HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Holy cow - NYS about to p...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:24 AM

Holy cow - NYS about to pass it's SAFE Act.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013

Private sales, Assault Weapons, hi-cap mags, mental illness, orders of protection...


Whew. BIG changes coming soon.

161 replies, 10055 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 161 replies Author Time Post
Reply Holy cow - NYS about to pass it's SAFE Act. (Original post)
jmg257 Jan 2013 OP
iiibbb Jan 2013 #1
SecularMotion Jan 2013 #17
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #47
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #78
SecularMotion Jan 2013 #81
Jenoch Jan 2013 #91
SecularMotion Jan 2013 #97
Jenoch Jan 2013 #99
SecularMotion Jan 2013 #100
Jenoch Jan 2013 #101
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #108
chicoguy Jan 2013 #18
customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #39
gejohnston Jan 2013 #2
jmg257 Jan 2013 #3
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #5
gejohnston Jan 2013 #6
jpak Jan 2013 #13
chicoguy Jan 2013 #21
jmg257 Jan 2013 #52
bossy22 Jan 2013 #74
jmg257 Jan 2013 #75
Straw Man Jan 2013 #111
jmg257 Jan 2013 #120
Straw Man Jan 2013 #121
jmg257 Jan 2013 #117
Straw Man Jan 2013 #114
jmg257 Jan 2013 #116
Straw Man Jan 2013 #123
Straw Man Jan 2013 #110
Jenoch Jan 2013 #92
jmg257 Jan 2013 #95
bubbayugga Jan 2013 #9
gejohnston Jan 2013 #10
chicoguy Jan 2013 #28
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #12
Straw Man Jan 2013 #109
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #118
Straw Man Jan 2013 #122
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #132
Straw Man Jan 2013 #146
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #150
Straw Man Jan 2013 #153
etherealtruth Jan 2013 #14
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #25
etherealtruth Jan 2013 #41
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #43
gejohnston Jan 2013 #45
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #46
jmg257 Jan 2013 #50
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #76
jmg257 Jan 2013 #79
chicoguy Jan 2013 #20
beevul Jan 2013 #30
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #32
jmg257 Jan 2013 #54
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #59
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #36
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #44
jmg257 Jan 2013 #53
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #48
gejohnston Jan 2013 #51
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #106
gejohnston Jan 2013 #107
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #127
gejohnston Jan 2013 #128
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #131
jmg257 Jan 2013 #55
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #62
jmg257 Jan 2013 #80
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #88
jmg257 Jan 2013 #89
jmg257 Jan 2013 #93
Straw Man Jan 2013 #124
DonP Jan 2013 #4
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #8
DonP Jan 2013 #11
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #7
chairman meow Jan 2013 #15
apocalypsehow Jan 2013 #16
Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #19
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #23
morningfog Jan 2013 #29
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #49
Straw Man Jan 2013 #112
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #125
gejohnston Jan 2013 #126
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #129
gejohnston Jan 2013 #130
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #133
gejohnston Jan 2013 #134
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #138
gejohnston Jan 2013 #139
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #140
gejohnston Jan 2013 #141
Straw Man Jan 2013 #149
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #154
Straw Man Jan 2013 #156
guardian Jan 2013 #22
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #58
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #137
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #142
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #143
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #144
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #145
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #147
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #148
locks Jan 2013 #24
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #26
HockeyMom Jan 2013 #33
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #60
morningfog Jan 2013 #27
Phlem Jan 2013 #31
guardian Jan 2013 #34
Phlem Jan 2013 #35
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #38
guardian Jan 2013 #40
Phlem Jan 2013 #42
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #37
libdem4life Jan 2013 #56
gejohnston Jan 2013 #57
libdem4life Jan 2013 #61
gejohnston Jan 2013 #63
libdem4life Jan 2013 #65
gejohnston Jan 2013 #67
libdem4life Jan 2013 #69
gejohnston Jan 2013 #71
libdem4life Jan 2013 #72
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #64
libdem4life Jan 2013 #66
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #68
libdem4life Jan 2013 #70
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #73
wercal Jan 2013 #77
krispos42 Jan 2013 #102
jmg257 Jan 2013 #82
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #83
gejohnston Jan 2013 #84
jmg257 Jan 2013 #85
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #86
jmg257 Jan 2013 #87
Glaug-Eldare Jan 2013 #90
jeepnstein Jan 2013 #98
Jenoch Jan 2013 #94
jmg257 Jan 2013 #96
Jenoch Jan 2013 #135
jmg257 Jan 2013 #136
Clames Jan 2013 #103
gejohnston Jan 2013 #104
Elmergantry Jan 2013 #115
jmg257 Jan 2013 #105
Clames Jan 2013 #113
jmg257 Jan 2013 #119
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #151
jmg257 Jan 2013 #152
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #155
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #157
gejohnston Jan 2013 #158
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #159
gejohnston Jan 2013 #160
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #161

Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:34 AM

1. My prediction...1994 all over again....

 

Next president will be Republican.

Bigger shift of House toward right.


Not that I want these things. On the whole Democrats are more palatable than Republicans... but I think their math is messed up on this particular piece of legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:36 PM

17. Times They are a-Changin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:32 PM

47. Beat me to it.

Sanity usually prevails. Pity it's taken so long, but better late than never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:15 AM

78. Google up Bob Dylan Guns. Take your pick. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:29 AM

81. The song is not about Bob Dylan or guns. What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:02 PM

91. Bob Dylan is pro RKBA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:15 PM

97. The song isn't about Bob Dylan. What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #97)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:41 PM

99. The song was written and performed by Bob Dylan. Your post was about Bob Dylan.

Bob Dylan is on record as being pro-RKBA. I am certain that if you were aware of his position on the 2nd Amendment, you would not have posted the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #99)


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #100)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:24 PM

101. Are you really that stupid or are you just being obtuse?

The song was written and performed by Bob Dylan, a RKBA supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:13 PM

108. Well, with regards guns, things have indeed changed since the song...

Liberalization of concealed-carry, end of Jim Crow gun laws in the South, affirmation 2A is an individual RKBA, etc. Dylan is closer to the pulse of this country than your view of sweeping social change. You should admit you didn't select a good icon for your moral validation, or for your powers of prediction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:48 PM

18. This is actually good news in some respects...

 

This will be challenged in court, NY will be on the hook for a lot of legal fees, and the supreme court will give some guidance on what is legal and not for mag cap limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chicoguy (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:26 PM

39. That's what I was thinking

It would be nice if the NRA got off it's ass to defend the principles of Heller in what was already the most anti-freedom state in the Union, at least as regards the Second Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:38 AM

2. they have an "assault weapons ban" already

they just changed the definition.
ection 37 of the bill amends Penal Law � 265.00(22) in order to
strengthen New York's assault weapon ban, expanding its reach and
making it easier to enforce. The proposed amendments replace the
existing ban consisting of and a "two-feature" test adopted from the
now-expired federal assault weapons ban with a clearer "one-feature"
test. The "two-feature" test bans any gun that is semi-automatic, has
a detachable magazine (in the case of pistols and rifles), and
possesses two features that are commonly associated with military
weapons. The "one-feature" test would ban semi-automatic guns with
detachable magazines that possess one feature commonly associated
with military weapons.
This section also adds to the list of
"features" that characterize a banned weapon.


The mag ban simply changes the current ten round limit to seven.
Orders of protection, well that's federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:50 AM

3. Worse...complete ban or registration of all AW...

complete ban of hi-caps - even pre 1994s
no private sales w/o FFL / background check except immediate family.
state wide database of licenses
safe-storage
enhanced penalties
ammuniton goes through dealers, records of sales
5 year license renewals
..


Sheesh...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:03 PM

5. Its worse than you think.. Hunters, their coming for YOU!

Section 265.00 of the penal law is amended by adding three new
subdivisions 24, 25 and 26 to read as follows:

24. "DETACHABLE MAGAZINE" MEANS ANY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE, THE
FUNCTION OF WHICH IS TO DELIVER ONE OR MORE AMMUNITION CARTRIDGES INTO
THE FIRING CHAMBER, WHICH CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE FIREARM WITHOUT THE
USE OF ANY TOOL, INCLUDING A BULLET OR AMMUNITION CARTRIDGE.
25. "MUZZLE BRAKE" MEANS A DEVICE ATTACHED TO THE MUZZLE OF A WEAPON
THAT UTILIZES ESCAPING GAS TO REDUCE RECOIL.
26. "MUZZLE COMPENSATOR" MEANS A DEVICE ATTACHED TO THE MUZZLE OF A
WEAPON THAT UTILIZES ESCAPING GAS TO CONTROL MUZZLE MOVEMENT.


So your fancy magnum hunting rifle, just became an banned assault rifle...

Not to mention, if you like to use a pump action rifle..which many like to use for hunting,

22. "ASSAULT WEAPON" MEANS ANY:

(A) SEMI-AUTOMATIC OR PUMP-ACTION RIFLE THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO
ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE



And nice, if you have more than TEN firearms....

S 265.04 Criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the first
degree when such person:

(1) possesses any explosive substance with intent to use the same
unlawfully against the person or property of another; or
(2) possesses ten or more firearms; OR
(3) POSSESSES AN ASSAULT WEAPON; OR
(4) POSSESSES A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree is a class B felo
ny.


Also read this morning that the NRA has picked up a quarter of million new members over the past two week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:15 PM

6. Looks like Ed Shultz better move his Fudd guns back

to North Dakota, oh wait. In one of the pics I saw of his collection, a couple of them look like NY "assault weapons"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:09 PM

13. LOL! This has NOTHING to do with traditional hunting rifles - just gun porn guns

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:58 PM

21. Maybe it is you who cannot read:

 

22. "ASSAULT WEAPON" MEANS ANY:

(A) SEMI-AUTOMATIC OR PUMP-ACTION RIFLE THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO
ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE

That is just about any semiautomatic rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chicoguy (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:46 PM

52. Dont think that is in the bill...semi only, and revolver shotguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:51 AM

74. what about the 7 round magazine limit?

that prohibits many lever action guns as well

Revolvers might also be affected since many .22 revolvers carry more than 7 rounds.

Nobody knows, the legislation is going to be challenged and could fall on constitutional vagueness

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 07:01 AM

75. ExIsting 10 rnd mags load With 7, new ones would limited cap to 7 max.

Not sure revolver would qualify as a fedding dvice...hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #75)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:13 AM

111. Nobody knows.

There are more holes than cheese in this legislation. The conservative interpretation is that any gun capable of repeat fire of more than seven rounds is banned going forward.

This isn't just for semi-autos. It's everything: pump, lever, revolver, bolt-action. The magic number is seven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #111)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:36 AM

120. Yes - I see that now. If one reads the bill,

it isn't ALL that confusing. Things like "readily restored" and "feeding device" could certainly use more specific definition, as they always have, but for the most part someone should have a good idea where they stand.

Edit: I see what you mean though about future purchases.

Since they identify hi-cap tubular .22 mags as being legal, it would make one think fguns with NON-.22 tubular (or other) magazines that can hold more then 7 rounds are now illegal to purchase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #120)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:57 AM

121. Correct.

Since they identify hi-cap tubular .22 mags as being legal, it would make one think fguns with NON-.22 tubular (or other) magazines that can hold more then 7 rounds are now illegal to purchase.

Yes, they are now illegal to purchase, including the Ruger 10/22 -- the single most popular .22 rifle in the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:23 AM

117. 10 rounders are OK if currently owned, can't contain more the 7 rounds.

Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:20 AM - Edit history (2)

Edit: I see the point - Yes - going forward, new gun purchases sure seem to be limited to capacity of 7 rounds, since they mention tubular magazine as a feeding device.

Sections for reference:

Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law � 265.00(23) to ban all large
capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds
of ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under the
original assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines that
hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. Magazines that can hold
more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currently
possessed will be grandfathered in but may only contain seven rounds of ammunition.,

Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines that
are curios or relics.


23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (A) has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition,
OR (B) CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION,
OR (C) IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH AMENDED THIS SUBDIVISION AND HAS A
CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION; ... however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition

{exemptions} 265.20 of the penal law,
as amended by chapter 210 of the laws of 1999, is amended and a new
paragraph 7-f is added to read as follows:
7f POSSESSION AND USE OF A MAGAZINE, BELT, FEED STRIP OR SIMILAR
DEVICE, THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, BUT THAT
DOES NOT HAVE A CAPACITY OF OR CAN READILY BE RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO
ACCEPT MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, AT AN INDOOR OR OUTDOOR
FIRING RANGE
LOCATED IN OR ON PREMISES OWNED OR OCCUPIED BY A DULY
INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ORGANIZED FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES OR TO
FOSTER PROFICIENCY IN ARMS;

S 265.36 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
DEVICE.

IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS A LARGE CAPACI
TY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE MANUFACTURED BEFORE SEPTEMBER THIRTEENTH,
NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR, AND IF SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED SUCH
LARGE CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER
OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS SECTION, THAT HAS
A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.

S 265.37 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF CERTAIN AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS AN AMMUNITION
FEEDING DEVICE THAT SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED
THIS SECTION, THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR
CONVERTED TO ACCEPT MORE THAN SEVEN BUT LESS THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, WHERE SUCH DEVICE CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.
IF SUCH DEVICE CONTAINING MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION IS
POSSESSED WITHIN THE HOME OF THE POSSESSOR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:27 AM

114. Not true.

semi only, and revolver shotguns.

Anything that can hold and feed more than seven rounds is a "large capacity ammunition feeding device," and banned. For detachable magazines, it's just a question of getting lower-capacity magazines, but for guns with integral magazines -- like Garands, Enfields, tubular-magazine cowboy rifles, etc., it means the whole gun is banned.

Nobody is quite sure about revolvers. Supposedly the only exemption is for tubular-magazine .22 rifles. If a revolver's cylinder is considered a "feeding device" (which it technically is), then this is also banned:



Only .22 caliber, but holds eight rounds: one more than legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #114)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:18 AM

116. We were talking about Assault Weapons. Feeding devices are different.

Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Edit: Ahhh - yes - NEW purchases!! Yes - apparently they are a problem for 7+, due to the call out of 'tubular' magazines, which sort of shows all 'magazines' are affected.

LARGE Ammunition Feeding Devices do NOT incude 10 rounders owned before Tuesday.
As long as they only contain 7 rounds (unless at a sanctioned range).

Relevant sections for reference.

Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law � 265.00(23) to ban all large
capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds

of ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under the
original assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines that
hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. Magazines that can hold
more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currently
possessed will be grandfathered in but may only contain seven rounds
of ammunition.
,
Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines that
are curios or relics.


23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (A) has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds
of ammunition,
OR (B) CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, OR
(C) IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH AMENDED THIS SUBDIVISION AND HAS A
CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION;...however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition

{exemptions} 265.20 of the penal law,
as amended by chapter 210 of the laws of 1999, is amended and a new
paragraph 7-f is added to read as follows:

7f POSSESSION AND USE OF A MAGAZINE, BELT, FEED STRIP OR SIMILAR
DEVICE, THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, BUT THAT
DOES NOT HAVE A CAPACITY OF OR CAN READILY BE RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO
ACCEPT MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, AT AN INDOOR OR OUTDOOR
FIRING RANGE LOCATED IN OR ON PREMISES OWNED OR OCCUPIED BY A DULY
INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ORGANIZED
FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES OR TO
FOSTER PROFICIENCY IN ARMS;

S 265.36 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
DEVICE.
IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS A LARGE CAPACI
TY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE MANUFACTURED BEFORE SEPTEMBER THIRTEENTH,
NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR, AND IF SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED SUCH
LARGE CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER
OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS SECTION, THAT HAS
A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.


S 265.37 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF CERTAIN AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS AN AMMUNITION
FEEDING DEVICE THAT SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED
THIS SECTION, THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR
CONVERTED TO ACCEPT MORE THAN SEVEN BUT LESS THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, WHERE SUCH DEVICE CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS
OF AMMUNITION.
IF SUCH DEVICE CONTAINING MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION IS
POSSESSED WITHIN THE HOME OF THE POSSESSOR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #116)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:01 AM

123. Right -- but both banned.

Even the state police are confused. And clearly, this is about a whole lot more than scary black rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:06 AM

110. Like this one?

LOL! This has NOTHING to do with traditional hunting rifles - just gun porn guns




Caliber is .44, capacity of ten rounds. Henceforth illegal. If you own it now, you can keep it, but you can't sell it or transfer in-state, and no one can buy a new one.

There are two issues here: "assault weapon," which is your "gun porn" gun, and "large capacity ammunition feeding device," which essentially means any repeating gun (or magazine for such), whether semi-auto or not, that can hold more than seven rounds. The only exemption is for tubular-magazine .22 rifles.

Yeah, "gun porn" guns. Any other pearls of wisdom to share with the folks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:08 PM

92. This appears to define

the Remington 742 & 760 as 'assault weapons' in New York. I wonder is this was intentional.

Edit to add:

I forgot about Ruger 10/.22 and Remington 597. These are all guns owned by myself or members of my family. If this New York gun law is ever passed and signed by the president Minnesota will be a red state in the next presidential election for the first time in over 40 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:45 PM

95. Most 74x/74xx don't have 1 of the 'features'. Besides, 7400 7600 appear in Appendix A 18 USC 922

saying they are Ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:15 PM

9. Finally. Now we'll be able to walk the streets of NYC without fear

 

of being shot by some crazy white guy with an assault rifle. Bravo New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:19 PM

10. are you serious?

The only crazy white people in NYC I would be afraid of would be the cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:17 PM

28. If you mean you are a criminal

 

then yes, criminals will now be able to walk the streets of NY without much fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:02 PM

12. You must be so proud of your bullshit.

The law does not take anyone's guns away. If you own one of the newly regulated weapons, you have to register it. Do you think putting out NRA hysteria propaganda is ok if you just do it in the gungeon? It ain't. This is du too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:58 AM

109. Disingenuous.

If you cannot get a magazine of ten or fewer for your particular gun, it becomes useless. The magazines have to be turned in or destroyed within a year. I have several that fall under this category. Federal law recognizes them as "Curio & Relic," but New York law does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #109)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:24 AM

118. Curios and antiques are exempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #118)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:59 AM

122. But only if they meet New York's definition.

Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:51 PM - Edit history (2)

The ones I own meet the Federal standard -- they're on the ATF's approved list -- but not the NY standard, because they are less than fifty years old. I already stated that, but you either didn't read my whole post or didn't understand it.

The objection stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #122)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:32 PM

132. It is almost as if New York State thinks they can make their own laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #132)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:57 PM

146. Didn't know you were such a "states' rights" fan.

But sure, why not? It's all about Andy Cuomo trying to raise his national profile for a 2016 Presidential bid. Andy the pro-fracking progressive: what a nightmare that would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #146)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:19 PM

150. Hmmm. Why yes I do believe state governments have the right to make laws.

And as long as those laws don't violate the constitution, they are legitimate. I'm surprised that is even controversial with gungeoneers, although as they are huge fans of the absurdly rightwing Scalia-Roberts court, I suppose clinging desperately to the hope that that perfidious federal court will save their precious toys from state regulation make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #150)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:06 PM

153. Sure, states have the right to enact ...

... this and many other kinds of petty harassment. Whether all of this passes Constitutional muster remains to be seen.

What I wonder is why Andy seems so set on going the Feds one better in every provision. Any thoughts on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:16 PM

14. You know you are posting complete and utter bull shit, right?

I will assume you are willfully misrepresenting the facts ... my assumption is probably the more flattering of other possible assumptions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:12 PM

25. I copied and pasted from the LAW..

I just spoke to a close freind that is unionized worker in Buffalo, he is a lifelong Democrat, and he is utterly floored by this law...

And very, VERY angry.....I offered to take his now banned items off his hands.

Stupid laws, have consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:45 PM

41. The law is OK ... it doesn't go far enough

... but it is a good start. I am proud of New York.

You did not post the entire text of the law: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/new-york-state-gun-laws-first-united-states-newtown-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2478418.html

"Owners of an estimated 1 million previously legal semiautomatic rifles, such as the Bushmaster model used to kill 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., a month ago, will be allowed to keep their weapons but will have a year to register them with police. The sale of any more such weapons is prohibited."


"In addition to outlawing a broader array of military-style weapons, the measure restricts ammunition magazines to seven rounds, down from the current 10, creates a more comprehensive database of people barred from owning guns, and makes New York the first state to require background checks to buy bullets. The system will also help flag customers who buy large amounts of ammo."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:25 PM

43. The new law amends the existing laws.

So for example, your sputtering bullshit up thread about the new 10 gun limit, that was already New York law. But carry on.

See this link to a 2006 copy of the criminal code.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-5/atf-p-5300-5-new_york.pdf

Us gun grabbers are real clever going back in time and such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #43)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:28 PM

45. the new limit is three

just thought I would mention it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:31 PM

46. No it isn't. Wtf.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/15/nyregion/20130115nygun-document.html

You go find the amendment to section 265.04 that changes the arsenal limit from 10 to 3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:44 PM

50. The new law makes 11 rounds or more mags illegal, no matter what date...

Existing 10 round mags purchased before today are legal, but may only be loaded with 7 rounds.
New mags from today on must be 7 rounds or less capacity.

There is a registration provision for c&r mags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:08 AM

76. Ok 7 is not 3, and I was talking about the arsenal limit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #76)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:30 AM

79. Ahh- got ya - OK - didn't realize that. FWIW - "Firearm" is NOT "gun" in NY.

There is no limit on guns, just what they consoder a "firearm" (pistols, SOSG, short rifles etc.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:56 PM

20. we had teh same thing in California:

 

24. "DETACHABLE MAGAZINE" MEANS ANY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE, THE FUNCTION OF WHICH IS TO DELIVER ONE OR MORE AMMUNITION CARTRIDGES INTO THE FIRING CHAMBER, WHICH CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE FIREARM WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY TOOL, INCLUDING A BULLET OR AMMUNITION CARTRIDGE.

Then people just came out with the bullet button. I know this also includes:

WHICH CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE FIREARM WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY TOOL, INCLUDING A BULLET OR AMMUNITION CARTRIDGE.

Now I am not clear on that last part, it is a bit unclear (probably by design). So is it detachable if it can be removed with a bullet? Does not really matter anyway, just slightly change the release slightly, so you need something other than a bullet, and you are in the clear again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:21 PM

30. Is there a grandfather clause to the "no more than ten" limit?

NY has no idea what a can of worms they just opened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:40 PM

32. Thats what REALLY set my NY freind off...NO GRANDFATHERING..


Section 4. Amends the Penal Law, Section 265.00 (23). Defines "large
capacity ammunition feeding device" regardless of when such device
was manufactured.

Sections 5 and 6. Amends the Penal Law, Section 265.02 and Section
265.04. Increases possession of an assault weapon and a large
capacity ammunition feeding device from a class D felony (Section
265.02) to class B felony (Section 265.04).


Going to prove to everyone, all over the US, that, Democrats, want to ban, and TAKE their guns...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:54 PM

54. New ones must be 7, existing 10 rounders can only contain 7 rounds. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:51 PM

59. I see many, MANY road trips to Vermont, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, with...

...lots of cash purchases of magazines in the future.

Bet on it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:53 PM

36. BTW, its not a 10 rnd limit, its a 7.....

yes, they have no fucking clue, but they will get one soon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:25 PM

44. It was existing law. The op is a can of bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:52 PM

53. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:39 PM

48. Imagine, hunters will actually have to go back to hunting.

Remember, like the plains Indians, before the great white "hunters" killed all the buffalo and most of the Indians with their more efficient killing tools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:44 PM

51. or rich Brits who

ravaged Africa with double barreled rifles for ivory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:10 PM

106. Ouch!

Do you really think I support such behavior, or think that the Brits are any better than anyone else? I sincerely hope not. That would be like blaming your local pizza guy for the sins of Mussolini.
Just because I think the UK got it right on one particular issue doesn't mean they got it right on everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #106)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:17 PM

107. did UK murder drop?

Did they deal with the root cause?
AFAIK, no to both. Even though you agree with the Crown on that issue, I can't seriously call it a success in much of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #107)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:13 PM

127. I agree with Parliament and the people on that issue.

And yes to both questions. They dealt with the root cause as well as can be expected and the gun death rate is even lower than before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #127)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:19 PM

128. but the murder and suicide rates did not drop

so they did not deal with the problem. Concentrating on "gun death" is kind of dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #128)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:25 PM

131. Sure they did.

Admittedly, they were extremely low to start with, but shooting little kids was the last straw. It's not that hard to get over losing a few guns when the reward is happy, smiling kids who get to grow up without needing armed cops or parents to protect them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:57 PM

55. A "firearm" in NY is more like pistols and SOSG..not all guns. Not a new provision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:06 PM

62. You do know...

that doesn't include bolt or single shot guns, right? Just semiautos...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:32 AM

80. Not too sure about that...

"3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle..."

Unless the new bill changes this, which I haven't seen yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:36 PM

88. Those are short-barrelled shotguns and rifles you are referring to...

they are NOT "fancy magnum hunting rifles." They are regulated by the feds since the 1930s and are ILLEGAL in New York, and have been for quite some time.

New York law does not mean a rifle is a "firearm." Firearms are handguns or short-barreled rifles or shotguns.

This is a firearm:


This is NOT a firearm:


Now, as far as the OTHER issue you are arguing: Try actually reading the section of the law (not a bill, the LAW) which states:

(A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE
MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF
THE WEAPON;
(III) A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
(IV) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
NON-TRIGGER HAND;
(V) A BAYONET MOUNT;
(VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED
BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR
MUZZLE COMPENSATOR;
(VII) A GRENADE LAUNCHER;

Note the SECOND word. "SEMIAUTOMATIC." Ergo, your "fancy magnum hunting rifle" is NOT an "assault weapon."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:55 PM

89. I think you have me confused with another poster. But anyway...

...the classification of fancy semi-auto hunting rifles with detachable magazines (and muzzle breaks) can be confusing: someone has to declare that they can NOT readily take a magazine with a higher then 5 capactity(how?), OR find them on the list in Appendix A 18 USC 922.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #88)


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #62)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:26 AM

124. And do YOU know...

... that a "LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE" is any pistol or rifle, whether semi-auto or manual, whether the magazine is detachable or not, that holds more then seven rounds? That includes many lever-action "cowboy" rifles as well as bolt-actions like the .303 Enfield.

These are all banned going forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 12:04 PM

4. Alan Gura probably needs another yacht anyway

When politicians decide to ram through new legislation on gun control in a hurry like this the only people that consistently benefit are the lawyers.

In a year, maybe less, NYS will be writing big checks for NRA and SAF legal fees, just like Chicago and Illinois are now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:20 PM

8. It beats asking members for donations.

 

Maybe they should give life memberships to the krew that drafted the legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 05:59 PM

11. I thought Rahm was going to get a free Life NRA membership

After all, the guys signed some of the biggest checks they've received in years. At least a free subscription to American Rifleman?

... and he's still writing new ones.

Today he asked the City Council for $33 million more to pay off two citizens the cops screwed with.

One was a guy imprisoned for 10 years on a phony charge and the other was a young woman who had a bi-polar incident at Midway Airport, the cops picked her up then dropped off in the middle of the night at the Robert Taylor Homes to "teach her a lesson".

She was kidnapped, gang raped then dumped out a 7th story window and survived, but with major brain damage.

But ... when you can raise the property taxes and tell the unions to go fuck themselves who cares, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 02:18 PM

7. I feel safer already.

 

Safe in knowing Cuomo will be stuck in NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:21 PM

15. Next up for NY: Require all car owners with defective brakes to install louder horns.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:27 PM

16. And that's just a preview of what's coming - NATIONWIDE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:49 PM

19. Don't hold your breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:02 PM

23. Hey, look! Up in the sky!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:17 PM

29. Whistling past the graveyard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:41 PM

49. Hopefully! It's all about momentum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:15 AM

112. So you're OK with this being banned?

New Henry .44 with ten-round tubular magazine.



It might interest you to know that going forward, .303 Enfields are probably banned too: ten-round capacity.



They may fall under the Curio & Relic exemption -- more than 50 years old -- but that still isn't clear. There's a provision that says it can't be C&R if the magazines can be used in a modern replica. Enfield magazines are detachable, and there are some modern replicas of the rifle.

This legislation is a nightmare of contradiction and imprecision. It was hammered out in one afternoon, and State Senators were given 20 minutes to read it before voting on it. It didn't matter; the deals had already been made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #112)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:59 AM

125. Sure.

My preference would be not to ban anything, but we're past that point, unfortunately. Too many dead children and other innocents. Time to save lives and give up a few of those not so precious "rights".
There will be plenty of guns left for everyone to enjoy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #125)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:03 PM

126. no there won't

in Australia, pistols have magically became "handheld machine guns hidden glove boxes" and to ban bolt actions. Then there is UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #126)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:19 PM

129. Maybe when we get the death rate down to Oz and UK levels we'll be allowed out of our rooms again.

Meanwhile, we need a serious time out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #129)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:24 PM

130. murder rates are the same

UK continues to climb, Oz was dropping well before the law was passed and continued to drop at the same rate as before. Unless we deal with the real problems, which are socioeconomic in nature, nothing will change. Besides anti gun types in Australia are bitching about pistols and bolt actions. Concentrating on "gun violence" instead of "violence", "gun suicides" instead of "suicides" is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #130)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:03 PM

133. No they aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #133)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:17 PM

134. I didn't say the same as ours

or each other, I said the same as before. I said about the same as before and any changes can't be tied to the gun laws. BTW, Australia is 1.0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #130)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:28 PM

138. Correction!

Ignoring "gun violence" and "gun suicides" is dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.

Regarding the UK stats http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Regarding Oz stats http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

To claim that either has a worse policy than the US is absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #138)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:41 PM

139. you misrepresented what I said

I said is ignoring all suicides and all violence regardless of means. Can you pick a less biased source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #139)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 04:48 PM

140. The topic here is gun violence. That's why we're here.

The source is irrelevant. The stats are highly relevant.
Nobody is arguing that Americans are by nature any more violent than those from other countries. All humans have a propensity toward violence. The difference is in how we deal with it as a society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #140)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:00 PM

141. yes we are talking about guns, but

but the real issue should be violence. If for example, if you have 100 people who shoot themselves and a hundred people who 100 people who hang themselves, you 200 equally tragic deaths. Pass a gun ban and now you have 200 self hangings and zero gun suicides. Some people seem to think that as progress or not an issue simply because a gun wasn't used. To me, it is still 200 needless deaths.
UK is actually more violent than the US when you look at violent crimes other than murder. Out of the OECD countries, the US is third highest murder rate (behind Mexico and Estonia). UK has the highest assault rate, and Australia has the highest rape rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #125)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:09 PM

149. If you think banning Enfields and cowboy rifles ...

... will save lives, you have no idea whatsoever of the nature of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #149)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:45 AM

154. I don't think banning anything will save lives.

There is a huge difference between restricting the use and availability of something and banning it outright. If certain weapons fall under a restricted category, then that's too bad. You and I may not be too happy about it, but if we want serious change that will save lives, then there is bound to be collateral damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #154)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:31 AM

156. Logic?

First of all, it is a ban -- it just won't achieve its full impact for one generation. Certain classes of guns can be owned now but can't be sold in-state or transferred in any way, including inheritance. When the current owners die, these guns must be sold out-of-state, turned in, or destroyed. The ban will have been achieved: they will no longer be available to law abiding gun owners. Note the italics -- there will still be plenty of weapons of all kinds available to criminals.

First you say that banning won't save lives, and then you say that restrictions on certain classes of weapons will save lives. Could you please explain the line of reasoning that led you there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:01 PM

22. I foresee a sudden run on

 

6" and 8" diameter PVC pipe and end caps at hardware stores throughout NY state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:48 PM

58. ..and a spate of tragic boating accidents. Lots of deep lakes in NY State...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:09 PM

137. great, I hope lots of gun nuts go out and commit felonies and get caught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #137)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:35 PM

142. Of *course* you do, you big strong culture warrior you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #142)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:40 PM

143. Oh right, I forgot, laws are just for the little people.

And you big strong gun packers don't need no sheriff. You just Zimmerman the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #143)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:50 PM

144. -1 for erroneous kneejerk reaction; I don't own a gun, and have said so here numerous times

Once again, you lot demonstrate either a lack of research or rejection of same when it does not fit
your prejudices...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #144)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:54 PM

145. And btw, since you broached the subject of Zimmerman-

You're both culture warriors- him 'protecting' the cul-de-sac against those sketchy brown people, you
'protecting' society from those sketchy gun nuts...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #145)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:58 PM

147. I must have hit a nerve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #147)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:06 PM

148. Don't flatter yourself- your sort has been seen before:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:08 PM

24. Thank you New York

Now if they can just keep all those guns from coming over the state line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locks (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:14 PM

26. New York gun owners can profit by selling theirs in Vermont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locks (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:41 PM

33. Why we need NATIONAL

Gun Control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:52 PM

60. Since that won't get through Congress before 2015 (if then)...

...do you have any other suggestions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:16 PM

27. Rec! Good on NY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:40 PM

31. Is there something to even hunt in NY?



-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:49 PM

34. Do you mean other than

 

* deer
* black bear
* turkey
* rabbit
* bobcat
* coyote
* weasel
* opossum
* raccoon
* skunk
* fox
* squirrel
* pheasant
* grouse
* quail
* duck
* etc.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/huntingseasons1213.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:51 PM

35. Do people really eat skunk?

Seems like an odd one to have on that list.

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:22 PM

38. It's called varmint hunting...

...not all hunting is done to provide table fare. But eliminating varmints is good, in this case, for ground dwelling birds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:27 PM

40. most people do not eat skunk

 

or coyote, or woodchucks, etc. Though I have heard of people eating skunk. Some animals (varmints) are simply killed because they are a nuisance, danger to livestock or crops or people, carry disease, etc. and their bodies just left for scavenger animals. Other creatures may be hunted for pelts or trophies or things like Asian medicine. So not all hunting has to do with eating the animal.

FYI much of NY state is pretty rural or even wilderness. NYC represents a tiny fraction of the land area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 08:54 PM

42. that's an outsider for ya.

clueless about the environment unless it's his own. Thanks for the info! I have been educated.

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 07:55 PM

37. ~ K ~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:19 PM

56. It's time for gun owners to police their own...3/4 of us don't have them or want them.

I also attest to the impossibility of controlling 300 million weapons that can kill. Also futile to legislate or "report" the emotions and/or instability and/or drunkenness or revenge fantasies or terrible domestic circumstances of some who own them. Can't police that, for sure.

Product liability is the answer, just like auto insurance. All drivers pay to insure these necessary metal objects, the owners, the registration and re-registration, effective background checks, dealer licenses, the maimed or killed and the public property. If guns are as necessary as we're being led to believe...at least to the 1 out every 4 people who own them, then they need to deal with it. Not make it yet another Taxed-Enough-Already civic project.

One of those lessons learned in Kindergarten is if you make a mess, you clean it up. Guns make one hell of a mess...mostly unintended. Nevertheless, like being in a glass shop, you drop it, you pay for it.

The liability of possessing a machine of potential death has consequences, often unintended. I know gun owners who are responsible and totally safe.

But no matter how careful an auto owner is, if anyone drives your automobile registered to you and kills or injures someone, it's not an Uh-Oh, sorry ... let society pay for it. Auto insurance = gun insurance = liability insurance...paid for by gun owners only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 10:32 PM

57. since most of it is criminal gangs

how is that supposed to work? Some of these gangs have "community guns"? The exceptions in the news are dead, and most gun deaths are suicides.

if anyone drives your automobile registered to you and kills or injures someone, it's not an Uh-Oh, sorry ... let society pay for it. Auto insurance = gun insurance = liability insurance...paid for by gun owners only.
I don't know about your state, but every state I know of, the driver is liable not the owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:00 PM

61. OK...we are now hostage to "criminal gangs"? "community guns"? I lived in LA County

for decades ... Hollywood cops are the worst ... LA Central are not far behind ... not to mention the LA County Sherrif. We're not talking about the money and the drugs and the "uh-ohs" of that group. Here's the cure for that. You don't want to be killed or participate in the gun/drug/prostitution jungle, then move at least a couple of cities away. You want to play, knock yourself out. In Hollywood, more drugs go through those posh nightclubs with their groupies and celebrities than probably the rest of the state. The cops are totally in on it...unless there is a car crash or something.

However, now we're now into mass shootings, white kids, upper middle class everday folk ... formerly unreported gun "mishaps" ... times they are achangin'. And what is it about the gun suicides that is unimportant in your statistical apologetics? Many might not have the stomach for stabbing or hanging themselves.

Now you know my state...and I think you might check with your AAA group...you let someone drive your car ... or say you didn't know they were driving your car ... and they kill someone...especially if they are unlicensed or underage or drunk or whatever...if your insurance doesn't cover your car and the liability, you can kiss your own assets goodbye.

How I learned that the hard way ... decades ago ... I was underage but had use of my older sister's car for work, etc. She found out I was at a bar after work and sent the police in after me. It was she and they who jointly made a lifelong impression on me...and it went beyond drinking underage...that detail she didn't really care about. It was their liability if I cracked up the car...an old, Brown VW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:09 PM

63. always have been

urban gangs using community guns date back to the 19th century. True, they kill mostly each other. As for "just move" too many people simply don't have that choice.

And what is it about the gun suicides that is unimportant in your statistical apologetics? Many might not have the stomach for stabbing or hanging themselves.
all suicides are important and tragic. No I don't think they would not use other means.
mishaps are very rare, just reported more.
My state is driver is responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #63)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:28 PM

65. Yes, they do. I taught many of their kids and listened to their stories. When it got too bad, they

moved out one or two cities. Often it was after the death of a child...sadly. (Similar stories of immigrants...legal or illegal)

Got to pick another topic here, but I respect your opinion.

Just curious, in which state can someone drive your car or be injured in your vehicle and you are not liable? In our elementary school, any parent who drove other kids on a field trip had to have a parent-signed insurance/liability waiver required by the school, as the other entity of liability. It was no small thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #65)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:36 PM

67. Wyoming was when I was a kid

AFAIK, still is. Florida is a "no fault" state. One of my goals is to convince the wife that Wyoming is more civilized than Florida. In Wyoming, I would be pulled stopped by the game warden out in the middle of nowhere, and he or she would leave their gun in their truck knowing I had one. Florida game wardens are armed like regular cops. Then Rick Scott gets elected, both told me all I needed to know about this place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:45 PM

69. Isn't life interesting...my Mom was born in Laramie in 1919...LOL...have to agree about Rick Scott

though. Good luck with the wife...you're probably right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #69)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:56 PM

71. Grew up in Rock Springs

family of cops, railroaders, and miners. I was stationed at Travis by Fairfield for a couple of years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:00 AM

72. Well even a smaller world...Fairfield is in Sonoma County just over the hill...Santa Rosa here...

707 largest geographical area code in the US, I hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:13 PM

64. Especially when...

...found guilty of murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:31 PM

66. Just curious, what is there about being found guilty that does not get addressed legally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:40 PM

68. Nothing I know of. Why? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:48 PM

70. If they are guilty, they get punished and at least lose their gun rights, right?

This is not about getting away with legal murder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:09 AM

73. My point

Auto insurance covers "accidental" collisions not "on-purpose" collisions. Insurance companies won't be signing up for that.

But I'm just curious, if we could have that kind of insurance would there be a "no-fault" program like we have for cars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:49 AM

77. I'm really not sure of the point you are making

But this statement caught my eye:

"I don't know about your state, but every state I know of, the driver is liable not the owner."

I really don't know how it relates to guns; but, let me assure you that a driver and owner can both be liable. Especially if you lend your car to somebody who has a suspended license. And, if you own a beater and let your kid use it, 'as long as he pays the gas and insurance'...sell the car to him, for a dollar. Get your name off of the title, in case he lets the insurance lapse, and gets in a wreck.

Just an aside, but it really caught my eye. A co-worker has a very large judgement against her, as a result of her adult son's mistakes. If you own a vehicle, you are liable for damages caused by it....even if it catches fire and burns down the neighbor's house, with no driver whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:44 PM

102. Just like Muslims should police their own?

I've found it completely amazing since the Sandy Hook massacre the number of BushCo talking points and methods that have sprung up on DU with the nouns changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:51 AM

82. Can someone check on this? Are pre-1994 hi-cap mags legal to possess in NY? EDIT NO!!!

NEVER MIND!!!

S 265.36 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
DEVICE.
IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS A LARGE CAPACI
TY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE MANUFACTURED BEFORE SEPTEMBER THIRTEENTH,
NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR, AND IF SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED SUCH
LARGE CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER
OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS SECTION, THAT HAS
A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.
AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT SUCH DEVICE IS OF SUCH
A CHARACTER THAT IT MAY LAWFULLY BE POSSESSED AND WHO SURRENDERS OR
LAWFULLY DISPOSES OF SUCH DEVICE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF BEING NOTIFIED BY
LAW ENFORCEMENT OR COUNTY LICENSING OFFICIALS THAT SUCH POSSESSION IS
UNLAWFUL SHALL NOT BE GUILTY OF THIS OFFENSE. IT SHALL BE A REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION THAT SUCH PERSON KNOWS THAT SUCH LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
FEEDING DEVICE MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED IF HE OR SHE HAS BEEN
CONTACTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR COUNTY LICENSING OFFICIALS AND INFORMED
THAT SUCH DEVICE MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED.
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE IS A
CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:54 AM

83. Is it true they forgot to exempt LEOs?

That would be some pretty hilarious shit if the cops had to turn over all their magazines and wait for somebody to start manufacturing 7rd ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:59 AM

84. from what I understand,

it was written quickly and voted on before anyone had a chance to actually read it closely. I wouldn't be surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:05 PM

85. Not sure - it modifies existing law so without comparing every new section to

every old section makes it tough to know.

Eventually I'll figure it out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:18 PM

86. History is full of...

...governments not thinking through what they are doing. Back in '86 I was working for a DoD contractor. One of the milestone events in the engineering tasks for the verification activities was the DCAS witnessed first article acceptance inspection. One morning my boss and I are setting up about 3 fixtures for this activity planned for late morning on three assemblies. We finish and go for coffee expecting DCAS to be there when we get back. On returning with coffee we find no DCAS personnel. I go to see if somehow they're getting coffee and we missed them. No luck. After waiting 30 minutes my boss sends me back to my desk on other work and says he'll call.

About an hour later he stops by my desk and says first articles are postponed indefinitely. Congress seems to have mandated a reduction in active clearances. The folks at the Pentagon dropped the our DCAS guys from Secret to Confidential and sent a memo to company security. DCAS said they have the time but aren't allowed to look at anything until some higher-ups can upgrade their clearances again.

Your tax dollars at work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:34 PM

87. No - The exemptions section is still active...

Just a section is modded for licensed owners.

S 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11,
265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
1. Possession of any of the weapons, instruments, appliances or
substances specified in sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05
and 270.05 by the following:
(a) Persons in the military service of the state of New York when duly
authorized by regulations issued by the adjutant general to possess the
same.
(b) Police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-four of section
1.20 of the criminal procedure law.
(c) Peace officers as defined by section 2.10 of the criminal
procedure law...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #87)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:00 PM

90. Ah, guess they still need their automatic death spewers

with high capacity assault clips whose only purpose is mass murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:57 PM

98. Shhh.. Nobody is supposed to talk about that.

I mean, if a police officer is best served by a weapon that holds more than ten rounds, what makes them so special? If nobody needs more than ten rounds for self defense why do they need extra?

Oh, and for the record my duty weapon holds less than ten, it's a Colt Officer's ACP. But I find it troublesome when citizens are deemed untrustworthy just because they lack a certificate and an ID card. Unlike many of the "progressives" on this site I firmly believe that the default for most folks is to be good and trustworthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:32 PM

94. So every cop in New York

with a Glock 21 (.45 ACP/13 round magazine) and/or a Glock 22 (.40 S&W/15 round magazine) is breaking the law?

I read somewhere on this thread that owners of 'assault weapons' have a year to register them. When do the possession laws on magazines go into effect? (The magazines I listed are not 'high capacity', they are standard capacity.

I wonder if an existing magazine that holds more than 10 rounds can be modified to become legal under the new law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:08 PM

96. I think 1 year to get mags figured out, too. Cops are exempt.

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, teenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four,] that (A) has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition, OR (B) CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, OR (C) IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH AMENDED THIS SUBDIVISION AND HAS A
CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION;

"Permanent' mod seems to be ok (welding a block?).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #96)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:39 PM

135. They did not exempt LEOs from the new magazine laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #135)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:45 PM

136. Yep - I saw that...they did not revise the existing exemptions to include the new

sections they added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:25 PM

103. They aren't terribly bright.

 

Very low wattage in fact... Passed a law that directly violates recent SCOTUS rulings?


265.01-b Criminal possession of a firearm.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she:
(1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to
the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen
which added this section subject to the registration requirements of
subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly
fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision.
Criminal possession of a firearm is a class E felony.
* NB Effective March 16, 2013


NYS defines a firearm as any pistol or revolver along with certain short-barreled shotguns and rifles. So basically they've just banned handguns outright by this shoddy piece of legislation. SAF is going to have a field day when they drag it into court and rip it to shreds...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #103)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 07:32 PM

104. and the cops are not exempt

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116

Looks like NYPD could be looking more like UK's MPD. Shall we start calling OnePolice Plaza ummmm New Scotland Yard West?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #104)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:12 AM

115. So why are they going to give the police an exemption?

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116

How come they "need" high capacity clips to protect themselves and others but the private citizen cannot?

I thought the thinking was that high capacity clips only have ONE purpose: to kill a lot of people. Are the police now in the

people killing business? I thought they "served and protected"


So confused!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #103)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:32 PM

105. You have to keep reading...exemptions allow for licenses (CCW type). Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #105)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:02 AM

113. So you would have to have a CCW in NYS to possess a firearm?

 

That dog won't hunt either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #113)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:33 AM

119. Sure it will...it has been that way for decades. "Firearm" in NY

is a very specific class of weapons (pistols, short rifles & shotguns)

3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having
one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle
having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length;



Licenses of some sort will now be issued for possession of Assault Weapons. Probably very similiar to the CCW permit system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #119)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:28 PM

151. Will everybody qualified to own a gun be granted a permit?

 

I would have to say the 2A and Heller ruling allow for possesion of handguns. So if someone is not otherwise barred from owning a gun (felony, non-citizen, etc...) will they be issued a CCW so they can own a pistol?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #151)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:59 PM

152. NY is officially a 'may issue' I guess. If there is no reason for you not to own one, you'll

get a permit. But depending on the issuing judge, many of them have restrictions.
And forget NYC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #152)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:45 AM

155. "May issue" aka "may infringe"

 

In a may issue state, even if you have NO disqualification your permit can still be denied without reason. This could result in a situation where a law abiding legal gun owner would be denied a pistol by fiat. I would predict upon judicial challenge of requiring a may issue permit to legally buy a handgun that either the permits will have to be changed to "shall issue" or the permit requirement for handguns will be removed.

This, of course, assumes that the 2A is interpreted to include handguns (which, with the current rulings, is all but assured).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #155)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:47 AM

157. NYS has had these laws for decades. They have withstood challenges.

But you could be right, the preposterously rightwing scalia-roberts court could continue to invent new interpretations of the 2a and overturn long standing state laws regulating handguns as a matter of public safety. But I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #157)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:54 AM

158. when were they challenged?

when did was the 2A ever interpreted as a "collective right"? What SCOTUS case can you use for an example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #158)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:21 AM

159. Google works for me.

Here is a story about one failed case: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/45096.htm

But as I said, you can always pray that your buddies on the preposterously rightwing Scalia-Roberts court will dream up new interpretations of the 2a that will let them overturn decades of prior rulings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #159)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:05 PM

160. that wasn't a 2A issue and

that had nothing to do with collective or individual rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #160)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:10 PM

161. Sure it was, and it is an argument raised here frequently.


The gun enthusiasts' position contradicted longstanding case law, Koeltl wrote, citing several appellate court rulings.
"While it is possible to conceive of fees that are impermissible because they are so exorbitant as to deter the exercise of the protected activity ... there is no showing that the $340 handgun licensing fee qualifies as such a fee," Koeltl wrote in his 38-page Opinion and Order. "The plaintiffs merely assert that the $340 fee is excessive, which is not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the permissibility of the fee."
Courts have allowed a $3,000 adult business licensing fee and festival permit fees of $950 to $6,500, Koeltl noted.


The ruling was specifically about the constitutionality of the registration fees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread