NY to restrict Assault Weapons, Limit magazine size to 7 bullets


PDA






sharpshooter74
January 14, 2013, 11:51 AM
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html

This is getting ridiculous. Wouldn't limiting most semi-auto handguns to 7 bullets practically ban most semi-auto handguns?

If you enjoyed reading about "NY to restrict Assault Weapons, Limit magazine size to 7 bullets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tyeo098
January 14, 2013, 11:53 AM
Isnt that the point?

481
January 14, 2013, 11:54 AM
That would seem to be the point- if not an outright ban, perhaps an effective ban through some other means.

Texan Scott
January 14, 2013, 11:55 AM
Yes...who says that's not the point?

Time for backstaters to consider voting with their feet? There's still plenty of room in Texas.

USAF_Vet
January 14, 2013, 11:57 AM
Still would not have prevented last summers shooting outside the Empire State Building.

Expect a rush on 1911's in New York.

Apachedriver
January 14, 2013, 12:00 PM
Guess everyone will HAVE to carry 1911s in .45 with the original 7 round mags.

Beat me to it USAF_Vet, but I like how you think.

Fryerpower
January 14, 2013, 12:03 PM
Plenty of room here in Tennessee also, bring the good food but leave your (their) ideas on gun control behind.

Looks like there is going to be a run on mouse guns until they put minimum limits on gun size.

Jim

pty101
January 14, 2013, 12:06 PM
This is ridiculous and it make me glad I dont live in NY. :banghead: Any word if there will be any grandfathering? I havent seen anything saying there isn't... yet.
I'm not an attorney so I maybe wrong on this, but would Heller give a good opportunity since this basically outlaws the majority of handguns as well as standard mags?

armoredman
January 14, 2013, 12:06 PM
Drop it to 7, so magazine manufacturers have a new product to make, since the 10 rounders, out for years, are no longer good. Restrict rights and stimulate business, what a win for leftists...:banghead:
I agree, lots of room in Constitutional Carry Arizona.

481
January 14, 2013, 12:07 PM
Of course, there has been other legislation introduced, like H.R. 142 which seeks Federal limitations on the purchase of ammunition both online and in person-

The 'Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013'

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON PURCHASES OF AMMUNITION.

(a) Licensing of Ammunition Dealers-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 923(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1), in the first sentence, by striking `, or importing or manufacturing' and inserting `or'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 921(a)(11)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or ammunition' after `firearms'.

(b) Requirement for Face to Face Sales of and Licensing To Sell Ammunition- Section 922 of such title is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1)--

(A) by striking `for any person--' and all that follows through `(A) except' and inserting `(A) for any person except'; and

(B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) for--

`(i) any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to--

`(I) sell ammunition, except that this subclause shall not apply to a sale of ammunition by a person to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer; or

`(II) engage in the business of importing or manufacturing ammunition, or in the course of such business, to ship, transport, or receive any ammunition; or

`(ii) a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer ammunition to a person unless the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has verified the identity of the transferee by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d) of this title) of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee; and

(2) in subsection (b)(5), by striking `or armor-piercing'.

(c) Limit on Shipping and Transporting of Ammunition- Section 922(a)(2) of such title is amended--

(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting `, or to ship or transport any ammunition,' after `any firearm'; and

(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting `or ammunition' after `a firearm'.

(d) Recordkeeping Regarding Ammunition-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 923(g) of such title is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1)(A)--

(i) in the first sentence, by inserting `or ammunition' after `other disposition of firearms'; and

(ii) in the third sentence, by striking `, or any licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition,' and inserting `, or any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer of ammunition,'; and

(B) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following:

`(C) Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any 5 consecutive business days, more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General and forwarded to the office specified thereon and to the department of State police or State law enforcement agency of the State or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction in which the sale or other disposition took place, not later than the close of business on the day that the multiple sale or other disposition occurs.'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 4182(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions relating to firearms) is amended by inserting `and except as provided in paragraph (1)(A) and (3)(C) of section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code,' before `no person holding a Federal license'.


The anti-gun mob sees this as a prime opportunity to make a full press against our Second Amendment rights. Simply put, they've declared "all out war" on us.

sidheshooter
January 14, 2013, 12:10 PM
Absurd.


Anyone for an S&W 627 8-shot .357 revolver?

Skribs
January 14, 2013, 12:21 PM
Actually a lot of semi-autos popular for carry wouldn't be affected, such as the pocket 9s and .380s.

Lincoln4
January 14, 2013, 12:30 PM
Wow...

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

nathan
January 14, 2013, 12:33 PM
Oh well, seven rounds would be equal to seven dead robbers. No more double tap .

c4v3man
January 14, 2013, 12:40 PM
Statistics suggest you may not even kill one, and likely incapacitate maybe 2.

This is a problem, not that New York is a good situation for a self-defense shoot anyways...

cfullgraf
January 14, 2013, 12:42 PM
This is getting ridiculous. Wouldn't limiting most semi-auto handguns to 7 bullets practically ban most semi-auto handguns?

How would 7 round magazines "ban" a hand gun? Might make it less useful.

I would rather shoot a full size semi-auto rather than a compact. Compacts or pocket guns are easier to carry due to their smaller size. I carry a pocket gun now because of its size, not necessarily its effectiveness. If I carried a full size semi-auto, it would be an M1911 anyway.

I wonder if eight round speed loaders or moon clips will be included in the 7 round magazine limit.

Girodin
January 14, 2013, 12:46 PM
I think a lawsuit will be in order to challenge that. As others have noted, this is functionally very similar to simply banning many types of handguns. It obviously differs in some important respects and does fall short of an outright ban, even on models that can hold more than 7 rounds currently. I think there are some pretty obvious arguments about why it is constitutionally suspect. Unless we lose a justice and Obama gets another appointment (God help us all, and not just on gun rights, if that happens) on the SCOTUS I could easily see a seven, ten, or whatever mag limit being struck under substantially similar logic to Heller. Banning weapons of more than 7, 10, or whatever mag capacity, which is functionally what a mag ban does, is banning a class of weapons fit for militia service, that is owned for legal purposes, and which are in common use.

Sadly there is probably going to have to be a fair amount of litigation to preserve peoples rights. Particularly those living in blue states. You know what they say. People get the government they deserve.

MErl
January 14, 2013, 12:48 PM
so would a revolver be classified as a semi-auto? fires with each pull of the trigger.

ConstitutionCowboy
January 14, 2013, 12:52 PM
Prediction: This legislation will cause more bloodshed than all those released dangerous convicted violent felons cause with the guns they can't get now - can't get by the law, that is!

Wait and see.

Woody

PRM
January 14, 2013, 12:54 PM
There's still plenty of room in Texas.

Plenty of room here in Tennessee

Be careful what you wish for...they elected the mess in their backyard. This is all about elections and their consequences.

Guess if you have an 8 shot revolver, you will have to get one chambered permanently plugged.

beatledog7
January 14, 2013, 12:56 PM
I wonder when the NY legislature will realize that eventually everyone will leave NY for some state where it is still possible to enjoy a modicum of freedom. Maybe they realize it now and they plan to simply suck the entire state budget from those in NYC who actually seem to like this crap. That would theoretically create the little Marxist utopia they have in mind.

sharpshooter74
January 14, 2013, 12:56 PM
The slippery slope theory goes into effect here.

First limit people to only 10 round mags. Then 7 round mags. Then limit it some more to 5 round mags. Then in the future, people would only be allowed to carry 2 round derringers.

And then maybe in the year 2050, New Yorkers will be only limited to black powder muskets and bb guns for self-defense.

Pilot
January 14, 2013, 01:03 PM
And then maybe in the year 2050, New Yorkers will be only limited to black powder muskets and bb guns for self-defense.

I think muskets and bb guns are already illegal. However, by 2050 New Yorkers will only be allowed shot glass sized soft drinks.

19-3Ben
January 14, 2013, 01:05 PM
Guess if you have an 8 shot revolver, you will have to get one chambered permanently plugged.

erm... revolvers kinda sorta maybe don't have magazines. This is a magazine capacity ban, not a cylinder capacity ban.

The anti crowd does not seem to be attacking revolvers and other "manually operated" firearms yet. They are still going for the low-lying fruit.

Once they are done with semi-auto, they just have to wait for someone to shoot a kid with a pump shotgun or levergun or revolver. Then the whole mess starts over again.

easyg
January 14, 2013, 01:13 PM
I'm sure all the gang bangers and thugs will quickly turn in all of their 8+ round weapons. :rolleyes:

Once again NY tries to disarm the good guys.

bowserb
January 14, 2013, 01:14 PM
And next we all become Barney Fife--empty revolver and one round we carry in a shirt pocket...buttoned of course


Please excuse typos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

breakingcontact
January 14, 2013, 01:20 PM
Looks like there is going to be a run on mouse guns until they put minimum limits on gun size.

Excellent point, those guns are just too concealable, they'll say.

They after they've went after the big/small guns, they'll go for guns being too cheap and tax the hell out of them.

sansone
January 14, 2013, 01:20 PM
Yes...who says that's not the point?

Time for backstaters to consider voting with their feet? There's still plenty of room in Texas.
vote with feet, excellent..
is west of the 'sippi good enough?

USAF_Vet
January 14, 2013, 01:43 PM
If I have to pull up stakes to run from draconian gun control, things are so far gone already. Maybe I can buy one of the outlying Aleutian Islands. Is that far enough away for the government to leave me and my guns alone?

No. It isn't.

mgmorden
January 14, 2013, 01:48 PM
My guess is that if this 7-round thing becomes law and the nation doesn't get a 10-round limit, one of a few things will likely happen:

Manufacuturers will start making "regular" (full) and 7-round magazines, and EVERYBODY in any limited state gets the 7-rounders, OR they'll make regular and just not worry about the NY market. You would still have various single-stack guns and such that fit the criteria, but I can't imagine too many manufacturers making THREE tiers of magazines (regular, 10, and 7) - the supply chain just gets too complicated.

USAF_Vet
January 14, 2013, 01:51 PM
If New York gets a 7 round limit, California and other states still have a 10 round limit. Magazine makers will still make 10 rounders, standard capacity and the new NY restricted capacity magazines.

BHP FAN
January 14, 2013, 01:51 PM
See, this right here is why you don't say ''clips'' when you mean magazines. I think the fellow with 8 shot moon clips in his revolver MIGHT be OK.

boatmanschneider
January 14, 2013, 01:52 PM
And what about the Garand? 8 round clip.

Please excuse my ignorance, but, is the well that the clip inserts into called the magazine?

razorback2003
January 14, 2013, 01:54 PM
7 rounds? I thought NY does not allow any magazines over ten rounds made after 94?

I guess that law wasn't good enough so go from 10 to 7 basically making any double stack magazine handgun useless. I'm sure that is the whole point.

Killian
January 14, 2013, 02:35 PM
This makes Glocks practically worthless. I'll take them off your hands for $50. It's a burden on me, I know, but I'll make the sacrifice.:D

Grassman
January 14, 2013, 02:50 PM
Yes...who says that's not the point?

Time for backstaters to consider voting with their feet? There's still plenty of room in Texas.
Just leave any moon bat ideas back in that New York, we will teach you the ways when you get here, make a fresh start.

Zoogster
January 14, 2013, 03:04 PM
Just a new twist to what they have tried a couple decades ago.

Too affordable guns are 'saturday night specials' only good for crime.
Too small are too readily concealable.
Standard size hold too many rounds, so you need a lot of wasted space with fewer rounds.
Large calibers are too powerful and dangerous.
A handgun weighing more than 50 oz is a bad feature in the expired Federal AWB and in states that copied it.

Too small is bad
Too large is bad.
Too affordable is bad.

It never ends, once they get something they just adjust and go after what was previously acceptable according to them.

JamieC
January 14, 2013, 03:12 PM
Aren't guns basically illegal in NY state anyhow? I think you need to be at least a mayor to get a carry license. As I think about it, a 1911 is the way to go, ONLY 7 rounds of 45 caliber.

xXxplosive
January 14, 2013, 03:16 PM
Yup......that will certainly make our kids in school safe.....Geeeezzzzz.

We Won't Be Fooled Again..........

Prince Yamato
January 14, 2013, 03:18 PM
Yeah... Honestly, you're now going to have a state awash in sub and micro compact handguns. Also, it will provide Kahr and Rohrbaugh an upper hand as they are instate manufacturers.

Prince Yamato
January 14, 2013, 03:19 PM
Oh... Also, you could still get a Desert Eagle in 50AE.

sonick808
January 14, 2013, 03:38 PM
Gun-friendly New Yorkers, please move to Arizona and enjoy the year-round sunshine and walk-in walk-out gun purchases, constitutional carry; no NICS check if you have a CCW, just pay and no phone call. Help solidify AZ as a no-nonsense gun-friendly state

joeschmoe
January 14, 2013, 03:39 PM
I think it will get struck down as too restrictive under Heller v DC. "In common use at the time".

NY is trying to ban "arms". They can't do that. Arms are protected, not hunting guns.

ScrapMetalSlug
January 14, 2013, 03:42 PM
Still would not have prevented last summers shooting outside the Empire State Building.

Expect a rush on 1911's in New York.

It would not have prevented it, but less people may have been shot if the 7 round limit applied to the police as well. The NYPD shot all 9 innocent bystanders. It may have been different if they all had revolvers, instead of their weapons of war and "big clips".

Link to the story is below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html

ApacheCoTodd
January 14, 2013, 03:42 PM
While it's quite possible to be successful - as I understand it this has not passed yet as implied by the OP title.

I suggest NYers get after their respective state legislators rikki-tik!

Mayvik
January 14, 2013, 03:47 PM
Who needs magazines, anyway...

http://www.a-human-right.com/styer1912-3.jpg

Glad I left NY never to return...sad for family and friends who are still there.

tuj
January 14, 2013, 03:49 PM
Time to trade back from the wonder-nine to the M1911 and start practicing those reloads!

Ridiculous. Seven rounds is not enough to stop an attack.

xXxplosive
January 14, 2013, 03:52 PM
The Honorable Govenor of New York.....Andrew Coma.....any other brilliant suggestions...?

gym
January 14, 2013, 04:13 PM
You got to get out of NY, or stop complaining about it. Not to be disrespectfull, but I left, and I had all my relatives there and friends, I owned 3 pieces of real estate and a business for 25 years.
There comes a time that a person needs to evaluate what is importand to them and move twords that goal, Now more than 3/4 of my family of aunts, all my cousins and everyone else is out of that cesspool.
Obviouslly it's not going to change, so either you bite the bullett, "if you can still find one" or move on.
I have family in CO, CA,IL, FL, TN, PA, and only a few in NY.
Get the heck out of there while you still can, we all did.

jojo200517
January 14, 2013, 04:13 PM
1911 is the way to go, ONLY 7 rounds of 45 caliber.

as much as I love the 1911 you guys are clearly missing out on the opportunity to have a much larger handgun that only holds 7 rounds.

Did everyone forget the Desert Eagle .50AE pistols hold 7 rounds??

armoredman
January 14, 2013, 04:14 PM
I don't care what the number is, a limit of any kind is a clear violation of Heller, in my non-lawyer eyes.

Lucifer_Sam
January 14, 2013, 04:29 PM
The other New York newspaper-- the one that isn't liberal, was talking about the NY AWB. They mentioned that 5 people had been killed in NY by assault riles in the last year. As opposed to the 300 or so killed physically, by1400 handguns, etc (if I'm remembering right). Really surprising that you don't see that mentioned much. :rolleyes:

Wyndage
January 14, 2013, 04:30 PM
I don't care what the number is, a limit of any kind is a clear violation of Heller, in my non-lawyer eyes.
Agreed. Should this bill pass, it will likely be litigated. We may just find out what SCOTUS thinks those "reasonable restrictions" actually are.

Solo
January 14, 2013, 04:43 PM
Will they still accept pinned magazines?

tomrkba
January 14, 2013, 04:47 PM
This will give more business to the black market.

Let them pass what they want. The people involved with violent crime applaud the New York government's efforts to create a safe workplace for felons.

Coop45
January 14, 2013, 04:50 PM
Reminds me of the salsa commercial....New York City.....Git a rope!

mike.h
January 14, 2013, 04:57 PM
Barack Obama is going to become pro-gun as soon as he receives his bonus check from the gun industry.

He's already "salesman of the year" at the LGS

goon
January 14, 2013, 05:17 PM
I sympathize with those in anti-gun states and hate the idea of throwing anyone under the bus, but maybe you all should just move. PA is a short drive from you and the rural areas are very gun friendly.
Shall issue CCW at $25 for 4 years, no magazine restrictions, no stigma for owning a semi-automatic rifle. If I could have found work in PA, I'd have stayed. But even when I did leave, I moved to an even more gun friendly state where I can hunt with any type of firearm that works and that has Constitutional carry.

gfanikf
January 14, 2013, 05:26 PM
I sympathize with those in anti-gun states and hate the idea of throwing anyone under the bus, but maybe you all should just move. PA is a short drive from you and the rural areas are very gun friendly.
Shall issue CCW at $25 for 4 years, no magazine restrictions, no stigma for owning a semi-automatic rifle. If I could have found work in PA, I'd have stayed. But even when I did leave, I moved to an even more gun friendly state where I can hunt with any type of firearm that works and that has Constitutional carry.

PA is gun friendly everywhere thanks to the Uniform Firearm Act. I commute from NYC daily, I'm looking for work instate but no way in hell I'd move back to NJ or NY.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Apachedriver
January 14, 2013, 05:28 PM
If we're going to assume that everyone can just move away, then how about everyone just stay put in those rotten states? Instead, how about if more pro-gunners move to those states like NY and change the balance of the votes? That's what the left does...moves in, multiplies, and spreads their crappy philosophies. Theoretically, it sounds like everyone one will end up in the South and Southwest. Then we'll have to fight our way back out again, politically speaking.

gym
January 14, 2013, 05:37 PM
Because NYC is full of weathy entitled trust fund babys, like Bloomberg who you will never get to change their views.
It will take a generation to make the slightest difference. You can not change the political structure of NY. That's the way it is, and there are enough rich people with more influence , than you as a "comman man" can ever have to effect change.
They are entrenched in NY politics, and will shut you down in a heartbeat if you try to change their system of doing things.

PRM
January 14, 2013, 05:56 PM
erm... revolvers kinda sorta maybe don't have magazines. This is a magazine capacity ban, not a cylinder capacity ban.

yea - I got it.... just dry sarcasm.

Its pretty pathetic. My Walther PP has 8 round mags, but, I live in a a very red, conservative, pro-2nd Amendment part of the country. And, I don't ever plan on traveling behind the "iron curtain."

jmfc606
January 14, 2013, 06:15 PM
The problem is NYC. If Upstate NY was it's own state we wouldn't have to worry about any of this. My Assemblywoman a Democrat and my Senator a Republican both got A+ ratings from the NRA before the last election. My County is Rural and lightly populated. We can get pistol permits fairly easy. They are good until revoked which means once you have one you pay nothing to keep it and it NEVER has to be renewed. Pistol permits are done on a county by county basis. When I got my permit 20+ years ago it cost less than $100 total. Now with electronic fingerprinting mandatory and a CCW class it costs
about $300. The Gov wants to eliminate this. He wants us to renew every few years at an undetermined cost and wants STATE CONTROL of the process thereby I'm sure making it harder to get and keep your CC Permit. This is going to be a mess, but as others have posted it's time to leave. I Live 10 miles from the PA border as it is so It's time to cross the Delaware river and stay in PA.

radiotom
January 14, 2013, 06:27 PM
So is there a grandfather clause in this?

mrvco
January 14, 2013, 06:36 PM
Why 7?

Carl N. Brown
January 14, 2013, 06:37 PM
Michael Gormley, "New York Gun Control: Cuomo, Legislative Leaders Reach Tentative Deal On Assault Weapons, Magazines", Huffington Post, 14 Jan 2013.

o limit the size of magazines to seven, down from current NY limit of ten

o the proposal had not been discussed among rank and file NY state legislators

o deal will be debated behind closed doors and could be sent to the floor for a vote Monday

o vote Monday would require Cuomo to issue a "message of necessity" to dispense with the three days of public review required under the NY state constitution

More at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/new-york-gun-control-deal-cuomo_n_2472275.html

And again, NYC is dictating to NY state what the gun laws should be, just as Emperor Bloomberg of the Imperial City of the Empire State seeks to dictate to the nation what natonal gun laws NYC Bloomberg wants.

goldie
January 14, 2013, 06:54 PM
So what about 22 target shooters with hi standard pistols, s & w 41's, or ruger mkII,i guess they are all going to become criminals now.how are you going to get 7 rd mags for all the older & no longer made pistols? lets remove the statue of liberty & get that giant stalin statue restored & set up in its place. the future of this country & firearms is very grim,folks!:(

mgmorden
January 14, 2013, 07:06 PM
erm... revolvers kinda sorta maybe don't have magazines. This is a magazine capacity ban, not a cylinder capacity ban.

Actually the technical wording I keep seeing is "ammunition feeding device", which includes "fixed magazines, detachable magazines, clips, drums, etc". It wouldn't be hard for the cylinder of a revolver to be interpreted as a fixed ammunition feeding device.

goldie
January 14, 2013, 07:13 PM
i'd say we are going to resort to slingshots, but those are illegal in n.y. ,too!

Pat M
January 14, 2013, 07:42 PM
i'd say we are going to resort to slingshots, but those are illegal in n.y. ,too!
Wrist Rockets are already illegal in NY.

This is really disturbing. I have been a life-long resident of Long Island, and started shooting with my Dad at the age of 7. I've had my pistol license since the age of 18. I shoot NRA high power, and it looks like our rifle of choice will be banned. My Garand might be banned! Cuomo plans to waive the 3-day discussion period that is customary between the time a bill is introduced, and when the legislature votes on it. That vote is expected to take place tonight. Keep this in mind when this enemy of freedom runs for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

By the way, in addition to being labeled a felon with the stroke of a pen, I pay about $4500 in state income tax on a modest salary, $8500 in property tax on a 3-bedroom cape, and 8.625% on everything I buy......so that I can fund someone else's pension. TX is looking good to me!

joeschmoe
January 14, 2013, 07:46 PM
Why 7?
From their point of view it's a half way measure. Half way between full capacity and zero. If they can get this to stick, then they will go for zero.

They can't. It must be over rulled because of Heller/McDonald. They are just barking at the moon.

jgraham
January 14, 2013, 07:49 PM
Imagine the signs now: "ATTENTION CRIMINALS: Due to new restrictions on magazine capacity, we can no longer offer a warning shot."

BK
January 14, 2013, 07:55 PM
vote Monday would require Cuomo to issue a "message of necessity" to dispense with the three days of public review required under the NY state constitution
Did the vote occur? Did Cuomo issue the message of necessity?

USAF_Vet
January 14, 2013, 07:59 PM
I could almost understand NY pushing for more gun control in their state if there had been a mass shooting in NY.

CT did not have any restrictions on magazine capacity, and while it would be a measure too little, too late (and still wouldn't prevent a thing), I could understand it if CT implemented a mag capacity law.

NY is having a knee jerk reaction when its someone else whose knee is getting popped with the hammer.

SMH.

Browning
January 14, 2013, 08:04 PM
Yes...who says that's not the point?

Time for backstaters to consider voting with their feet? There's still plenty of room in Texas.
They voted for these politicians, let them suffer the consequences.

USAF_Vet
January 14, 2013, 09:41 PM
They voted for these politicians, let them suffer the consequences.
So throw a large minority group under the bus because people who disagree with them happen to outnumber them?

anchorman
January 14, 2013, 09:44 PM
I'm still wondering why people are writing about this stuff as though it has actually happened.

How about governor cuomo *wants* to limit magazine size to 7 rounds instead of this defeatist attitude of acting like it's a done deal?

BK
January 14, 2013, 09:55 PM
Does this piece of legislation even have a title yet? Bill number? The latest articles I find state that the legislature will continue into the night and most assuredly pass the bill.

toivo
January 14, 2013, 09:59 PM
I'm still wondering why people are writing about this stuff as though it has actually happened.

How about governor cuomo *wants* to limit magazine size to 7 rounds instead of this defeatist attitude of acting like it's a done deal?
He just had a news conference. He's issuing a "message of necessity," which means that the legislature doesn't get the customary three days to debate it. He's trying to ram it through under cover of night. As of 9:00 p.m. the bill hadn't come back from the printers, but he still wants a vote tonight or tomorrow morning. Ugly rumor is that he has convinced some Republican senators into playing along by packing some tough-on-crime provisions in there.

And he has the unmitigated gall to stand up there and say "This isn't about hunters and sportsmen." Anybody know where to get a seven-round magazine for a Browning Buck Mark? A Ruger MK II? A Smith & Wesson 41 No? Oh well, there goes the bullseye league. Can't have the folks using those "high-capacity ammo magazines," even if they only put five rounds in them.

I fervently hope he falls on his smug, pompous ass and the thing gets defeated, but this is NY, after all. He wants a whole bunch of other crap too -- register all "assault weapons" and ban their in-state resale or transfer, require a NICS check to buy ammo, etc. You'd think the seven-round limit would be the poison pill, but I don't know.

If it does pass, I certainly hope that there will be lawsuits.

Does this piece of legislation even have a title yet? Bill number? The latest articles I find state that the legislature will continue into the night and most assuredly pass the bill.
It's called the "S.A.F.E." act. I don't know what that stands for, and I don't care. Info is not available online because he's trying to ram it through secretly. He doesn't want any debate, discussion, or public input.

Jnitti1014
January 14, 2013, 10:00 PM
They voted for these politicians, let them suffer the consequences.
Doesn't matter who voted for what, your civil rights can not be voted away! I guess your a FUDD when it comes to geographical location. We are all in this together, regardless of whatever stereotypes and prejudices you may have against northeasterners.

Jnitti1014
January 14, 2013, 10:02 PM
He just had a news conference. He's issuing a "message of necessity," which means that the legislature doesn't get the customary three days to debate it. He's trying to ram it through under cover of night. As of 9:00 p.m. the bill hadn't come back from the printers, but he still wants a vote tonight or tomorrow morning. Ugly rumor is that he has convinced some Republican senators into playing along by packing some tough-on-crime provisions in there.

And he has the unmitigated gall to stand up there and say "This isn't about hunters and sportsmen." Anybody know where to get a seven-round magazine for a Browning Buck Mark? A Ruger MK II? A Smith & Wesson 41 No? Oh well, there goes the bullseye league. Can't have the folks using those "high-capacity ammo magazines," even if they only put five rounds in them.

I fervently hope he falls on his smug, pompous ass and the thing gets defeated, but this is NY, after all. He wants a whole bunch of other crap too -- register all "assault weapons" and ban their in-state resale or transfer, require a NICS check to buy ammo, etc. You'd think the seven-round limit would be the poison pill, but I don't know.

If it does pass, I certainly hope that there will be lawsuits.


It's called the "S.A.F.E." act. I don't know what that stands for, and I don't care. Info is not available online because he's trying to ram it through secretly. He doesn't want any debate, discussion, or public input.
Was going to post exactly what you said. This is what I have heard also.

Tom488
January 14, 2013, 10:04 PM
Yes - they're calling it the SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act. Senate bill S.2230, Assembly bill A.2388.

Eerily similar to the ficticious FIST (Firearms Inspections Stop Terrorists) from Matthew Bracken's Enemies Foreign and Domestic. In fact, a lot of what has transpired over the last month seems pulled directly from his book.

ETA: Here's the text. Happy reading:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120402126/Gun-Control-Bill

RetiredUSNChief
January 14, 2013, 10:12 PM
Obviously, we need to shift over to revolvers which have no magazines for NY to limit...

:evil:

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1205/i-wont-die-9mm-belgin-18shot-demotivational-posters-1336799309.jpg (http://www.motifake.com/wont-die-9mm-belgin-18shot-demotivational-posters-154040.html)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8228/8381667317_e908096ee8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/retiredusnchief/8381667317/)
Motifake Six Shooters (http://www.flickr.com/photos/retiredusnchief/8381667317/) by RetiredUSNChief (http://www.flickr.com/people/retiredusnchief/), on Flickr

SuperNaut
January 14, 2013, 10:13 PM
“I’m not going to sugarcoat it,” Mr. Libous said, adding, “There are a lot of things here that true Second Amendment believers are going to have some issues with.”

Like a majority of the Supreme Court?

RetiredUSNChief
January 14, 2013, 10:13 PM
Deleted post.

BK
January 14, 2013, 10:26 PM
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013
(H) ANY WEAPON DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (E) OR (F) OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND
ANY LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE THAT WAS LEGALLY POSSESSED
BY AN INDIVIDUAL PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH, MAY ONLY BE SOLD TO,
EXCHANGED WITH OR DISPOSED OF TO A PURCHASER AUTHORIZED TO POSSESS SUCH
WEAPONS OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE PROVIDED THAT
ANY SUCH TRANSFER TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE MUST
BE REPORTED TO THE ENTITY WHEREIN THE WEAPON IS REGISTERED WITHIN SEVEN
TY-TWO HOURS OF SUCH TRANSFER. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TRANSFERS ANY SUCH
WEAPON OR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION DEVICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL INSIDE NEW
YORK STATE OR WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH
SHALL BE GUILTY OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR UNLESS SUCH LARGE CAPACITY
AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS MADE ILLEGAL BY
THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARA
GRAPH, IS TRANSFERRED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAP
TER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH.

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, [manufactured after September thir-
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; provided, however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition OR A
FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A CURIO OR RELIC. A FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A
CURIO OR RELIC IS DEFINED AS A DEVICE THAT (I) WAS MANUFACTURED AT LEAST
FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, (II) IS ONLY CAPABLE OF BEING
USED EXCLUSIVELY IN A FIREARM, RIFLE, OR SHOTGUN THAT WAS MANUFACTURED
AT LEAST FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, BUT NOT INCLUDING REPLI
CAS THEREOF, (III) IS POSSESSED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT PROHIBITED
BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM AND (IV) IS REGISTERED
WITH THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF
SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT SUCH FEEDING DEVICES TRANSFERRED
INTO THE STATE MAY BE REGISTERED AT ANY TIME, PROVIDED THEY ARE REGIS
TERED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THEIR TRANSFER INTO THE STATE. NOTWITH
STANDING PARAGRAPH (H) OF SUBDIVISION TWENTY-TWO OF THIS SECTION, SUCH
FEEDING DEVICES MAY BE TRANSFERRED PROVIDED THAT SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 400.03 OF THIS CHAPTER INCLUDING
THE CHECK REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SUCH SECTION.

RetiredUSNChief
January 14, 2013, 10:29 PM
Bugger.

I wonder if "drum" can be interpreted to mean "revolver cylinder"?

If so then drum and belt eliminates the two in the pics I provided.


Next thing you know, we'll be limited to single shot magazines.

Ehtereon11B
January 14, 2013, 11:30 PM
Absolutely ridiculous. I am glad I no longer live in NYS. Real crappy time too because my mother (life long anti-firearm) is coming around to our dark side and asked me for handgun suggestions for home defense. The options just got quite a bit more limited.

Onmilo
January 14, 2013, 11:40 PM
NY Senate passed ammendment, looks like it will easily clear Democratic House...
http://online.wsj.com/article/APac54f3a0b0244dc4b9de764b46ae5f73.html

Texshooter
January 14, 2013, 11:42 PM
Semi now = bigger caliber.

Better conceal weapons

BIG revolvers with some powerful rounds.

More importantly, pro 2nd people need to let Weapon Manf located in non-Free states (s&w, kahr, kimber, beretta, etc) that we will not put money in their pockets to be given to the tax base of those wanting to deny our rights.

Only buy weapons made, or HQ located, in Free States.

Trent
January 14, 2013, 11:46 PM
Oh my God, they're trying to make M1 Garands illegal?!

And these Browning Safari's:

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?fid=002B&cid=031&tid=001

HorseSoldier
January 14, 2013, 11:48 PM
Someone living in upstate NY should start some petition to dissolve NYC from the rest of the state and turn it over to the federal government as another federal district like DC (i.e. no votes in Congress). From the little bit of time I've spent in NYC, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people living in the city wouldn't sign the petition as well, since a lot of them seemed to regard the rest of the state as some sort of unseemly redneck festival.

Texshooter
January 14, 2013, 11:50 PM
I am serious, does anyone, generally speaking, know what it would take for the decent citizens in upstate NY (for example) to "succeed" or create another state i.e., North NY?

Same in CA.

The Freedoms paid for in blood since Valley Forge are too precious to be given away to elitist hypocrites.

bushmaster1313
January 14, 2013, 11:57 PM
Guess everyone will HAVE to carry 1911s in .45 with the original 7 round mags.

Most 1911's are not Lefty Friendly

Apachedriver
January 15, 2013, 12:11 AM
I could almost understand NY pushing for more gun control in their state if there had been a mass shooting in NY.

CT did not have any restrictions on magazine capacity, and while it would be a measure too little, too late (and still wouldn't prevent a thing), I could understand it if CT implemented a mag capacity law.

NY is having a knee jerk reaction when its someone else whose knee is getting popped with the hammer.

SMH.

No, it's not knee-jerk. It's NYS. It's how things are done there. It was like that when I lived there growing up and it's been like that in the 21 years I haven't been there. It's always been about population control and power. Regardless of how far we've progressed in history, in NYS it's really still so similar to the days of Tammany Hall in NYC.

armoredman
January 15, 2013, 12:15 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/ny-poised-1st-pass-post-massacre-gun-bill-181248937.html

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report the incident to a mental health director who would have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
Really - doesn't that violate HIPPA? of course, they might be looking for their own 10th Amendment challenge.

I wonder if Remington will move out now.

Rubber_Duck
January 15, 2013, 12:16 AM
NY has fallen. They are the first domino....

krameranzac
January 15, 2013, 12:23 AM
Does the seven round limit apply to only semi automatic firearms?

CharlieDeltaJuliet
January 15, 2013, 12:29 AM
I honestly feel sick to my stomach.... I am ashamed of the representatives in that state.

Alaska444
January 15, 2013, 12:43 AM
I am serious, does anyone, generally speaking, know what it would take for the decent citizens in upstate NY (for example) to "succeed" or create another state i.e., North NY?

Same in CA.

The Freedoms paid for in blood since Valley Forge are too precious to be given away to elitist hypocrites.
Move up here to Idaho, we have been infiltrated by too many of the anti's lately coming out of CA. We could use a bit of tipping point to get back into an Idaho balance.

jim28
January 15, 2013, 12:49 AM
I ache for the law-abiding citizens of New York whose 2nd Amendment rights are being trampled on, but this makes me nervous for a much bigger reason.

Until now, I'd never even seen a serious proposal for a ban on magazines that hold less than 10 rounds. But not only does this cover that, it does so very prominently. This could change the debate, and subsequently, the laws passed: Instead of the gun grabbers suggesting a ban on mags that hold 11 or more rounds, now the number is 8 or more.

The only people this is truly good news for: the manufacturers of standard 1911 magazines.

toivo
January 15, 2013, 12:50 AM
Oh, this is getting really weird. So no new mags over seven can be bought or sold, but if you have ten-round mags, you can keep them but can only put seven rounds in them. :confused:

We used to be able to have pre-bans, but those are history. We have a year to get rid of them: sell out-of-state or turn in.

Trent
January 15, 2013, 12:57 AM
Holy cow... he's pulling all-nighters in NY.

It just passed the damn senate 43-18 in a late night session.

Goes before the house tomorrow.

He's issuing a notice to BYPASS the required 3 days of debate. It goes straight to a vote on the damn house floor in the morning!

This crap could be law by lunch tomorrow!


The only people this is truly good news for: the manufacturers of standard 1911 magazines.

1911's wouldn't be legal.

They can accept 15 round magazines.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/271073/promag-magazine-1911-government-commander-45-acp-15-round-steel-nickel-plated

cor_man257
January 15, 2013, 12:58 AM
Its my understanding that its not just semi autos. But I truely don't know. Ive had trouble findiong the bill to review. Now that there seems to be a link i'll have a look see.

allaroundhunter
January 15, 2013, 01:00 AM
Really sucks to live in the common-sense-free zone of New York right about now.... Let's hope this disease doesn't spread anywhere else...

flyskater
January 15, 2013, 01:08 AM
That's why in Texas we kick most of the Democrats from taking office.

Trent
January 15, 2013, 01:23 AM
New York is going to be occupied territory, starting tomorrow.

Man this sucks.

What they're doing is outright horrible. The crap they just passed is actually worse than the junk that Illinois just tried to pull. It's worse than the worst case scenario anyone envisioned just a couple of days ago.

They went for broke and they're getting it.

It's surreal.

digsigs226
January 15, 2013, 01:25 AM
I was born and raised in Syracuse, but have since relocated to a much more gun friendly state. Though my entire family still lives there, I have no intention of ever returning to that Marxist enclave.

It is such a shame because it really is such a beautiful state (Upstate that is)

My advance to law abiding gun owners that are still there... get out, you don't deserve to be demonized anymore.

jim28
January 15, 2013, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Trent:
1911's wouldn't be legal.

They can accept 15 round magazines.

Wait, they're banning guns that can ACCEPT mags with a capacity that exceeds seven?

This is insane. And unless the courts throw it out and quickly, expect similar laws passed across the country, one by one, as the Democratic super-majority in state legislatures similar to those in CA and NY spread.

I can't believe my country is doing this.

goon
January 15, 2013, 01:46 AM
Have there been instances in NY were 10 round magazines led to the loss of lives?
It just seems so stupid to change that when it's already such a low capacity magazine. Changing it truly could make no difference whatsoever. I am very sorry for you guys, but this is an example of what we are up against - the most stupid proposed laws imaginable just to make people feel like something is being done.

Honestly, I think that NY is trying to force the pro-gun people out of that state. If that's what they want, maybe ya'll should let them have it.
Go to PA, stop at the excellent gun stores in Clearfield county, and swing by my parents' place during the Hundred Mile Yard Sale this summer. My dad will be happy to discuss politics with you and my mom will marvel at your accents after you've left.

Alaska444
January 15, 2013, 01:51 AM
Holy cow... he's pulling all-nighters in NY.

It just passed the damn senate 43-18 in a late night session.

Goes before the house tomorrow.

He's issuing a notice to BYPASS the required 3 days of debate. It goes straight to a vote on the damn house floor in the morning!

This crap could be law by lunch tomorrow!



1911's wouldn't be legal.

They can accept 15 round magazines.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/271073/promag-magazine-1911-government-commander-45-acp-15-round-steel-nickel-plated
Just round one of many more to come. Very sad day for America, if you have a flag, do fly it upside down, truly sad day for freedom. One more step to outright tyranny.

Solo
January 15, 2013, 02:03 AM
Don't worry. It'll be alright as long as you have your high capacity magazines for journalistic purposes.

tarosean
January 15, 2013, 02:08 AM
Yikes....

section 50 of the bill enhances control over sales of ammunition by
adding a new penal law � 400.03 requiring (1) that sellers of


ammunition register with the superintendent of the state police (2)
that prior to a sale of ammunition, a seller must run the buyer
through a state-created review of disqualifiers to ensure that the
buyer is not prohibited by law from possessing ammunition, and (3)
that ammunition sales are electronically accessible to the state. In
addition, to prevent from purchasing ammunition, the bill requires
that any ammunition sold commercially must be conducted by a seller
that can perform a background check.

The new law also provides a mechanism to identify individual who
purchase unusually high volumes of ammunition, either in person or
over the Internet. Sellers must run the buyer's name through a State
database modeled after the federal "NICS" database to ensure the
buyer is not prohibited by law from possessing ammunition. Ammunition
sellers are also required to electronically file with the State
records of each ammunition sale, including amount sold.


This whole thing is insane... they didnt bother defining the "one-feature" that they are banning for rifles and pistols. I would think they could get this quickly overturned.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 15, 2013, 02:15 AM
I'm hoping that if it does pass (far more than likely) that it gets ruled as unconstitutional by the supreme court and mag cap bans are completely done away with.

One can dream...

Warp
January 15, 2013, 02:28 AM
New York is going to be occupied territory, starting tomorrow.

It has been for awhile.

nyresq
January 15, 2013, 02:38 AM
The ban doesnt effect handguns, only their magazines... But rifles are a different story, the ban is directed at them AND the magazines... There is no mentionmof banning any handguns or any further restrictions then whats already in place in NY state... But no more high cap mags, even preban, so guns like fullsize glock 9mm's become useless with 7 rounds. May as well carry a compact or a single stack.

Its a sad day. And if anyone is foolish enough to think this isn't the start of a chain reaction, think again, CT has been talking about a new ban, CA is sure to follow and with a few states under their belt, the gun grabber will topple us all one by one...

HorseSoldier
January 15, 2013, 02:41 AM
+1. This isn't a zero to 60 in 0.5 seconds kind of development, it's further harassment of law abiding citizens in a state where the 1994 AWB never went away, and gun rights have remained out of step with most of the other states in the nation for the last couple decades.

tarosean
January 15, 2013, 02:45 AM
The ban doesnt effect handguns, only their magazines...

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.



Seems to me they are leaving it pretty open to interpretation..

nyresq
January 15, 2013, 03:02 AM
As I said in regards to handguns, itnplaces no further restrictions then what is already in place. Any of the evil features are already baned under NFA regulations. Stocks and foregrips are banned to begin with by the feds, and barrel shrouds (like a tec 9) were already covered under the existing ban here in NY. Read the whole section, not just one line. Then you will see how it applies to semi auto handguns.

Trent
January 15, 2013, 03:03 AM
Yeah that ammunition thing is downright frightening. I'd use stronger wording but this is THR....

Residents are going to have a DAMN hard time buying ammunition of ANY sort after this goes through. Background checks for every ammo purchase?

And every damn round they buy is going to end up in Government database.

I couldn't dream up something this bad in my worst nightmare.

New York... I'm sorry but oh man. This is horrible.

Trent
January 15, 2013, 03:16 AM
The pistol thing isn't as bad as I thought it was.

However, it can be construed that New York lost:

Glocks (due to the Glock 18),
Beretta 92's (thanks to the Beretta 93R),
Lugers (thanks to the Luger P08),
1911's (Hyman Lebman converted many to full auto during Prohibtion),
Makarovs (due to Stechkin APS)
Semi-Auto Mac 10's
CZ75's (a full auto version is made of this gun)

... and probably others I'm forgetting.

This is due to the "single factor" change and this line:

(VIII) A SEMIAUTOMATIC VERSION OF AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR
FIREARM;

Kiln
January 15, 2013, 03:36 AM
New Yorkers vote these bastards in so if you live there, move away in order to stop giving your hard earned dollars (in taxes) to state officials who want to oppress you.

It is very simple. Guys like Cuomo live off of people who either are too stupid to recognize what is going on or don't want to stand up for what they believe in. Second amendment supporters in New York just hand in their weapons to guys that our founding fathers would already be taking action against.

The people of New York trust the police to get there and help them because that's what they've been taught by the local government. What they don't know is that police get there 15 minutes after they've been murdered and simply catalogue everything so that they can try and get the guy who did it LATER.

The worst part is that the people BELIEVE that they are safer because of the laws.

anchorman
January 15, 2013, 03:41 AM
this is too bad. I've always wanted to move there, but I'm not sure that I can live around that level of stupid. hopefully someone will bring a challenge, to the supreme court in a hasty manner.

I wonder what happens if the people of new york go out of state to buy ammo?

Quick Shot xMLx
January 15, 2013, 03:48 AM
Having been born and raised in NYC I have to say you have to have a slave mentality to live in that city, hell most of that region. I know you have family there, forget them. You should have moved the second you reached an age where you could have. Welcome to the real United States, please leave the voting for commiecrats back in commieland.

thorazine
January 15, 2013, 03:49 AM
Oh well, seven rounds would be equal to seven dead robbers. No more double tap .

In the perfect land of make believe where a single handgun bullet stops the assault on impact and sends someone flying twenty feet backwards okay. :D

If you can line up seven devastating shots to the CNS under probably the most extreme high stress circumstances I could ever imagine all in probably little to no time to spare without missing a single shot -- you're a pistol god. :D


Personally I would rather have a larger magazine because I know I will miss my target many times.

HorseSoldier
January 15, 2013, 03:52 AM
I wonder what happens if the people of new york go out of state to buy ammo?

Nothing to prevent them doing so, unless there are some penalties enumerated in the new law. Certainly no federal restrictions on purchasing ammo outside your state of residence -- though I would not be surprised if Bloomberg, Cuomo, et al start trying to agitate for that to protect their "crime free" paradise in NYC . . .

Warp
January 15, 2013, 04:25 AM
Nothing to prevent them doing so, unless there are some penalties enumerated in the new law. Certainly no federal restrictions on purchasing ammo outside your state of residence -- though I would not be surprised if Bloomberg, Cuomo, et al start trying to agitate for that to protect their "crime free" paradise in NYC . . .

There probably is or will be something in New York law about that, and many retailers in neighboring states might simply refuse to sell to NY residents. Last time I was in Indiana I went to a Walmart not terribly far from the Illinois border, and the employee selling us the ammo looked at our ID just long enough to make sure it wasn't from Illinois, as she wouldn't have been able (Walmart/store policy) to sell it to us without a FOID if we had been from IL.

No law stipulates things like that but they happen anyway

cfullgraf
January 15, 2013, 07:14 AM
I feel sorry for New Yorkers but they did elect their officials.

The silver lining is, the crooks will go to the gun free zone of NY and make the rest of the nation safer.

highorder
January 15, 2013, 07:46 AM
I'm speechless.

Surely the Courts will right the ship.

foghornl
January 15, 2013, 07:48 AM
Hmmmmm

Well, I suppose that now the US Rifle Cal .30 M1 (The Garand) is now an 'assault weapon' with the 8-round en-bloc CLIP.

gfanikf
January 15, 2013, 07:51 AM
Guys how about instead of whining about the "left", "liberals", or really dumb things like succession, you do what I did and give some money to the SAF. We're Americans and we leave no man behind in war and we shouldn't do it here either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

mcdonl
January 15, 2013, 07:53 AM
How do you know they didnt gfanikf?

But your point is valid... be an activist.

Haze
January 15, 2013, 07:55 AM
Don't feel sorry for us in NY as I think Obama is going to do the same thing for the whole US in the next few days by executive order. They are all out of control! I watched the vote last night and the bills were only able to be reviewed for 5 minutes before a forced vote. Something bad is coming.

gfanikf
January 15, 2013, 08:05 AM
How do you know they didnt gfanikf?

But your point is valid... be an activist.

I'm a lawyer I always assume the worst. :)

But if they did by all means they should tell me. It will be good to know.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Storz
January 15, 2013, 08:08 AM
What a complete sham. I hope this isn't a preview of whats to come nationally, but I think it is.

Batty67
January 15, 2013, 08:33 AM
Maybe I should be pleased I just got my Sig 1911 on GB? Might be getting scarce soon...

But this is just one state, and it will be contested in court as soon as possible.

Thank G-d I live in Virginia!

Sam1911
January 15, 2013, 08:38 AM
Don't feel sorry for us in NY as I think Obama is going to do the same thing for the whole US in the next few days by executive order. Once more, that is utterly impossible. The government just doesn't work that way.

Carl N. Brown
January 15, 2013, 08:43 AM
Remember his point of origin: I fear Obama would like to run America the way Daley ran Chicago.

herkyguy
January 15, 2013, 09:14 AM
Obama won't do this at the national level. He is too smart to put his name on something like this. Rather, he will continue to have his underlings fall on their own political swords over this. This legislation is coming, but BO's upcoming executive orders will be lower visibility restrictions. Make no mistake about it, legislation is coming on the heels of NY state, but at the congressional level, not executive.

Sam1911
January 15, 2013, 09:27 AM
And it's going to be a LOT harder to jam through Congress than the embarrassment that just happened in NY.

freyasman
January 15, 2013, 09:56 AM
What steps can the citizens of New York undertake to challenge this? I would think the "common use" wording of the Heller decision would apply. After the debacle with the the Journal News, the gun owning people of New York have GOT to be getting fed up....

gfanikf
January 15, 2013, 10:02 AM
What steps can the citizens of New York undertake to challenge this? I would think the "common use" wording of the Heller decision would apply. After the debacle with the the Journal News, the gun owning people of New York have GOT to be getting fed up....
Give to the Second Amendment Foundation.

Pistol Ranch
January 15, 2013, 10:06 AM
I wonder how many New Yorkers see the "Big Brother" syndrome at work here. And Cuomo is being touted as the next Democratic PRESIDENTIAL candidate.:cuss:
My god,what has happened to the country I live in!:banghead:

tarosean
January 15, 2013, 10:08 AM
I would think the "common use" wording of the Heller decision would apply.

wonder if thats why they came up with the arbitrary number of 7 and will allow the use of the current mags as long as they only hold 7rds... 6 rounds could have been seen as an attempt to ban just about all semi-autos in use.

Its ________ ridiculous!!!

Haze
January 15, 2013, 10:11 AM
You don't think Cuomo did this without talking to Obama? They are all on the same page and their strategy has been thought out. The best part some of the Southern senators want to impeach Obama.

Still Shooting
January 15, 2013, 10:15 AM
The New York State Senate set a new record for passing a Bill - Senate Bill S.1422 was submitted by Senator Ruben Diaz (Bronx County). On January 9th, he sent a letter to Gov. Andrew Cuomo complaining that his Bill was being "ignored" by the Senate. The Governor bragged shortly thereafter that New York would be the first State to take serious action on Gun Control, and yesterday, Monday 14 January, that Bill was passed by the Senate. A news report states that the Assembly is expected to pass the Bill today, Tuesday 15th January.

Here are pertinent details:

Republican Sen. Greg Ball called that political opportunism in a rare criticism of the popular and powerful governor seen by his supporters as a possible candidate for president in 2016.

"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."

The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, called for a tougher assault weapons ban and restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns, as well as a mandatory police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands.

It would create a more powerful tool to require the reporting of mentally ill people who say they intend to use a gun illegally and would address the unsafe storage of guns, the governor confirmed.

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features spelled out in the law. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge."

Here is a link to the article, in the Glens Falls Post Star:

http://poststar.com/news/state-and-regional/state-poised-to-be-first-to-pass-post-massacre-gun/article_062f5ece-5e6a-11e2-aeef-0019bb2963f4.html


There is more in this Bill; I will apparently now have to register my Grandfather's deer rifle (a Winchester Model 1907 that he hunted with for 30+ years) as an "assault rifle", and I have one year to get rid of the 2 ten round magazines for it.

The current NY definition of an "assault rifle" limits these features to no more than 2:

A barrel shroud that "surrounds the barrel, permitting it to be supported while firing without burning the supporting hand"

A folding or collapsable stock

A forward support such as a pistol grip

A detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds

A bayonet lug

Capablity to mount a grenade launcher

In the new law, pistol grips are included in these "features", and the number of features allowed is reduced from 2 to 1. In other words, you can forget owning an AR-15.



My wife and I are seriously considering selling the house and moving out of the state. I am also wondering what this might mean for the many farmers here in NY - those in the western part of the state are managing coyotes, and now also feral hogs.

The original Bill called for a maximum ownership of 10 firearms by any one person (the old law was 20), and stated that "asssault rifles" could only be legally transported to and from, and only used on a licensed gun range. None of us know what passed the Senate, because any changes (besides the change from 10 to 7 rounds magazine capacity) have not been published.

My fervent hope is that this Bill will be challenged as soon as it is signed, and it will clear the Federal Appeals Court before anyone on Supreme Court retires or dies...

goldie
January 15, 2013, 10:16 AM
Just wait, im sure other states will follow,like maryland, california,this is the beginning of the end. How long before the goosestepping starts again? Heil Cuomo,the new dictator :fire:

KMatch
January 15, 2013, 10:17 AM
Have there been instances in NY were 10 round magazines led to the loss of lives?

What likely happened is when banning anything over 10, they didn't see any change (since that's not an answer to begin with) so since that did NOTHING, "let's go for 7". And when murders (by other means, naturally) stay high, well, "we gotta go for more limitations on those EBRs". It makes my brain hurt to try to see any reason is all this stupidity.

quatin
January 15, 2013, 10:29 AM
I think this might be a good thing. The residents of New York voted in their representatives knowing their stances on gun control. Therefore, you can't blame them for wanting to pass gun control bills.

I believe going into the future that the definition of "arms" should be a state right. You can't get everyone to agree on what "arms" is even among gun owners. This way the anti-gun lobby can have their assault weapons ban in the states where their constituents reside. A full on gun ban would still violate the 2nd Amendment, but we already have restrictions on "arms" already in several states.

This will be better than rolling the dice on a supreme court ruling to define "arms" in a federal court.

Bubbles
January 15, 2013, 11:03 AM
Attorney already looking for plaintiffs in NY to mount a legal challenge, he is working pro-bono:
http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/firearms-news/41499-ny-attorney-offering-his-services-pro-bono.html

greenmtnguy
January 15, 2013, 11:33 AM
I am *sure* that the NRA-ILA and GOA or the 2nd Ammendment group will also be filing suit on this. Besides having the NEw York people here writing to their local government reps, I think that we should all consider donating some money to these organizations of your choice (if you haven't already) to help with righting the ship in NY state. IF this goes through into law today, it will set a dangerous precedent for some of the other emotionally/career-agenda driven liberal governors of other states to try to continue their one-upmanship of treading all over our rights.

It is good that there appears to be some legit lawyer(s) who are preparing to work this case pro-bono, but despite their best intentions I think that battling this one is going to take a bigger/more visible and financially endowed opponent.

IdahoSkies
January 15, 2013, 11:59 AM
My condolences to our New York members. Time to look at a contesting suit.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
January 15, 2013, 12:08 PM
I am going to sell an extra rifle just to donate the money to the NRA-ILA. While I am not in NY, it won't be long before it is my state too...

razorback2003
January 15, 2013, 12:15 PM
Didn't DC try to limit people to revolvers for home defense and that was struck down by a court to at least allow semi autos with 10 round mags?

Shouldn't that same reasoning apply to NY?

gbw
January 15, 2013, 12:20 PM
No agenda here other than pure curiosity: For anyone who knows the statutes just enacted.....

What guns ARE (or will soon will be) still legal in NY? Handgun types, Rifle types, shotgun types?

I didn't understand the ammo parts of this? Does every box of ammo now have to be NICS checked somehow? Even rifle and shotshells?

What about reloading, reloaded ammo, and components?

(FWIW, IMO the legal challenges will not prevail. The law will stand. Only voting out legislators will change anything now.)

As I said, I'm just interested as I'm sure most of us are.

Apachedriver
January 15, 2013, 12:26 PM
Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge."

This just bothers the hell out of me. Probably nothing heinous but still...Need to see what the actual wording is in the bill.

CoRoMo
January 15, 2013, 12:34 PM
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013

22. "Assault weapon" means ...

(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;
Looks like your mini-14s and your M1A rifles are not prohibited in many configurations.

Al Thompson
January 15, 2013, 12:35 PM
Closing this one as we have another one going:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8650706#post8650706

If you enjoyed reading about "NY to restrict Assault Weapons, Limit magazine size to 7 bullets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!