NYSP 'Field Guide' to SAFE Act (19 pages, some surprises)

[MikeJackmin]

Story here:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com...ce-issue-field-guide-for-nys-gun-law/2939035/

Guide here:

http://roc.democratandchronicle.com/assets/pdf/A2213022107.PDF


Here's the biggest surprise, page 12, bolded for emphasis:

"If a person becomes ineligible to hold a pistol permit, the Safe Act
requires the person to surrender all firearms to police, including all
rifles and shotguns for which no license or registration is required."

From the same page:

"The Safe Act has amended section 400.00 of the Penal Law to require that all pistol
permits be renewed, or recertified, every 5 years beginning in January of 2014. Every
existing permit holder will be required to recertify using a quick, free process that will
begin in early 2014 on a staggered basis. Failure to recertify acts as a revocation of the
license by operation of law."

 

[OrangePwrx9]

Thanks for that. I've been wondering.

Looking at the Trooper Guide, it appears that an unconverted Saiga is not considered an "assault weapon" in NYS. That true?

 

[SleazyRider]

"If a person becomes ineligible to hold a pistol permit, the Safe Act requires the person to surrender all firearms to police, including all rifles and shotguns for which no license or registration is required."

This sticks in my craw, because all it takes is for one magistrate, judge, or other politico to pronounce me "ineligible." Just how far does this authority extend? How dare they usurp a Constitutional right based on their narrow political agenda?

 

[ChaoSS]

Please define ineligible. The way I read it, that wouldn't apply, if, say, you failed to renew and it was revoked. Wouldn't that just apply to whatever ineligibility requirements there are, such as convictions for felonies, etc? Or are there other, more onerous implications here?

 

[barnbwt]

That guide is a smashing good read. Lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one. Too bad the folks these laws are directed at (minority ghettoes) won't be able to afford anyone but overworked/ignorant/sycophant public defenders

"If the license and weapons are not surrendered, they will be removed by a police officer and declared a nuisance. At that point, the person would lose the ability to lawfully transfer the weapon."
So, unless the cops give you warning that you've been declared ineligible (possibly by accident by a magistrate or computer system you've never heard of), you must immediately hand them over to their "loving care" to be lost/destroyed/stolen, or they are flat-out confiscated? How the heck does a nuisance warrant a naked seizure?

"Criminal purchase of a weapon has been raised from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony. “Attempts” are no longer chargeable under this section."
Well isn't that ironic. A violent con can ping the system all day long with no fear unless he gets the gun, which once in his possession is already a crime anyway. Meanwhile, two other-wise law-abiding fellows attempting to follow the law by keeping a bill of sale are dang felons by selling face to face, if they are ignorant of the litany of background check, license, permit, and God knows what other land mines.

"Possession of an unloaded firearm and while committing a violent felony offense"
Now that's just funny, in a dark way. 'Cuz the unloaded pistol in the assault is the aggravating factor

"Criminal Possession of a Firearm – possessing any firearm without a license or exemption."
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Hmmmmmmm...

"Unlawful transfer of previously lawful Assault Weapon"
Now that's just Kafka-esque, right there

"Criminal Facilitation for providing a community gun under circumstances that the person believes it probably that he or she is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime." (emphasis mine)
How.in.the.hell will that ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law?

"Unless there is probable cause to believe the law is being violated, there is no justification for checking a magazine to determine whether or not it contains more than 7 rounds."
So no Stop And Rack? And what's probable cause for checking a magazine absent other crime, anyway (if it has no sight holes )? It's length? :banghead:

"If an officer has probable cause to believe that a particular magazine is unlawful, he or she may seize and inspect it."
I assume this means the magazine may be removed, and inspected at another location at the officer's discretion, right? That's what a seizure is, after all.

"If a person 1) mistakenly believed that possession of a pre-94 magazine was still legal; and if, 2) he or she either surrenders the magazine or lawfully disposes of it within 30 days after being notified by law enforcement or a county official that the magazine is unlawful, he or she may not be charged with this offense. A person may lawfully dispose of the device by:"
Oh my God, they just codified ignorance of the law, into the law. What's next, different penalties based on your ability to recite the verbage? Better start practicing your "I know nussing" act with the officers, guys.

Of course, plenty of exemptions and special treatment abound for party members, I mean party officers...I mean, police officers

TCB

 

[JTHunter]

That is the New York version of "safe" for you!

 

[armoredman]

Yes, SAFE for criminals and lawyers, unSAFE for common law abiding citizens and their rights.