The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9, 2013, 03:43 PM   #1
Progress
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: WNY
Posts: 18
New York State - State of the State address

I just got done listening to Andrew Cuomo give his State of the State address.

Among other things, he mentioned he wants NY to enact the strictest gun laws and prove itself as a progressive state. He also mentioned he wants a NICS checks on ammo purchases.

In his closing, he shouted that no one hunts with an assault rifle and no one needs 10 rounds to hunt.

At the beginning he mentioned banning high cap mags. Then closes with intimating that 10 rounds is high. Ugh.

Any Yankees care to chime in? Who knows if any of this will get past Albany but I'm not ruling anything out at this point. Methinks fixed 5 rd mags is possibly down the pike.
Progress is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 03:57 PM   #2
rajbcpa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2012
Posts: 315
I live in NY.

+10 round mags have been illegal here since the days of gun-grabbers hillary and bll clinton.

I think the low hanging fruit will be picked immediately and this would likely be the creation of a national gun registry and required background checks on ammo purchases.

Neither measure has the impact of making us all safer. Rather, it is designed to grab our guns.
rajbcpa is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 04:04 PM   #3
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
I believe Cumo implied in an interview ( I am struggling to find it at the moment) that the "10 round" maximum may be lowered
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 04:09 PM   #4
Progress
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: WNY
Posts: 18
Patriot: That's exactly what I'm afraid of.
Progress is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 04:15 PM   #5
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Certainly one way to lower the population of New York State. The ones that don't move away will run out of ammo.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 04:48 PM   #6
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Not to be outdone by Cuomo's 7 point plan....
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...n-disarmament/


NJ is putting forth 18 new proposals...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...rmament-bills/
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 04:58 PM   #7
Dead-Nuts-Zero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2004
Posts: 498
I think he called for 7 rd. mags along with Confiscation of Assault Weapons & I think he may have included all semi-auto's in that rant. No grandfather...NO Exceptions, Turn em in!
__________________
.
.
BANG------------ >>> !
Dead-Nuts-Zero is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 05:13 PM   #8
Progress
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: WNY
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead-Nuts-Zero
I think he called for 7 rd. mags along with Confiscation of Assault Weapons & I think he may have included all semi-auto's in that rant. No grandfather...NO Exceptions, Turn em in!
This may be an attempt to build political capital. If he requires confiscation, it won't pass in the legislature. If it fails, he still looks anti-gun if he ever attempts to run for president.
Progress is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 06:52 PM   #9
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
Quote:
This may be an attempt to build political capital. If he requires confiscation, it won't pass in the legislature. If it fails, he still looks anti-gun if he ever attempts to run for president.
That he finds it reasonable enough to lay it on the table (he being only one of a growing number who find the idea tasty) makes it more possible at some point or makes it more likely to be applied against some other nasty thing citizens have that government thinks they shouldn't.

If you lack glass bottles, Molotov cocktails are harder to make.

Confiscation of arms would seem to be in conflict with Heller, McDonald and a bunch of other laws elsewhere, in addition to 2A.

And what is the cumulative impact of civil disobedience on turning in banned arms/ammo and/or politicians threatening citizens with confiscation of their private property because they think the needs of the state will be served?

The ending of that scenario is that nobody trusts anyone. Think of how much is done on trust, and what it would be like if every person looked at every authority figure as an adversary, every other person as a potential informant.

It may not get that far and maybe petty dictators like Cuomo will be voted out, but Congress has 1/3 the approval rating of NRA, and how many blatantly incompetent incumbents return after every election cycle until they die.

Barney Frank wants to be a senator, and probably will be.

I am wandering off point, but breakdowns of "society's fabric" on a major scale will definitely have an impact on law and civil rights. Not a good one.

Hysterical pronouncements and proposals may not be enacted, this time. The bar of leading in a mature, reasoned and objective manner has been lowered, however.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:38 PM   #10
stu925
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 945
Fellow New Yorkers and anyone else that's interested. What Cuomo has to say at the state of the state address makes little difference at this point. There is already a bill that was pre-filed in the assembly. Bill S1422 basically strengthens the current "Assault Weapon" (notice the quotes and insert sarcasm) ban. It also charges the Superintendent of the NYS Police with creating an actual list of banned firearms as well as gives him the authority to add any weapon he feels is more suited to military purposes than sporting purposes.

Also included in this bill (and this is where it gets really scary) is new definitions for criminal possession of a weapon in the third and first degrees:

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when:
(1) Such person commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon
in the fourth degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five
of section 265.01, and has been previously convicted of any crime; or
(2) Such person possesses any explosive or incendiary bomb, bombshell,
firearm silencer, machine-gun or any other firearm or weapon simulating
a machine-gun and which is adaptable for such use; or
(3) Such person knowingly possesses a machine-gun, firearm, rifle or
shotgun which has been defaced for the purpose of concealment or
prevention of the detection of a crime or misrepresenting the identity
of such machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun; or
(5) (i) Such person possesses three or more firearms; or (ii) such
person possesses a firearm and has been previously convicted of a felony
or a class A misdemeanor defined in this chapter within the five years
immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such possession
did not take place in the person's home or place of business; or
(6) Such person knowingly possesses any disguised gun[; or
(7) Such person possesses an assault weapon; or
(8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device].
Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.

This a class D violent felony and carries a penalty of 2-7 years in a state prison

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree when such person:
(1) possesses any explosive substance with intent to use the same
unlawfully against the person or property of another; or
(2) possesses ten or more firearms; OR
(3) POSSESSES AN ASSAULT WEAPON; OR
(4) POSSESSES A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree is a class B felony.

This is a class B Violent Felony and carries a penalty of 5-25 years in a state prison

With the stroke of a pen the gun owners of NYS will become outlaws. This bill can not be allowed to pass, call/write your state legislators and the Governor and let them know in no uncertain terms that their jobs are on the line with this bill. If by some small chance they get this bill passed, I'll be packing my things and going off to find a free state to live in. I was born free and I intend to die free, I will not be anyone's subject.

Stu
stu925 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 11:47 PM   #11
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
I thought the stuff they were proposing in Illinois was bad, this and what NJ is pushing is about 1000 times worse than anything they tried to push here. I feel for you guys but in Illinois we are winning the fight, slowly but we are winning. You guys can take your state back and put these INSANE and Illegal bills down before they ever come up for a vote.

They are even proposing insane laws in Colorado now; we need to stand united against these unconstitutional and thus illegal laws wherever and whenever they are proposed. The fight might be long and hard but gun owners and freedom will prevail.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".

Last edited by Patriot86; January 10, 2013 at 12:00 AM.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 08:37 AM   #12
mete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 5,484
Gov Cuomo wants NYS to be the leader in gun legislation ?? I thought we had been for about 100 years !
A NYC politician introduced a gun law purely for political reasons .Unfortunately he conned upstate NY to join in. So we had the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation. Of course it did nothing . Further down the line ,in the 1960s many liberal judges were appointed who were the 'slap on the wrist ' type So in the late '60s and early '70s there was a great increase in crime .That started the interest with citizens to prepare to defend themselves !!
Since then the same conditions occur .Court cases include dropping or reducing charges .Some of the first to go have been the gun charges.
Now politicians are taking every advantage of the nonsense - "gun free school zones " [target rich environment ]. The never ending coverage of every gun incident which encourages the crazies and criminals !
Get guns and ammo and hold on to them .Write your representatives.
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver !
mete is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 08:49 AM   #13
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
It is astonishing that they can even read the Bill of Rights and blurt such words... Does this not represent one of those crimes and misdemeanors as spelled out in our founding documents... I'm no lawyer but this does seem to be beyond the pale if they actually vote on confiscation or other extreme measures.
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; January 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 08:56 AM   #14
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
I'm curious as to how much time out of the address was spent on this issue.
AH.74 is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 10:16 AM   #15
yourang?
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 115
cuomo screams from the podium:

"no one NEEDS a ten round magazine to kill deer"

uh.....your honor?.....do you know know your own state's laws????

(guess there are plenty of people out there that dont)

in NY, the DEC (dept of environmental conservation) says that the
law for hunting with semi auto rifles is FIVE round magazines!!!!!!

(a state conservation officer can ticket you for more than five round mags
if you are hunting)

so it isnt a matter of need

it is a matter that you CANT legally hunt with a ten rounder

but...misinformation is the way to scare people and manipulate them

not facts
__________________
Now I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold.
Other hand I have heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

hunter/garcia (new speedway boogie)
yourang? is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 10:17 AM   #16
yourang?
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 115
how much time spent?

about two minutes, more or less

whole speach was about 1 and 1/2 hours i am guessing
__________________
Now I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold.
Other hand I have heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

hunter/garcia (new speedway boogie)
yourang? is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 10:20 AM   #17
yourang?
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 115
more irony:

he quoted the Sullivan law as being the first gun control in the nation

it was passed by the Irish politicians in NYC who were afraid of
the immigrants coming into the city from Italy, who carried pistols

irony of ironies

(in case you dont know: Cuomo is Italian)
__________________
Now I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold.
Other hand I have heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead.

hunter/garcia (new speedway boogie)
yourang? is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 10:22 AM   #18
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
stu925,

The first section you have in red, regarding possession of 3 or more firearms, is already in the law. It only applies to a person who has committed the offense of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree:

265.01
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
degree when:
(1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic
stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal
knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles,
metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type
slingshot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or
(2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto,
imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon
with intent to use the same unlawfully against another; or
(3) He or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun
or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational
purposes, of any school, college or university, except the forestry
lands, wherever located, owned and maintained by the State University of
New York college of environmental science and forestry, or upon a school
bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of the vehicle and
traffic law, without the written authorization of such educational
institution; or
(4) He possesses a rifle or shotgun and has been convicted of a felony
or serious offense; or
(5) He possesses any dangerous or deadly weapon and is not a citizen
of the United States; or
(6) He is a person who has been certified not suitable to possess a
rifle or shotgun, as defined in subdivision sixteen of section 265.00,
and refuses to yield possession of such rifle or shotgun upon the demand
of a police officer. Whenever a person is certified not suitable to
possess a rifle or shotgun, a member of the police department to which
such certification is made, or of the state police, shall forthwith
seize any rifle or shotgun possessed by such person. A rifle or shotgun
seized as herein provided shall not be destroyed, but shall be delivered
to the headquarters of such police department, or state police, and
there retained until the aforesaid certificate has been rescinded by the
director or physician in charge, or other disposition of such rifle or
shotgun has been ordered or authorized by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
(7) He knowingly possesses a bullet containing an explosive substance
designed to detonate upon impact.
(8) He possesses any armor piercing ammunition with intent to use the
same unlawfully against another.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A
misdemeanor.

265.02
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when:
(1) Such person commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon
in the fourth degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five
of section 265.01, and
has been previously convicted of any crime; or
(2) Such person possesses any explosive or incendiary bomb, bombshell,
firearm silencer, machine-gun or any other firearm or weapon simulating
a machine-gun and which is adaptable for such use; or
(3) Such person knowingly possesses a machine-gun, firearm, rifle or
shotgun which has been defaced for the purpose of concealment or
prevention of the detection of a crime or misrepresenting the identity
of such machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun; or
(5) (i) Such person possesses three or more firearms; or
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 09:51 PM   #19
stu925
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 945
Brian you are absolutely correct, I'm not sure how I missed the AND but I did. I'm still concerned about this though

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree when such person:
(1) possesses any explosive substance with intent to use the same
unlawfully against the person or property of another; or
(2) possesses ten or more firearms; OR
(3) POSSESSES AN ASSAULT WEAPON; OR
(4) POSSESSES A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree is a class B felony.

#'s 3&4 are new to the description of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree. Apparently #2 was already there also although I had no idea. Guess I really need to sit down and start reading the penal law. Thank you for pointing that out.

Stu
stu925 is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 06:48 PM   #20
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Since we're freakin' broke at all levels of government where are they going to get the money to pay for confiscation. It would probably cost the government $100 Billion or more to confiscate every semiautomatic rifle in America.

While the limits of the second amendment haven't been fully hashed out by the supreme court, the takings clause of the 5th amendment is pretty well understood.

Good luck with that.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 09:01 PM   #21
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 440
Brian, I see your point, but the numbering of that statute doesn't support it.

I believe the first clause (1) stands on its own, followed by the disjunction with every other numbered clause. Look at the semicolons
musher is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 09:53 PM   #22
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Nope, that's how it works.

Tons of people in NY (including me) are in possession of 3 or more firearms. Trust me, it's not a crime.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 12:47 PM   #23
dove
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 11, 2013
Posts: 12
Brian, I think musher has it right here. Basic grammar dictates that the semicolon is a much stronger separator than the comma. Essentially, the first condition for 3rd degree is [4th degree AND previous crime], then it breaks with a semicolon and gives the second condition, and so on. If you want even stronger evidence of this, go look at the conditions for 1st degree. There's no such "and" statement there, but there is a condition for possession of 10 firearms. I think the "and" statement in the first 3rd degree condition is pure coincidence. If it was intention, they would not have written the law that way. The 4th degree part would have been at the top and the criminal bit would have been the (1). Additionally, they would have included some bit about lower degrees at the top of the 2nd and 1st degree lists. More importantly the colon after "when" would have to be after "and".

Now, I empathize with your sentiment, because that was the sentiment I operated under when I lived in NY. I have family there that have more than three firearms on their pistol license (the definition of "firearm" doesn't include rifle if I remember correctly), and I know others with more than ten. But that doesn't justify forcing the text of the law to fit a mold it doesn't fit. Instead, I think there are two, more reasonable ways to analyze the situation:

(1) it is simply not well-known and understood by the administration and law enforcement; or

(2) the word "possess" was intended to mean more than 'own', or was intended to have some sort of exception for the home.

I believe there are other places in the NY firearm laws that exempt the home from possession clauses, but I don't think they actually apply to this one. Nevertheless, I expect that the latter might be the intention. You know, it is quite possible that the law was poorly written but I don't think that changes what it literally means. The fact that we haven't seen prosecution for this might not mean anything.
dove is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 02:24 PM   #24
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 440
You may be right about the reality and the interpretation, but I would ask if a violation of 265.02 (2) requires as an element the violation of 265.01 (1) or (2) or (3) or (5)

Perhaps Dove is right in suggesting that possession in this statute means something like "possession of unregistered firearms".

Perhaps there is a definitions paragraph somewhere in this section that clarifies this.
musher is offline  
Old January 12, 2013, 03:56 PM   #25
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Dove,

No offense but you're going through some pretty strange mental gymnastics to explain what you consider to be proper grammar when it in fact makes far more sense that the law is exactly as I explained.

265.02

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when:
(1) Such person commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon
in the fourth degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five
of section 265.01, and has been previously convicted of any crime; or

(5) (i) Such person possesses three or more firearms; or

First, must commit Possession 4th OR have previously been convicted of "any crime" (elsewhere defined as felony or serious misdemeanor) AND possesses 3 or more firearms.

Notice it says "such person". It's not ANY person who possesses, it's "such person".

Such person as what? Such person as one who does what's in the first paragraph.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12774 seconds with 7 queries