Talk:NY SAFE Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congratulations, and balance[edit]

Well done for putting this page together so promptly. I wonder if I might make a suggestion? At present, there are two headed sections about opposition to the Act. Now, I'm aware that WP policy (WP:UNDUE and especially WP:CRITS) suggests that we should avoid 'criticisms' sections where possible. However, my feeling is that a 'Background' section with a more detailed exposition of the justifications given by legislators and advocates for passing the Act would also work quite well. Sadly, I'm a Brit (and so massively under-informed on this topic) and a gun-control advocate (and so not neutral on this topic), so I don't feel able to contribute myself. But I'd like to try and help make this a decent article if I can - IronKnuckle had rather a baptism of fire over at WP:ANI, and I'd like to make a gesture of good faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assault Weapon features[edit]

The description of an assault weapon in Key Provisions includes muzzle brake/compensator and thumbhole. Those features are not included in the federal or state definition of assault weapon. As far as I know, features were not added as part of the act, and the paragraph it is in is unsourced. (America789 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

"Rifles requiring registration are semiautomatic rifles capable of receiving a detachable magazine and [having] one or more of the following military characteristics: folding or telescoping stock, protruding pistol grip, thumbhole stock, second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by non shooting hand, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, muzzle brake, muzzle compensator, or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate the above, grenade launcher". -- "NY SAFE Act: Rifles — Banned Features", New York Governor website. See also this page, which is already cited in the article: "NY SAFE Act: FAQ, same website. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were those features always included? They are not in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Gun Laws in New York pages. (America789 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
They are added in the new NY law, and are copied from Feinsteins proposed federal ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the actual text of the law [1] the parts they added are in bold. Farther down from the qoute you selected is the language that was added in 2013 and it lists thumbholesEconomic Refugee (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Concerns about lack of important information in this article[edit]

As a former Law enforcement officer and avid Hunter/Sportsman, I am concerned about the motives of the original authors of the main article. I posted the following information after dozens of fellow gun owners and hunting friends are absolutely confused about what is going on. (There needs to be a lot more digestion of Albany's haste on this legislation):

Limits the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. However, existing permit holders have to opt into this provision by filing a form within 120 days of the law's enactment! There also may exist issues with respect to "registered" owners in the new regulations vs "permit" holders under previous law.

An example of an extremely common hunting shotgun that now falls under the "assault weapon" statute is the Remmington 11-87 model. The new statute limits semi-automatic shotgun internal magazines to 5 rounds (an obvious inconsistency with the 7 round stipulation for removable clips). The 11-87 is capable of 7-10 rounds. Many hunters unknowingly will be breaking the law because the general spin has been that hunters and sportsmen were not the focus of Cuomo's legislative endeavor, and this inconsistency is likely to go unnoticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.16.215 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a general "info lookup" site. If that type of concern is being reported on in reliable sources WP:RS (newspapers and magazines, news shows etc) then it can be included here. But us reading the law ourselves, or relying on analysis from blogs etc (even if that analysis is correct) is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. If you have specific information that you feel should be included, and can provide a source for that information, either edit it in yourself, or make a specific request here. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth noting that at this point 26 counties have passed resolutions demanding the repeal of this extremist legislation with at least 20 more expected to do so. Only 14, or less, of 60 will wind up not openly opposing this. Also worth noting, the Obama Admin is actively mobilizing and bussing in people, with the help of their errand boys the SEIU, people to pretend to be local supporters of this thing http://reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130227007-o-buses-nra.html?a=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.80.104 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment is irrelevant to changes in the article, violates NPOV, inflammatory and borders on libel. Please find NPOV sources to back up your assertions or don't post them. Also the fact that county legislatures SYMBOLICALLY vote "against" this legislation is irrelevant. Many people in those counties do support the legislation (as many do oppose it) and counties are constitutionally required to enforce all state laws, whether county officials personally agree with them or not. Again please keep it NPOV and keep it clean or I will have this article flagged. Thanks 74.69.121.132 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how using the text of the law is not a valid reference. Wikipedia is loaded with references to penal codes and government websites.Economic Refugee (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to the main article correcting the error that the magazine restrictions only apply to detachable magazines. The magazine restrictions apply to all magazines, only tube fed .22 cal specific [2] magazines are exempt from the restriction. This rifle is banned under the new law. [3] There is no way to make it legal under the new restrictions. It is also correct that any semi-automatic shotgun that holds more than 5 rounds must be registered as an asault weapon. I do not see how to add that to the original article but it is very important information. The information in this article is incomplete due to lack of references showing that the law, as currently worded and enforced, no matter how inconsistantly, bans a huge proportion of the currently used firearms in NY. I will attempt to locate and document those articles. Economic Refugee (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Some of the stuff here is a little ridiculous -

"Not since Governor George Clinton took office as New York's first Governor in 1777, has any other law in the state's history garnered the sheer magnitude of official opposition and condemnation as Governor Cuomo's SAFE Act. Even in the state capital of Albany, the Albany County minority legislature issued a proclamation opposing the SAFE Act. " etc.

- 101.168.255.254 (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ridiculous in the "sheer magnitude of opposition" or is it ridiculous because you don't like the statement? Both are opinions, but the clarification would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.188.148 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebu[edit]

"In 2013, Serbu Firearms refused to sell their model BFG-50A semi-automatic .50 rifles to the New York City Police Department after the passage of the NY SAFE Act that classified their weapon as an assault rifle."

Is there any evidence that the NYPD ever attempted to purchase anything from Sebu ? Otherwise, it seems like a publicity stunt (which would fit in with the T-Shirt and quotes given in the links) - 101.168.255.254 (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Google hit makes reference to a letter of inquiry from the NYPD to Serbu. It referenced the letters being posted to the Serbu Facebook page and that was found here. Thanks for letting me perform the searches for you. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authors: citations needed[edit]

I see that there are some "citation needed" tags in the article. Unfortunately, there are even more statements that are in need; therefore, I added more tags. When you add information, Authors, please be sure to immediately reference it as, speaking for myself and at least a few other casual readers, we're not clairvoyant. B^) Thank you! Wordreader (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

I cleaned up, tagged, linked, wikified, and cited as I could. Please discuss here before you cut out or revert those edits; but feel free to add citations as noted. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NY SAFE Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment Supporters[edit]

this seemed like a rather simple edit, but then i realized, on this topic....maybe not. i added an external link to the text "Second Amendment Supporters"--to the Second Amendment Supporters website. without the link, having that text in initial caps is strange. with the link, it's clear that it is an actual organization/group. the reason it's strange is because there are people who support both the SAFE Act and the 2nd Amendment, but written as it is, it implies that a person cannot support both. the initial caps at least made it seem like an organization, so i checked--yes it is; added the linkColbey84 (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's better not to embed external links in the body of the article, as mentioned at WP:ELPOINTS. So I updated the text here to indicated that SAS is an organization. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I've removed an image that has several problems. It is POV in that it explicitly describes one position (i.e., opposition to the law) as being "in support of the U.S. Constitution." This is plainly POV and effectively makes a highly contentious assertion in Wikipedia's own voice. (Notably, the federal courts have upheld the majority of the law, rejecting a constitutional challenge). So are describing cities who have adopted resolutions oppositng the law as "Shining stars" (seriously?) I also object to including an advocacy group's Facebook link and website in an image. It's promotional advertising. Finally, I object to the green/red color scheme. The use of green (= good) and red(= bad) to indicate opposition and support for the law is POV. Moreover, it is (from a style and design perspective) counter-intuitive, since "red" usually signifies opposition. Neutralitytalk 20:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the POV concerns, the image is also poorly done because it (1) cites no source (except, apparently implicitly, an advocacy group) and (2) gives no dates. Neutralitytalk 20:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You're opposing the colors? Maybe you'd like to make a better map? Otherwise, it just seems like you don't want the information to be known.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I readded the image after making more fixes to it for POV. This image has been used on this article since December 13, 2015 and a previous version had been used since Jan 15, 2015. So a version of this image has been on this article for almost 2 years before you unilaterally, without consensus, decided to remove it. Your claims of NPOV have been heard, and I have made changes to the image several times now to address them. I added the source for the image in the image's page. Now, please stop being obstructionist and help improve the article/image instead of removing information.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to tone down the rhetoric, immediately. And re-read the WP:NPOV policy. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. You should give WP:REMOVAL a look too. Please start a RfC if you still want the image removed.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the most egregious/objectionable material has been removed, I do feel that the POV issue has substantially abated, and is less pressing. I still want to know the exact source for the information in the map. (P.S.: that essay you cite is an essay and does not really reflect community norms.) Neutralitytalk 23:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being reasonable. Here is the source. There are "news" links for each item. It goes to a blog post, but clicking "Read more" will take you to independent websites reporting on the event.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the image is now much improved in terms of a Neutral Point Of View. Thanks for that. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NY SAFE Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NY_SAFE_Act&oldid=1209458624"