Ny handgun laws

[Brian Pfleuger]

"Import" doesn't require entire COUNTRIES to be involved.

It requires an intentional disregard for and suspension of common sense to try to argue that "import" language in a state law requires some sort of foreign country involvement.

Who really believes that NY wrote this law to only make it illegal to bring in high-cap magazine from foreign countries?

"Import" means "to bring into", it doesn't imply international boundaries or trade.

As an example, NY Sate Department of Agriculture has an entire page dedicated to "importing" and "exporting" animals. While it includes Canada, the list is almost entirely made up of the other 49 states.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

I'm pretty sure most non-lawyers would disagree because Maryland isn't itself its own country....

Lawyers, however, are much better positioned and much more likely than you are to understand how a court is likely to treat the question.

"Plain meaning" is a well settle rule of statutory interpretation. In addition to the case cited by Spats, see Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42:

...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...

And note the definition of "import" again. It interludes the following (emphasis added):

transitive verb

1 a : ...

b ...

c : ...

2 : to bring from a foreign or external source: as [i. e., illustrative, not necessarily inclusive]

a : to bring (as merchandise) into a place or country from another country

b : to transfer (as files or data) from one format to another usually within a new file

3 archaic : ...

intransitive verb

3 : ...

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

. . . . Who really believes that NY wrote this law to only make it illegal to bring in high-cap magazine from foreign countries? . . . .

As an example, NY Sate Department of Agriculture has an entire page dedicated to "importing" and "exporting" animals. While it includes Canada, the list is almost entirely made up of the other 49 states.

Just for clarity: The issue of importing is an issue of Maryland law, not NY.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

I'm pretty sure most non-lawyers would disagree because Maryland isn't itself its own country. Moving something (goods) from one state to another within the US would be in my mind an interstate commerce move but not an 'import' per the 'plain meaning.' . . . .

Thanks, but I'll take my own counsel over that of "most non-lawyers" when it comes to matters of the law and statutory construction.

[44 AMP]

In the broadest sense, "import" means to bring something from outside, in.

What it means in any specific sense depends on context. What it means in a law is what the court says it means, when and if there is a ruling.

the item does not have to cross international boundaries to be an "import" although that is one very common usage of the word.

You can cut & paste text, "importing" it into a document, as well.

One of the key points about the matter of HI Cap mag laws is whether they use the word "import" or something else, the intent is that you cannot have them shipped to you instate. Depending on the interpretation of the specific law, you may, or may not be allowed to bring ones you already own with you if you move into the state.

Also they frown on you travelling to another state to buy them, and bring them home with you. (and this is for your personal property, not items intended for resale. Those items have other specific requirements that must be met to be legal).

[wogpotter]

I don't know what to tel you other than every time this comes up the same argument follows.
It Ain't Illegal to leave the state, (where MD state law don't apply) buy a "hi cap" magazine, & bring it into MD as owned personal property. There's no law against importation, possession, ownership, transport or use. You can not transfer it though.

& no, it don't make sense either, but this is MD so its not supposed to.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by wogpotter

I don't know what to tel you other than every time this comes up the same argument follows.
It Ain't Illegal to leave the state, (where MD state law don't apply) buy a "hi cap" magazine, & bring it into MD as owned personal property. There's no law against importation, possession, ownership, transport or use. You can not transfer it though.

Not one bit of which affects the definition of "import," which was the point I initially raised with you.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by wogpotter

...& no, it don't make sense either, but this is MD so its not supposed to.

What really doesn't make sense is your haphazard reference to what the story is in Maryland when this thread is about New York.

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm pretty sure most non-lawyers would disagree because Maryland isn't itself its own country. Moving something (goods) from one state to another within the US would be in my mind an interstate commerce move but not an 'import' per the 'plain meaning.'

I guess I'm not most non-lawyers, because on this point I agree completely with the learned counsel. Bringing a product from one state into another may not be importation under federal law, but it certainly is importation under state law.

[wogpotter]

What really doesn't make sense is your haphazard reference to what the story is in Maryland when this thread is about New York.

Respectfully you are misunderstanding the comment by ignoring the earlier post where I asserted that the details were significant. The location wasn’t the point, but the differing details were to illustrate how poor crafting can influence the outcome.

Lets remove the geography, & concentrate instead on the wording if that makes it clearer.

If the law says you can’t OWN, one you can’t. But it doesn’t actually outlaw possession, just ownership. You could, within the letter of the law have a LEO own it & loan it to you to use. On the other hand if it restricted possession you couldn’t because the possessing, regardless of ownership is the issue. To make it work you’d need to ban both ownership & possession.

Yet another approach is to ban the transference, while not prohibiting either ownership not possession once the transfer has occurred legally elsewhere.

One way it regulates THAT you have it, however acquired, the other regulates HOW you acquired it. I was only using MD as an example of the third variation.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by wogpotter

...I was only using MD as an example of the third variation.

You can't discuss law that way. The issue is what New York law actually is. To understand New York law, one must look at New York. Looking at Maryland law doesn't help.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

You can't discuss law that way. The issue is what New York law actually is. To understand New York law, one must look at New York. Looking at Maryland law doesn't help.

You seem to be forgetting Kirk's Third Law of the Internet: "If it's the law in Texas, it must be the law everywhere." I suppose as a corollary one simply substitutes the nomme du jour of one's own home state in place of Texas.

[wogpotter]

Lets remove the geography, & concentrate instead on the wording if that makes it clearer.

I'm NOT "looking at MD law" that way, or any other for that matter. I'm comparing the wording of several different variations of "banning" something.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by wogpotter

...I'm comparing the wording of several different variations of "banning" something.

Even if that is what you were doing how does that help anyone understand what New York law actually is?

So stop wasting our time and knock it off.