Nys Work Search Record: Fill & Download for Free

I doubt you can make that connection. It's more likely a matter of ignorance. Also consider that it protects the identity of the father who is often a powerful person with a lot to lose. The main opponent of unsealing OBCs is the catholic church who is hiding priests who father children often with nuns. Those children are adopted privately to prevent the ability to search. I worked for 15 years in NJ and PA to unsesl records which wS successful in both states.

Since you are trying to trace a particular gun I would break the problem down into three steps.First determine the serial number of that particular firearm. Next determine if the gun still exists and third determine who owns it, can you contact them and can you make a deal to obtain it.Hopefully you sold the gun and it remained in NYS. Hand guns have been registered there for a long time so it should be easier to trace it.First if the gun was an officially issued gun to your father that serial number exists. I don't know how you can access that information. I tried a Google search to find out if there an official NYS police historian. I didn't find one after a quick search. I'd have to do much more searching, but you might be able to write and ask for it or it might be obtained through the the freedom of information law. You'll have to think that one through. I have read that the NYSP response to foil requests are to say no.If that isn't working you can try to work by finding people that worked with him. Contemporaries would be able to narrow what the likely year the gun is and therefore an idea of the serial number range. To help I did find this.New York State Troopers HistoryThis give serial number ranges for S&W guns. I don't know if there are records of ranges of guns sold to entities duch as police forces. There maybe.How to Identify/Date a S&WIf you can obtain the serial number it maybe possible to determine if the gun still exists. This may require a friendly officier or a private detective.From there you might be able to contact that person. I'd have to do a lot more searching to understand the legality and response to everything after the last link.The response will likely depend on exactly who owns the gun.Good luck.

I'll try to spark some activity in this question with some (very) unconventional candidates, leaving the more conventional folks (Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Edison, etc.) to others.The criteria I use will be unique as well. I put the highest premium on people who had new ideas and the conviction to give them a try despite significant momentum operating against them. As you'll see in some of my choices I do not put a high value on success. We need ideas today desperately so celebrating people with needed ideas from the past willing to voice them (we just need the spark of an idea today) seems an appropriate way to encourage it. Each of these ideas, I think, has special significance and importance for us to revisit and refresh today.So... working from early days forward we have:1) Roger Williams (c 1603 - 1683)Williams was expelled from the Massachusetts Colony for not conforming to their strict religious requirements, pushed out into the wilderness. He founded the colony of Providence Plantation (which later merged and became the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations) in 1636. He makes this list for founding the colony on truly remarkable religious tolerance and separation of church and state principles. Jews and even the rare atheists were allowed to operate freely in Rhode Island and the colony prospered (more than it would have otherwise against the geographic advantages enjoyed by the other colonies) because of that tolerance and acceptance. It became a model and an inspiration for some of the ideals of the United States, ideas of tolerance we need to have refreshed today. Williams was an advocate for both fair dealing with Native Americans (studying several of their languages) and one of the very first abolitionists. He gives Christianity a good name.2) Robert Yates (1738 - 1801)(and the other writers arguing against the adoption of the US Constitution and the consolidation of power in the hands of the elite)While Madison was arguing that change should be made difficult in the US, in order to prevent ordinary folks from challenging the privileges of the elite and Hamilton conceded that the elite would inevitably rule the country (but they could be trusted he argued), there were several voices that argued for the ideals of the "revolution," for a more level playing field where the elite did not rule. Their thoughts were later compiled into the Anti-Federalist Papers, to answer Madison and Hamilton's Federalist Papers. We desperately need their sense of fair play and reward for hard work (instead of connections and exploitation). These guys were the original Occupy Wall Street movement. Sadly, they were not successful.Here are some quotes from Yates and others:Anti-federalist #85 (Yates)Attempts have been made, and will be repeated, to alarm you with the fear of consequences; but reflect there are consequences on both sides, and none can be apprehended more dreadful, than entailing on ourselves and posterity a government which will raise a few to the height of human greatness and wealth, while it will depress the many to the extreme of poverty and wretchedness.Anti-Federalist #13The truth is, when you carry a man's salary beyond what decency requires, he immediately becomes a man of consequence, and does little or no business at all.Anti-Federalist #14 (George Clinton, Governor of NYS, Vice President)An ambitious person soon becomes sensible that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and that he might raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country.Anti-Federalist #26Does not riches beget power, and power, oppression and tyranny?Anti-Federalist #47A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided.Anti-Federalist #23 (Yates)The European governments are almost all of them framed, and administered with a view to arms, and war, as that in which their chief glory consists. They mistake the end of government. It was designed to save men's lives, not to destroy them. We ought to furnish the world with an example of a great people, who in their civil institutions hold chiefly in view, the attainment of virtue, and happiness among ourselves. Let the monarchs in Europe share among them the glory of depopulating countries, and butchering thousands of their innocent citizens, to revenge private quarrels, or to punish an insult offered to a wife, a mistress, or a favorite. I envy them not the honor, and I pray heaven this country may never be ambitious of it.3) Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 - 1968)Big leap in time here as the country searched for its soul (in a manner of speaking). MLK was obviously struggling with a noble and just cause that in itself makes him worthy of any list of great people but what stands out for me as relevant today is his steadfastfulness against violence. He wasn't always able to control his followers but he did a mighty find job of it and clearly had the government beat in terms of moral high ground. The United States is heading to a moment of significant change as trust (of government, of big business, of neighbors, of friends) continues to decline. What determines that change is how well we can control our violence when things get desperate. Once we (the people) give in to desperation and feel like violence is our only option we have lost. We will be defeated and the country we descend into a darkness not experienced before. If we keep our cool, like MLK, we can change the world and finally live up to our own ideals.4) Jimmy Carter (b 1924)Not regarded as a particularly successful president, but definitely well regarded afterwards. But even with his poor record in terms of results as president, I give him very high marks for trying to change the direction of the country (unfortunately there was simply too much momentum that became much stronger with Ronald Reagan). Carter also fought for the idea of fair play and anti-elitism. Carter ran with a promise not to lie to the public (to distinguish himself from Nixon no doubt, but still). In his nomination acceptance speech he said:Too many have had to suffer at the hands of a political and economic elite who have shaped decisions and never had to account for mistakes, nor to suffer from injustice.Where Carter really stood out for his time was on foreign policy, at least in the early days of his term. He tried to encourage the country to live up to high human rights standards that could serve as a model for the world. He was suggesting that the Cold War could be fought not with aggression but by winning the ideological debate between Democracy and Totalitarianism. At a speech at Notre Dame in 1977 he argued that:Being confident in our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of Communism that once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear…. We can no longer separate the traditional issues of war and peace from the new global questions of justice, equity, and human rights.Carter realized that fighting might with might was requiring the United Statesto oppress its own democracy in order to prove its superiority to Russianoppression. He suggested that if we as a country believe in Democracy and we believe that Soviet Communism was not sustainable then we should put our faith in Democracy, encourage countries to move toward it instead of supporting regimes that deny it and let the Soviet Union compete against freedom instead of oppression.In the end however he lacked sufficient support required to change the world. More change was needed in order to fundamentally change the way the world worked and he didn't get it done before events swept over him, allowing the Republicans to return to power and to business as usual.5) Jimmy Wales (b 1966)Once I came up with the idea to include Wales I quickly realized it might be considered a ploy to suck up to a famous Quora user, but I include him nonetheless for Wikipedia, which I think is significant for a few reasons. First for its obvious value as a growing store of publicly accessible information. Information is power and making it available to everyone has huge leveling potential. Second is its example as an alternative approach to developing a the global community's wealth. We don't need to incentivize capitalists (and pay a "tax" to them for their services) to make these things happen, we can empower the people to drive, maintain and sustain this resources available to everyone. So lastly it is hugely significant that Wikipedia remains a non-profit without commercial obligations or strings (no ads) and with the ability to stay on the high ground above the declining trust we are seeing with corporations and government. It is a significant alternative model to having to constantly pay the wealthy elite (in terms of profits) in order to encourage them to invest the country's limited human and natural resources in the interest of the people. (If you can, don't forget to donate to Wikipedia to keep this popular resource going.)