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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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.
 
anchorman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Browning said:
They voted for these politicians, let them suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...
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.
 
toivo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Was going to post exactly what you said. This is what I have heard also.
 
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
 
“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.”
Click to expand...

Like a majority of the Supreme Court?
 
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, [strike][manufactured after September thir-
teenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four,][/strike] 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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
USAF_Vet said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Texshooter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Trent
  • Locked
New York Senate passes increased assault weapons ban
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
5K
Silent Bob
S
2
  • Locked
Origin of the 7-Round Magazine Limit?
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
5K
thump_rrr
T
Old Hobo
  • Locked
Biden Interview; magazine cap. limit; Sun Oct. 23, 2022
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
GEM
G
W
  • Locked
In the gun control debate, labels are often misleading: by John Lott
Replies
0
Views
497
WAGCEVP
W
A
  • Locked
McCarthy to Introduce Assault Weapons Ban Next Week
2 3
Replies
67
Views
5K
TooTaxed
T
Back
Top