY law is correctly stated, it is clear that the NYPD has not a thing to go on here. Now, how does one contact ACLU?

Col Boone

this is why when i left alaska I did not move back to NY state

Col Boone, a hotshot lawyer has taken the case = pro bono in fact! Oneblanket, too bad you feel this way, there are still thousands of us in NY that are continuing the fight up here. Also, please note the fight is with NYC Mayor not the state (in this particular case). In fact earlier this week a woman defended herself from a man who entered their home while they were away. When they came home the man got in a fight with the woman and her 25 yo son. The woman got her handgun, killed the intruder. She was then taken to the hospital to treat her wounds, no charges were made against the woman or son. This incident isn't MZ related (in the strictist sense, course I could argue "our right to bear arms makes it so) so I won't post a link. May your next hunt be a good one!

That's an old article - the case has been adjudicated and the owner of the gun won.....
still a long way to go though Mayor Bloomberg has at times tried to extend his "authority" to other states - sent goons to Virginia and elsewhere to "trace" gun sales - threatened gunshop owners in those other states until they were told by the powers that in those states to cease and desist or face charges.
Recently Bloomberg and Company went under cover at gunshows in other states to "prove" the gunshow loophole - he just won't quit...

On 9/12/09 Mr. Littlejohn posted on the historicaltrekking.com website that he had
received official notification by the NYPD FIU that they would no longer bother him about the gun and that there never was an investigation to begin with.

This information was only a short paragraph within his post that explained much more of the story.

Medicine Soldier

I also got a great deal on a house in VA and the taxex are a lot lower here than NY

quote:

This is one for some sharp ACLU lawyer to take on and make their mark

Sorry to disappoint you Col. Boone, but NEVER expect the ACLU to stick up for gun owner rights. It is a leftist organization (one of the founders is buried at the Kremlin - no joke) and they have been asked in the past to defend the 2nd amendment as well as freedom of religion..., guns in the hands of peasants they don't like, and Marx wrote, "religion is the opiate of the masses". The NRA ILA and the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) defend those rights.

Here in Maryland the law is written that if you have been convicted of a crime in the past where you might have been imprisoned for 24 months (not the actual sentence, but what might have been the penalty) then you are prohibited from owning a handgun. OK so for most states, such a penalty is for a felony, and many people think that felons of any sort shouldn't own guns.

RECENTLY the MD State Police denied a man a handgun purchase, and ordered him to dispose of the handguns they had previously allowed to be sold to him (but said he could keep his long guns), as he was convicted of carrying a concealed handgun in Texas, more than 30 years ago. Now the max penalty back then in TX was a $500 fine, no jail. As the Maryland law is written, the guy couldn't have done any jail time, so the misdemeanor conviction would not stop him from owning a handgun, and hadn't in the past. YET, the State Police changed their policy, and now it doesn't matter what the law said then, in another state, but if the same law today in Maryland would keep a person from having a handgun, then the application gets denied, and the person is ordered to surrender or dispose of the handguns in direct violation of the 5th Amendment right of ..., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,..., , and no legal process (means in a court) occurred. FURTHER the folks on the MD Court of Appeals upheld the policy. So the MD Attorney General, Douglas Gansler (aka Clueless Gansler) is making laws with policy instead of the State House, creates an EX POST FACTO law, and the state's highest court upholds it!

EGAD this is one of the very things the American War of Independence fought against!

Any wonder why it's called the People's Republic of Maryland

LD

The Texas chapter of the ACLU has joined gun owners in fighting a law that has led to the arrest of gun owners carrying handguns in vehicles:

http://reason.com/blog/2007/04...u-defends-gun-rights

The Nevada ACLU also supports 2nd Amendment rights, so it isn't accurate to say that the ACLU never supports gun owners.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/new...opposes-gun-control/

Local ACLU chapters are 'local'. What the Nevada chapter might defend could very well be the opposite of the stand a Massachusets chapter would take. Don't trust 'em.

Ah but you don't understand the Texas position..., the ACLU doesn't like it due to the search provision of the Texas law that allows the police to look into the vehicle, and then charge the person with the firearm in the car. It isn't a support of the 2nd Amendment, it's a move against law enforcement searches that simply uses the 2nd Amendment as its excuse.

IF you had read the article on the Nevada ACLU you would've noted...,
" The Nevada ACLU has declared its support for an individual's right to bear arms, apparently making it the first state affiliate in the nation to buck the national organization's position on the Second Amendment."

If you read further, you find that being a member of the ACLU was a political slur, but now the chairman of Nevada Outdoor Democrats is endorsing the organization.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Oh if keeping score, that's now 1 chapter in favor (or 2 if you include Texas) and 48 or 49 opposed. Now if the National Organization votes to revoke the charter of the Nevada group regardless of the "official" position..., ???

LD

Lads - I had not checked back on this thread in a while, but it appears there has been lots of action. In line with the ACLU comments, I happened to be at a social occasion with a friend who is the #2 in ACLU in Hawaii and posed the question to him. He said, without hesitation, "I would support our organization going after that on the basis of the 2nd Amendment issues alone, plus I really question the rights of a City administration to intervene in what is basically a Constitutional matter. Of course, this was all just talk, so the fact may be different. Overall Hawaii has very tough gun laws but as of now (for how long?) muzzle loading long arms (not pistols) are totally exempt from regulation. My two rifles (and the one yet to be shipped) arrived directly to my home via UPS - no FFL involved, no fancy paperwork, nothing. On another related subject - though it was a total paperwork pain, I have been able to import Goex 3-F in here. The hazmat costs on top of the shipping did run into a significant amount, but that would apply up to 50 lbs of powder! No way could I justify that (there is strict prohibition on my selling it to others) so I went for 25 lbs. Likely that will last the rest of my life. But with Pyrodex selling for $32 (yes, that is right) a pound, and my cost coming out to $26 for the Goex, I feel I came out ok on the deal. Now, as long as they don't change that I will be ok.

Col Boone

Turn around and sue in Federal court over his civil liberties being violated. Break that city's budget with law suits and you'll hear no more about Bloomberg.