smalls
Member
Hold on- you don't need an FFL to sell ammo. How is the local Wally World, or wherever supposed to run an NCIC check if it doesn't hold an FFL? What about people who order online?
!) NICS checks are for firearm purchases, not for ammo sales. NYS will have to come up with it's own system to allow non-FFL's to use the system.Hold on- you don't need an FFL to sell ammo. How is the local Wally World, or wherever supposed to run an NCIC check if it doesn't hold an FFL? What about people who order online?
...
Assume you have ammunition in your car. You drive out of state to visit relatives, and on the way back get pulled over just inside the border. Cops find ammo in the trunk. Assume you just bought it out of state and arrest you. No affirmative defense.
A bit off topic, but how does the 'no affirmative defense' work? Am I reading correctly that the legislature recognizes the law is flawed. So they say that just posessing something proves that you broke the law, even though you may have obtained it legally, it is too much bother to prove that you obtained it illegally. So you are no longer innocent until proven guilty, because it is too hard to prove that in court?
The federal govt. has power over interstate commerce, not the states. That was one of the main reasons the Constitution was passed, the states were putting tariffs on goods from other states.It may be possible that there will be a law against bringing ammo into the state, but I haven't seen anything about it.
That's been the consistent bottom line with all attempts to diminish the rights of the citizens of this nation to arm themselves. It is simply wrong. . The first point in time that i personally became cognizant that things like that were occuring was in the early 70's while walking to high school. I noticed a bumper sticker, "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". I realized at that instant two things, criminals would continue to arm themselves regardless of the law, and men and women who insisted upon living by the basic bill of rights freedom would become criminalized should those rights ever be fully and entirely overcome. Since that time i've observed the relentless struggle to wrongly diminish those rights. I've never seen a time as now that the words on that bumper sticker seemed more prophetic. We must struggle on against this wrong. These compromises that we've been living under to remain law abiding will eventually become an inescapable trap that will prevent us from being free. That is wrong.Having "ask permission" to purchase ammunition for self-defense or hunting or plinking or whatever-the-hell-you-feel-like-buying-ammo-for.... is wrong.
Absolutely, positively, irrevocably wrong.."
How about neighboring MA with their policy no state ID no ammo? That was twenty years ago and I can't imagine things have improved by now.How does the new law address stepping over state lines to purchase ammo?
or does it?
The federal govt. has power over interstate commerce, not the states. That was one of the main reasons the Constitution was passed, the states were putting tariffs on goods from other states.It may be possible that there will be a law against bringing ammo into the state, but I haven't seen anything about it.
500 rounds in 30 days????? Everytime I go to the range it's at least 250 rounds.The other part of the new NY law that I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the limitation to 500 rounds per 30 days. How NY is going to have a database, tracking how much ammo one buys in any 30 day given period is beyond me. I can see someone buying 50 rounds and the person recording on the other side entering 500 and then they're locked out of ammunition for a month. And what if the database crashes, will no one be able/allowed to buy ammo until it's brought back online and they can track how much individuals are buying? At least it appears reloading was left out...
And to think I once grew up/lived in NY...
The other part of the new NY law that I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the limitation to 500 rounds per 30 days.
I stand corrected, I honestly thought I remembered reading that they passed this, but maybe it was an amendment that never made it to the law.Do you have a link to where any limitations are setup in the new laws? I could not find one in S2230, just the in-state background checks.
The law does not cover the possession of ammunition bought out of state, and it does not create a penalty for a person that *buys* ammo without a check. The penalties are all on the seller side.
As wrong as this check is, this is the least worrying part of these new laws. They do not take effect for a year, and since there is no law that enables the NYSP to charge you to become a registered seller, I think pretty much anybody may be able to become a "seller of ammunition". There are no requirements for being a seller, so unless the NYSP can prove that a prospective seller is not allowed to actually possess ammo, I am not sure that they could deny your registration.
each sale will require both a state background check and transmission of a record of the sale to State Police, so as to enable alerts of high volume purchases.
Ammunition ordered over the internet must be delivered in a face-to-face transaction with a firearms dealer
What will be considered a high volume purchase and do citizens have to worry about getting a visit from the police just because they bought a bulk pack of ammo? Is there anything that tracks reloading and is that the only legal way to get ammo without having to be subjected to a background check once implemented? And are ammo buyers going to be subjected to paying a background check fee each purchase?
I saw nothing in the bill that mentioned handloading or components. They do not fit the definition of ammunition.
In related news, the NY Times just quoted Cuomo as saying the new 7 round capacity magazine law is unworkable. Since there are no 7 round mags for many guns, he intends to change the law back to 10 round capacity, but you can still only load 7 rounds unless you are in a competition, or at a range.
A National Shooting Sports Foundation official said it would have been a de facto ban on handguns.
Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/n...-a-newly-passed-gun-restriction.html?hpw&_r=0
Wouldn't it be nice if they did their research BEFORE they passed a law?