HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » NY Senate Passes 'Landmar...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:46 PM

NY Senate Passes 'Landmark' Gun Control Laws

Source: Wall Street Journal

January 14, 2013, 11:27 p.m. ET

NY Senate passes 'landmark' gun control laws

Associated Press

ALBANY, N.Y. New York's Senate where Republicans hold strong sway has approved what supporters say will be the toughest gun laws in the nation.

Sen. Jeffrey Klein (KLINE), who sponsored the law with bipartisan support, praised his co-leader, Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos and the Democratic conference.

- snip -

The bill targets assault rifles, high-capacity clips of ammunition and requires reports of the mentally ill who pose a threat to others with illegal guns.

The vote passed 43-18 in the Senate thanks to a strong Democratic vote.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/article/APac54f3a0b0244dc4b9de764b46ae5f73.html

70 replies, 8516 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply NY Senate Passes 'Landmark' Gun Control Laws (Original post)
Hissyspit Jan 2013 OP
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #1
samsingh Jan 2013 #2
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #3
nick of time Jan 2013 #5
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #7
nick of time Jan 2013 #9
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 #18
iandhr Jan 2013 #13
BDavinciNY Jan 2013 #56
nick of time Jan 2013 #58
tavernier Jan 2013 #4
Deep13 Jan 2013 #10
Hoyt Jan 2013 #12
Deep13 Jan 2013 #6
onehandle Jan 2013 #8
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #11
Historic NY Jan 2013 #14
ReRe Jan 2013 #15
cantbeserious Jan 2013 #16
quadrature Jan 2013 #17
billh58 Jan 2013 #26
union_maid Jan 2013 #27
jpak Jan 2013 #30
sir pball Jan 2013 #33
jpak Jan 2013 #36
sir pball Jan 2013 #41
jpak Jan 2013 #42
NickB79 Jan 2013 #47
sir pball Jan 2013 #62
quadrature Jan 2013 #68
NickB79 Jan 2013 #46
jpak Jan 2013 #48
NickB79 Jan 2013 #52
pasto76 Jan 2013 #63
sir pball Jan 2013 #69
TupperHappy Jan 2013 #67
sir pball Jan 2013 #70
NickB79 Jan 2013 #19
xoom Jan 2013 #23
jpak Jan 2013 #31
sir pball Jan 2013 #34
jpak Jan 2013 #35
sir pball Jan 2013 #40
jpak Jan 2013 #43
sir pball Jan 2013 #44
jpak Jan 2013 #45
NickB79 Jan 2013 #51
sir pball Jan 2013 #60
NickB79 Jan 2013 #49
pasto76 Jan 2013 #65
hack89 Jan 2013 #20
NickB79 Jan 2013 #22
bongbong Jan 2013 #57
hack89 Jan 2013 #59
bongbong Jan 2013 #61
WhoWoodaKnew Jan 2013 #21
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #24
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #25
plethoro Jan 2013 #28
jpak Jan 2013 #29
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #32
nick of time Jan 2013 #38
Grins Jan 2013 #37
nick of time Jan 2013 #39
BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2013 #50
nick of time Jan 2013 #53
BlancheSplanchnik Jan 2013 #54
nick of time Jan 2013 #55
naaman fletcher Jan 2013 #64
nick of time Jan 2013 #66

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:54 PM

1. Great!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:55 PM

2. excellent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:57 PM

3. Th NY Assembly will have to vote on it next. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:59 PM

5. What's the make up of the NY Assembly?

 

And what are the chances of it passing?
Seems like a good bill to me, anyway, if this is what NY wants, more power to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:02 AM

7. In OP article it says: "...The Democrat-led Assembly is expected to easily pass the measure..." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:04 AM

9. Thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:41 AM

18. Cool.

 

I love the East Coast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:17 AM

13. The breakdown is...

...

100 Democrats

49 Republicans

1 Independence Party party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Assembly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:51 PM

56. The Current NYS Assembly

is made of very strong democrats. They are led by Sheldon Silver an assemblyman from Manhattan.
I know a old Con Law Professor of mine who is also there and informed me through FB that he voted in favor of the State's new gun control legislation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BDavinciNY (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:58 PM

58. Outstanding.

 

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:57 PM

4. Even if it spares one life...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavernier (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:09 AM

10. bit cliched

It needs to do more than that. My concern is that NY and CA can be as restrictive as they want, but it won't matter if Georgia sells them in gumball machines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:22 AM

12. What, you have no faith in Georgia's " conservatives?"

Not at my computer, or would post photo of long line of yahoos standing in line to scarf up "assault" weapons only one week after Sandy Hook at Atlanta gun show. The next generation of yahoos will be like those of 1950s,except more of the dangerous goofs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:02 AM

6. meh, NY is already pretty strict.

Let me know when Oklahoma passes one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:03 AM

8. Blue states need to shield themselves from the red state unbalanced. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:14 AM

11. ~ K ~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:30 AM

14. I hope it does something about the Interstate 95 weapons highway...

most guns that are illegal come from point south.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:14 AM

15. Now, there's some good...

K&R

...old-fashioned BIPARTISANSHIP, (in case we have some youngster DUers who think the current Congressional Madness is the norm in this country.) This is the way it used to work. After elections, everyone settled down and did the country's business for The People. Congratulations New York State!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:51 AM

16. Yes - NY Leads The Way

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:44 AM

17. AR-15s are modular, simple workaround ...

would be to remove
the pistol grip, and any other
military features, if any

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:40 AM

26. And that makes

them less lethal how? These NRA "it's not an assault rifle" talking points and features vomit are aimed at distracting the American public and nothing more. The correct nomenclature is: high capacity bullet dispensing machine whose designed purpose is to kill as many living things as possible, and as quickly as possible.

Not a catchy phrase I know, but much more accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:59 AM

27. Probably better than the one I came up with

which is guns that go rat-a-tat-tat instead of bang.bang.bang. Either way, I'm glad my state is passing this law, but I do have to agree that it is a problem that state by state laws can't impact nearly enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:12 AM

30. A modified AR15 is still an assault weapon

I hope they make these penalties FELONIES and take the guns from the non-abiders.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:03 PM

33. No it isn't

Remove the pistol grip and rename it the XR-91 and it's no longer an "assault weapon" in New York (assuming they're even banned by name, I can't find a text of the bill anywhere). That's the problem with cosmetic definitions, you can skirt them by simply not having the cosmetics. It's still a semiautomatic, magazine-fed .223 - but it's not LEGALLY an "assault weapon".

Can't have a felony if you aren't breaking the (poorly conceived) law.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:36 PM

36. That is the bullshit NRA gun nut diversion - ban it and arrest the violator

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:46 PM

41. Ok, so what exactly do you want to ban?

Law right now says you can't sell a gun called an "AR-15", or a semiautomatic gun with a pistol grip. You can sell a semiautomatic gun called a BS-26 without a pistol grip. If you don't like that the law is written that way, push the legislature to write a "better" law.

It would be vastly simpler too, you could have it in one line - "the possession of a semi-automatic rifle in New York State is a Class A felony."

Is that a law you'd like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:08 PM

42. With regard to the AR15 - any .223 semiauto variant that was designed and sold with

a 30 round clip and a front stock that protects the shooter from a hot barrel.

No reach-around mods allowed.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:58 PM

47. All high-capacity mags will be illegal in one year in NY

That's the amount of time they're giving owners to sell them out of state. After that, it's all 7-rd magazines that are legal.

So, all a gun manufacturer has to do is wait one year and one day from the date the gun law goes into effect, introduce a non-pistol grip semi-automatic rifle that comes from the factory with 7-rd magazines, and it circumvents your proposed definition.

For example, this rifle: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=saiga+rifle&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=E074CF61BE4847B206BD3A48FB4E46DB3E0A7480&selectedIndex=11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:08 PM

62. So you'd be alright with mine?

One of my rifles is an AR...in .308 Winchester. Comes with 20 round magazines stock. It's twice as powerful as a wee little .223, you sure you're OK with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:39 PM

68. define 'sold with' ...

gun on gun store wall...

nowhere says 'ar-15'
was put together yesterday.
has 4 different price tags for 4 different parts
taken apart for sale, 4 different debit cards

please define 'sold with'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:54 PM

46. Ban what? All semi-automatic weapons?

That's about the only way you could then arrest someone with an AR-15 with cosmetic features like removing the pistol grip. Under the NY law, you would have no grounds to arrest a person owning such a gun.

And good luck banning all semi-automatic guns, since that would include most handguns and many popular hunting rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:01 PM

48. What a stupid post





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:08 PM

52. As compared to yours?

Telling us to arrest people who haven't committed any crimes, and displaying your ignorance of what the NY gun laws actually state?

back at you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:56 PM

63. a pistol grip is not a "cosmetic"

it serves a great function in being able to re-acquire a target after I fire a round. There is a reason almost all modern assault weapons and submachine guns have them.

and yes, a mini 14 is still as lethal in my hands as an AR type or AK clone. But this is a good start.

reducing the magazine limit size to SEVEN is a huge deal as well. firing 30 rounds before I have to reload is a force multiplier. with a 7 round capacity limit, these are basically high powered siseven) shooters. If you dont know what force multiplier means then you may be over your head in these discussions.

This is a good, a very good, start. It is a very good law. Im pleased NY has done this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #63)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:10 PM

69. For the sake of argument

I'm using "cosmetic" as a catchall term for furniture and accessories that don't affect a firearm's mechanical function. Funny thing though, my fastest-handling long guns are both traditionally-stocked - with 16" barrels and holosights. If I were looking to make rifles more cumbersome in some attempt to restrict mass shootings I'd push for a change of minimum barrel length to 22" rather than eliminating pistol grips

Pistol grips less affect the rapid handling of a weapon and more make the weapon generally more ergonomic - assault rifles (military, I mean) and machine guns aren't the only ones with them - virtually every precision rifle from Anschutz Olympic rifles up to big 338 sniper rifles use them as well, and there's certainly no pressure there to acquire targets quickly.

When did I say anything about magazine limits? I absolutely, categorically, without exception never fire more than a 5-shot string from my semi. The barrel is far too expensive to burn up for shits and giggles - I may carry a 20 to the range for convenience, but being limited to 10 or even 5 is a nonissue for me. I suppose large magazines provide some small degree of force multiplication, but given the quickness with which they can be changed it's hardly like a rifleman with a 30 is going to be more effective than 3 with 10s. I'd guess the prime military drive behind them is carrying the maximum amount of ammunition for a given weight. Thanks for the condescension, though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:07 PM

67. Well you have to pass it to find out whats in it (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TupperHappy (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:18 PM

70. From what I've heard

It's a single-test definition of "assault weapon" - a semiautomatic magazine-fed rifle with any one cosmetic (defined as unrelated to the mechanical workings of the firearm) feature; the Cali-compliant AR abominations have none of those features, usually a pistol grip/bayonet lug/flash hider, so they aren't "assault weapons" and are regulated as normal rifles.

Point being, evil black rifles will still be perfectly legal and available in NYS, they just won't look quite so scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:13 AM

19. How does this differ from the California AW ban?

They have extensive regulations on the ownership of assault rifles, and there are still plenty of new, legal-to-own AR-15's and AK-47 clones there.

For example, these are both CA-legal guns:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=CA-legal+AR-15&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=1554D4CB4F897FA4774D582D6840DC78E64214B2&selectedIndex=13

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=saiga+sporter&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=saiga+sporter&sc=8-13&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=7E792424A1317074B2877D8CA2F88C5551D548D2&selectedIndex=2

From what I've read, the NY law states that a rifle must have a detachable magazine and one other feature (folding stock, pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, etc) to be classified as an assault rifle. Both guns pictured above would not qualify as assault rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:02 AM

23. I wonder how this resembles the CT awb?

 

This will do nothing, just a feel good law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xoom (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:13 AM

31. Unless you get caught - then you don't feel so good.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:07 PM

34. Caught for what?

The guns referenced in the GP are LEGAL under both Cali and the proposed NYS laws. You got a problem with that, get them to change the laws. Till then it IS just a feelgood law to ban icky-LOOKING guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:29 PM

35. I have a problem with so-called Gun Nut "Law Abiders" that try to skirt the law

with "modifications".

Book 'em Danno - felony, and take their guns

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:43 PM

40. On what charges, pray tell?

If the law as written allows for modifications that MAKE THE GUN LEGAL...what do you want to book them on? Modifying a gun to COMPLY with the law?

If you don't like the fact that the law literally only dictates how a gun can LOOK, why not push for laws that are based on how a gun WORKS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:12 PM

43. Illegal possession of an assault rifle.

an AR15 is still an assault rifle no matter how hard you try to "pretty it up" to skirt the law.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 01:29 PM

44. Nope.

Do you understand that the law says it's only an assault weapon if it has a projecting pistol grip? If it doesn't have that pistol grip it is NOT LEGALLY AN ASSAULT WEAPON?

edit - if you were a district attorney in California, would you arrest and charge a person with a violation of Penal Code section 12276(e) for possessing this rifle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:03 PM

45. Really? - is that what the new New York GUN SANITY law says?

Nope

fail

Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:06 PM

51. Yes, that is what it says

The previous definition of an assault rifle in NY was any gun that took a detachable magazine AND had two banned features: pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lugs, grenade launcher attachment, etc. The new law changes that to one feature.

That means the gun pictured above IS legal, since it has none of those banned features, so long as the owner only used magazines holding 7 rounds of ammo (and they already exist on the market).

This was all spelled out clearly in the numerous news articles available online to read this morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:05 PM

60. I'm pretty sure it does.

Bans assault weapons by name and feature, but that rifle doesn't have a pistol grip so it's LEGAL IN NEW YORK EVEN UNDER THE NEW LAW! Only semiautos with a pistol grip are regulated. If DiFi's bill passes...those things will be in every walmart and gun shop across the country!

You're being intellectually dishonest. You should vehemently oppose current proposals in favor of banning ALL SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLES. Anything less gets you...that gun right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:02 PM

49. Do you have a problem with speeders that skirt the law

By driving exactly 70 mph in a 70 mph zone? Are they skirting the law as well?

Modifying guns to be within the letter of the law is not a crime, it's exactly what this bill expected gun owners and gun makers to do.

If it's not severe enough for your liking, don't try to place the blame on "modifications" that make a gun legal. Place it on the representatives who didn't push through a harsher bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:02 PM

65. there is a difference between those two weapons and an AR clone

a big difference when it comes to function, ease of firing and putting it back on target which those two do not have. M16s (AR) have a buffer and spring in the stock. This is a shock absorber when the round is fired. In a long barrel (M16A2), there is basically no kick when I fire a round. That means I barely have to move to re-acquire. the shorter M4s have much more kick. Those two you have in the link have no buffer. The kick on those is going to be pretty noticeable.
Maybe to you they are semantics, but they affect the weapon and firer a good deal. In my hands, almost as lethal as a genuine AR clone.

btw, a 'folding stock' is seriously not something an assault rifle has. That and the bayonnet lug. whatever. neither of them make a difference either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:46 AM

20. The database for people with mental issues could be problematic

interesting to see what criteria is required to get on that list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:56 AM

22. It sounds like it blows doctor-patient confidentiality out of the water

But I guess that's for the courts to decide.

I wonder if there will be unforeseen consequences to this, such as people forgoing visits for mental health due to worries about getting lumped onto a list somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:56 PM

57. But..but..but Wayne LaTerrorist is for those!

 

Contradictions never bother Delicate Flowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:59 PM

59. I actually oppose the idea.

I just think it funny how the NRA and gun controllers actually agree on something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:24 PM

61. LOL

 

That's gun REGULATORS to you, sparky. Just like the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:52 AM

21. Did I read somewhere that a bunch of the guns in NY are bought in Jersey?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhoWoodaKnew (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:58 AM

24. No.

Well, you may have, but N.J. requires a special state ID card to buy guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:06 AM

25. I read the law yesterday...

and there is a LOT of very good stuff in there.

The only part I don't really get is the 7-round magazine ban.

You can HAVE a 10-round magazine, but you can only load 7 rounds in it... how the bloody hell do they intend on enforcing that provision?

10 rounds is a good number: The state already has a 10-round magazine ban on the books, all the manufacturers make 10-round magazines, they are plentiful and they can mow down a third of the kindergartners of a 30-round magazine. A 7-round magazine ban just sounds like they're begging for the slippery slope arguments (10 rounds? You don't need that... 7 rounds? Oh, that's too many... why do you need more than one shot anyway... Zero shots is the perfect choice!).

Under the new law, the 8-round en bloc clip (a single piece of spring steel) for the 1930s-era M1 Garand rifle is now illegal. Guess what? The way it is made, you CAN'T load 7 rounds in it. You HAVE to load 8 rounds. This law pretty much makes the Garand, what Patton called "the finest battle weapon ever devised," the semi-auto rifle that beat the Nazis and is STILL legally sold to civilians by the federally-chartered Civilian Marksmanship Program, illegal to fire in New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:05 AM

28. Excellent..........nft

 

dddddd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:07 AM

29. Huzzah!! As New York goes, so goes the nation



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:24 AM

32. I'm not sure that's true, but I hope you're right.

We do have good stuff here in NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:40 PM

38. Same thing was said about the CA ban,

 

didn't work that way either, so I'm not confident that your statement is in any way true.
There are alot of good things in this new law, we'll see how it works out in the long run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:39 PM

37. Worthless.

Nice try, but this is worthless.

"The bill targets assault rifles, high-capacity clips of ammunition and requires reports of the mentally ill who pose a threat to others with illegal guns."

Right. And do what with those "reports"?

As much as I would like a complete ban on military assault weapons, etc., I believe it's more important to vet the gun owner, and be as brutal in the vetting as the British who go out of their way to deny the "privilege" of owning a gun. No "instant checks" at the gun counter for them - you have to be approved to have a gun before you even enter the store! And that vetting can take months.

Applicants first have to demonstrate a valid need to have a gun, then police will check out the owner's home for gun security (a vault, not a beautiful piece of cabinetry with a cheap lock), check with his family, neighbors, ministers, doctors and psychiatrists for his well-being and check any drugs he has been prescribed, his relatives, friends, neighbors, fellow employees, driving record, police history, solid citizen records as to taxes, etc., and on and on and on.

More, you screw up and get too many traffic tickets, slap the wife around, get a restraining order, file for divorce, fail your safety checks, get prescribed drugs for depression, etc, etc., the police will come to your home and TAKE YOUR GUNS from the home, and good luck getting them back.

Gun ownership is for the best-of-the-best in the Kingdom, not just any fool off the streets.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grins (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:42 PM

39. In other words,

 

for the 1% elites.
At least you're honest in your support for the privileged elites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:02 PM

50. no, sorry...I don't read that post as 1% elitism at all.

He's describing how strict the British system is. Which I appreciate. I hadn't any understanding of their regulations before.

The British system sounds good to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:15 PM

53. I don't care what you read it as.

 

It smacks of elitism for the 1%. The regs. are so stringent that only the rich and connected could own firearms.
Why should I have to show a need to the govt.? Why should my whole family have to go through a background check?
You may like the way the British do it, but no thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:20 PM

54. you may have a point but your RUDENESS gets in the way.

Meanwhile, England's gun violence rate is a tiny fraction of ours.

Guess strict regs work.

And I don't care if you like what I think or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 04:29 PM

55. Sorry for the rudeness.

 

I just get tired of people saying that we have to prove to the govt. a need for something, or that we should mimic the British.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #53)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:00 PM

64. YUP

 

In fact, that is exactly the way it works in NYC. The rich get handgun permits, nobody else does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:03 PM

66. The rich, the connected, and the beautiful.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread