Absolute BULLSHIT

[mskafka]

Even though I am very pro gun, I would never place guns in a 5 year old's hands...let alone an 11 month old's. The problem is that one cannot tell whether or not a gun is loaded by simply looking at a photo. That's where they screwed up.

And....the marijuana didn't help either. Not too bright.

 

[Yukon]

A 5 year old can own a gun. It is his right, he is American, he believes in the 2nd. If some little b**tard on the play ground bullies him than he should be able to defend himself. How dare Liberals believe that a 5 year old should be disarmed. Arm them all and the bullying will be eliminated.

God Bless America!

 

[trams]

What an ASSHOLE!!!!!

 

[JW Frogen]

What an ASSHOLE!!!!!

Assholishness is a gene that runs through all humankind.

It proves we all evolved from the same idiot ape falling of the same tree

 

[ncarolinadixie]

I'm curious about something. A poster made this statement...........

"we do know that once the pictures were given to the police by the witness filing a complaint, and no permits for the guns showing up as registered, that the police had no other choice but to investigate."


Would someone please explain to me HOW looking at a picture can show that they had NO permits for the guns or that they were NOT registered. I seriously doubt that the pictures were done so as to show the freakin seriel numbers on the guns. NO, they had a choice. They chose to investigate. While I find it WRONG on many counts that a simple picture would even warrant an investigation they did have the right to investigate. But to make a statement that it was done due to knowing before hand that the guns were illegal is just dumb. Really dumb. And, having lived in NY for 7 years I can tell you, they have some of the most antiquated, overly strict gun laws in the country. I was floored to hear that even to simply LOOK at a handgun you had to have a permit. I have a concealed carry permit in NC yet I wasn't allowed to even LOOK at a handgun outside of the glass case in NY without a permit.

 

[Care4all]

I'm curious about something. A poster made this statement...........

"we do know that once the pictures were given to the police by the witness filing a complaint, and no permits for the guns showing up as registered, that the police had no other choice but to investigate."


Would someone please explain to me HOW looking at a picture can show that they had NO permits for the guns or that they were NOT registered. I seriously doubt that the pictures were done so as to show the freakin seriel numbers on the guns. NO, they had a choice. They chose to investigate. While I find it WRONG on many counts that a simple picture would even warrant an investigation they did have the right to investigate. But to make a statement that it was done due to knowing before hand that the guns were illegal is just dumb. Really dumb. And, having lived in NY for 7 years I can tell you, they have some of the most antiquated, overly strict gun laws in the country. I was floored to hear that even to simply LOOK at a handgun you had to have a permit. I have a concealed carry permit in NC yet I wasn't allowed to even LOOK at a handgun outside of the glass case in NY without a permit.

New York State...there is no need to register/permit shotguns or rifles...BUT in New York City it is mandatory to register/permit your shot guns and riffles....The girlfriend of this woman who turned her in for the pics of her kids with shot guns or riffles, obviously gave the police her name and address....if there were no riffles or shot guns registered to her at her new york city address, perhaps this is what brought them to her home to check it out???

 

[JW Frogen]

The world is full of bullshitishness.

So why shouldn't people register to have a gun to prove they are not bullshitting why they want to use it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The pictures were probable cause you fool.

they investigated to see IF there was a problem and indeed a problem was found by the investigation.

Perhaps you could explain to us, Clarence Darrow, how the pictures constituted probable cause, which I believe was the question posed in the OP, to whit: what is the NY law supposedly violated by these pictures?