7+1 carry suggestions

[Zaydok Allen]

Technically speaking wouldn't they be preventing you from using a magazine in common usage, not a firearm in common usage? I don't think that argument would stand up. They would simply say you can still use that gun, just with a different magazine. Thus, your rights are not being infringed uppon. Silly, but they could definately get away with it.

 

[easyg]

If I were limited to just 7 rounds I would seriously consider a revolver.

 

[Gary A]

They would simply say you can still use that gun, just with a different magazine.

Possibly. I don't know. There are a lot of currently available guns for which there are no magazines that comply with NY law, effectively banning the guns themselves since magazines are an essential part of the whole. I don't want to hijack the thread, just wondering about the potentialities.

 

[KimberLover]

Plug the magazine...

Take the magazine apart and install a block plug in the bottom.
Cut the plug to keep the carrier from accepting more than 7 rounds.

 

[rodinal220]

1911 full size,Commander,Officers,Defender,Agent are all possibilities.

 

[Aceoky]

The Heller ruling was clear that "arms in common use " could not be barred or banned, that would include AR & Magazines with 30 rounds which are standard for the AR-15. In fact I'm pretty sure that argument will soon be applied against the NY laws. Since almost every common firearm uses more than a 7 round magazine and AR-15 etc. are very common (and the police also use both) it will be hard to undermine a SCOTUS ruling that was very clear and simple to grasp.

That being said, I first thought how nice it would be if Every NY citizen started having 44 mag, .454 Casault, .41 mag, .45 long colts, and .500 all which hold less than 7 rounds LOL

Looks like it is starting

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/02/thousands_expected_at_pro-gun.html

 

[el Godfather]

The more I think about this the more towards revolvers I lean.

I simply dont care to obey an oppressive government.

READ MY SIGNATURE!

It says it all.

 

[Gary A]

The more I think about this the more towards revolvers I lean.

I simply dont care to obey an oppressive government.

I certainly see your point and am primarily a revolver guy myself. However, switching from semi-autos to revolvers as a form of protest or rebellion against an oppressive government has its shortcomings, with perhaps the ultimate protest being adopting a flintlock pistol as your carry piece. That'll show 'em.

Actually, if everyone switched to revolvers, that would be exactly what many anti-gun people want; a move away from capacity and speed toward less firepower. In a sense, your refusal to obey is exactly what they want.

That from someone who actually prefers single-action revolvers first and foremost,

Oh, well... "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" sayeth Emerson.

 

[el Godfather]

I think I am miss read. Changing to revolver is an independent statement from not obeying the government one.

 

[Gary A]

I think I am miss read. Changing to revolver is an independent statement from not obeying the government one.

You are correct. I was connecting the two statements in my mind and just having fun with the idea.

Still, there is something enticing about the thought of really trying to improve with a bow and arrow and putting all this foolishness behind me.