New York State Gun Control - Passed!

[Xfire68]

It would be wishful thinking that only NY will enact this ban and it will go no further. Let's see what Obama comes out with shortly. I'd bet it either mimmicks the NY laws or tries to go even further. Gun companies have to compete for buyers. Would they take one of their time honored best sellers and let its sales drop to zero just because they will not design a new lower capacity magazine? I believe we will see some newer 7 round magazines on the market or the companies might as well fold up.

Obama can not ban any assault weapons or magazines without Congress. Congress seems to be unwilling to pass such laws so, how will what Obama CAN do "mimic" NY's laws?

I edited my post. I reread the NY law on the 7-10rd mags.

[kayakersteve]

The companies don't need to make 7rd mags. The law says you can have a 10rd mag but only 7 can be loaded

Not entirely true as I read it. if you already own the gun/magazine, then that is true. If you were to buy a new gun today, It would not be legal to use a 10 round magazine in it NOW.

[Contrast Man]

The companies don't need to make 7rd mags. The law says you can have a 10rd mag but only 7 can be loaded as long as the mags were made before the 1994 ban.

Not the way I read it.

All magazines "obtained after the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen" may not be able to hold more than 7 rounds and are not readily able to be modified to hold more rounds.

Source:
Page 32 line 26, section (c).
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/a...-vote-tonight/

Seems to me that this wording would effectively prohibit sales of most semi-auto pistols as they wouldn't meet this magazine requirement because of the word "obtained" and not "manufactured". Is it enforceable? Probably not, but it could, in theory, put a halt on sales for the time being.

[Musketeer]

And by effectively banning the vast majority of handguns in common use does this fall afoul of Heller as being overly restrictive.

They haven't banned all handguns, just the vast majority in common use...

[Patriot86]

I think the only way to get at least the magazine-Defacto semi auto ban changed without the courts is if every gun maker takes a stand.

If tomorrow Glock, Sig, Smith, Bushmaster, Colt, etc. all refused all LE sales and support to the entire state of New York until they at least went back to a 10 round magazine limit it would send a message. When the cops and guards who protect these politicians suddenly can't buy new guns and can't buy parts to fix their guns without going out of state maybe it will bring some of these ivory tower types down to earth.

I know Barrett did this to California; the problem is that the Barrett product line is limited to a highly specialized section of precision long range rifles. Restrictions on LEO sales of those rifles has very little effect on the vast majority of LEO's in California. If suddenly the NYPD can't get new Glocks, Glock parts etc for their rank and file we might actually see results.

I know that doing so puts LEO's potentially in danger due to using old unreliable weapons or a lack of new parts, but these states obviously do not care about losing jobs if gun manufacturers move so this is the only leverage gun manufacturers have left.

They haven't banned all handguns, just the vast majority in common use...

But they are not banning the guns, just the magazines See! You can still own the guns and bear arms, you just can't shoot them without the magazines!

Seriously though, I don't know how this stands up in the face of Heller. I think NY State bit off more than they can chew and if they don't change the 7 round limit or somehow exempt handguns then its a legal fight they are going to lose.

[Musketeer]

I agree Patriot86; NY's end run to ban without banning looks too smart for it's own good. It may get slapped down by the court as too restrictive.

As far as the manufacturers boycotting NY... First ALL SHOOTERS must announce they will boycott the manufacturers if they don't take a stand. If Glock is still going to sell to NY LEOs then you need to show Glock that the decision will cost them more than taking a stand.

Sadly I have seen enough gun owners nationally, particularly on this forum, thumb their noses at those of us fighting for the 2A from within NY. I expect we will be left as high and dry as usual although I do appreciate the sympathy many have shown for us. Remember, Cuomo wants NY to be the national model. Those are his words.

[Tinner666]

Remember, Cuomo wants NY to be the national model. Those are his words.

Yep, just like Chicago. I've been to NY and the place looks like it's run by the Gestapo. They're trying to tax the few civilians left to support 10 cops on every block. I hope more NY tourists like me contribute to Cuomo's cause by touring Wy, Ala, Fla, etc.

[JimDandy]

Patroit, Glock et al may not be able to do that. They probably signed a contract with those jurisdictions requiring delivery of X guns, and repair support for Y duration...

[manta49]

Aren't the gun laws in Northern Ireland very different, and less restrictive than the gun laws in the rest of the UK?

They are broadly the same only you can't get a hand gun in the rest of the uk. In the rest of the uk you can get a high cap mag for 10/22 and similar. The gun controls are strict in the uk but i have never heard mag cap talked about as a control measure. I don't see how it will make any difference it doesn't take long to change a mag.

[Patriot86]

@Jim: Then they should refuse to renew the contract whenever it comes up again. Depending on how well written it is Glock may be able to find legal grounds to get out of it.

This wont/cant work if just Glock does this. The NYPD would just switch to Smith or SIG. The industry needs to have a sitdown and agree they are ALL going to do it. At least the guys popular with the LE Community like Glock, SIG, Smith, Colt etc.

Unless gun makers act now the LEO market might be the only viable market left in a few short years.

If they were doing this kind of stuff with HVAC equipment (what I sell for a living) I would be seriously worried about my future prosperity.

[Ultra12]

I live in NYC and our rifles are restricted to 5 rounds in a mag. Pistols are 10. I wanted a lever action marlin 39 in 22 lr but I can't have it because its over 5 rounds. So I had to buy 45-70 marlin because the mag will only fit 5. If u have a ruger 10-22 and bought an aftermarket stock u are most likely now own a assault rifle. My 1911 came with 3 mags 8, 7 and 7 rounds. But now if I want a 9 mm I probably will never be able to buy if because it can fit 15-19 rounds. My tikka in 223 is waiting for a chassis system that comes with a pistol grip and that will make it an illegal assault rifle. My 1941 mosin nagant can be an assault rifle because it can have a bayonet. Living in nYc I came in terms with such stringent gun laws. I didnt think but can get worse but now I am better of owning only Revolvers. If they find u have 8 rounds in stead of 7 it's a misdemeanor. And if u have misdemeanor so now u will lose all ur gun rights. U got a red light ticket or a speeding ticket? Now wen u renew and they run a background check u r no longer deemed as a law abiding citizens and will have ur rights to own a gun taken away.

[Adrian]

I think a mod deleted my last post on this topic, so maybe I framed it a little poorly:

A 7-round .458 SOCOM is entirely identical to a 20-round .223/5.56 magazine. Assuming that you have a .458 SOCOM firearm (or upper), what's to prevent you from saying those magazines are for your .458 and keeping them, or even importing more? You could use a paint marker to list them as .458, keep single .458 rounds in them while they're in storage, etc. Keep separate magazines for your .223. In the meantime, the .458 magazines are still available for "misappropriation" if you take a trip to a free state, or if/when the Supremes overturn the ban.

Also, what's the over/under for the grand opening of the first "Last Chance Ammo Store" 10 feet over the state line into Vermont?

[CaptainTrips]

Hi guys, I'm new to these forums and I've been following this legislation for the past couple of days. It seems they snuck in some extra "goodies" inside this bill no one had time to read. S 265.02 seems to mention possession of three or more firearms "criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree" and therefore a Class D Felony.

I am from Canada. This is how it starts. Up here mere possession of a firearm is a criminal offence, the license simply protects you from prosecution. But since they expire every 5 years, the police can simply choose not to renew them, and arrest you. The writing is on the wall for NY.

[E.J.W.]

Wow this thread is getting long... with good reason.
I too am unfortunately located in NY. I have only read a small portion of the text on the new laws. If there is anyone that has read the entire thing, maybe you could answer this.
On another forum I read that under this new law it is now another violation to target shoot on your own, private property. You must go to an accredited range to practice. Again this was on another forum and is why I'm questioning it.

PS: The Buffalo news today requested that the Erie County Pistol Permit office turn over a copy of the permit holder database so they could publish names and address just like another eastern county did a week or so back.
At least our rep David DiPietro is standing up for us and demanding the office with hold the data from the news. Mr. DiPietro voted against these new laws.
FWIW thank you.

[OPC]

From the NY State Senate dot org site:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi

(I addedd party affiliation for reference)

Vote Senator Party
Aye Adams DEM
Aye Addabbo DEM
Aye Avella DEM
Aye Boyle GOP
Aye Breslin DEM
Aye Carlucci DEM
Aye Diaz DEM
Aye Dilan DEM
Aye Espaillat DEM
Aye Felder DEM/GOP
Aye Flanagan GOP
Aye Fuschillo GOP
Aye Gianaris DEM
Aye Gipson DEM
Aye Golden GOP
Aye Grisanti GOP
Aye Hannon GOP
Aye Hassell-Thompson DEM
Aye Hoylman DEM
Aye Kennedy DEM
Aye Klein DEM
Aye Krueger DEM
Aye Lanza GOP
Aye Latimer DEM
Aye LaValle GOP
Aye Marcellino GOP
Aye Martins GOP
Aye Montgomery DEM
Aye O'Brien DEM
Aye Parker DEM
Aye Peralta DEM
Aye Perkins DEM
Aye Rivera DEM
Aye Sampson DEM
Aye Sanders DEM
Aye Savino DEM
Aye Serrano DEM
Aye Skelos GOP
Aye Smith DEM
Aye Squadron DEM
Aye Stavisky DEM
Aye Stewart-Cousins DEM
Aye Valesky IDC
EXC Zeldin GOP
Nay Ball GOP
Nay Bonacic GOP
Nay DeFrancisco GOP
Nay Farley GOP
Nay Gallivan GOP
Nay Griffo GOP
Nay Larkin GOP
Nay Libous GOP
Nay Little GOP
Nay Marchione GOP
Nay Maziarz GOP
Nay Nozzolio GOP
Nay O'Mara GOP
Nay Ranzenhofer GOP
Nay Ritchie GOP
Nay Robach GOP
Nay Seward GOP
Nay Young GOP

Even in what has been referred to as a rushed call for a vote, there was only one Senator absent. The current NY Senate is 63 members.

[Musketeer]

Zeldin, the absent GOP state senator, is my senator and released a statement opposing the law. He is serving two weeks with the Army Reserves in VA and was therefore unable to vote.

[Musketeer]

11 GOP turncoats including the GOP leader in the Senate.

Not one Democrat voted NAY. Now I'm not saying one party is undeniably worse on the 2A than another because that would be wrong. I'll just let everyone here look at this vote and look into the cast majority of other gun control votes and make their own decisions.

[carguychris]

It seems they snuck in some extra "goodies" inside this bill no one had time to read. S 265.02 seems to mention possession of three or more firearms "criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree" and therefore a Class D Felony.

I don't think this is new.

The act appears to ratchet up the sentencing guidelines for persons convicted of Class D felonies under S 265.02, but the "three or more firearms" provision appears to have been preexisting; I am generally unfamiliar with NY penal law other than this new act, so I have no idea how long this provision has been in force, but this law apparently did not create it.

On another forum I read that under this new law it is now another violation to target shoot on your own, private property. You must go to an accredited range to practice. Again this was on another forum and is why I'm questioning it.

I cannot find such a provision in the act. The act seems to prohibit the loading of more than 7 rounds in a firearm when on private property, which may be the source of the confusion.

However, there appears to be one interesting but narrow exception to the 7-round rule.

S 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11,
265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:...
7-f. Possession and use of a magazine, belt, feed strip or similar device, that contains more than seven rounds of ammunition, but that does not have a capacity of or can readily be restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, at an indoor or outdoor firing range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in arms; at an indoor or outdoor firing range for the purpose of firing a rifle or shotgun; at a collegiate, olympic or target shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by the national rifle association; or at an organized match sanctioned by the International Handgun Metallic Silhouette Association.

(emphasis mine)

Apparently, you're allowed to load more than 7 rounds when you're on the premises of an organized shooting range, but you must be using an 8-10rd magazine when you do it.

[EricReynolds]

What I find amusing is that these mags obtained after the law goes into effect need to be sold out of state within 1 year. If higher capacity mags are so dangerous, why are they ok for our fellow Americans in neighboring states?

[carguychris]

What I find amusing is that these mags obtained after the law goes into effect need to be sold out of state within 1 year.

Not exactly; the 1-year disposal allowance applies to >10rd mags obtained before the original AWB went into effect in 1994.

FWIW I'll gladly accept pre-ban mags from New Yorkers; your mags will happily live out their useful lives in sunny, warm, and gun-friendly Texas in the company of other standard-capacity magazines. PM me if there are any takers. Beretta 84 or Browning BDA 380 mags are particularly welcome.

If higher capacity mags are so dangerous, why are they ok for our fellow Americans in neighboring states?

Honey Badger... no, never mind.

[JimDandy]

They aren't, but can you imagine the reaction if NY tried to legislate what Jersey residents were allowed to have in Jersey?

[stu925]

Hi guys, I'm new to these forums and I've been following this legislation for the past couple of days. It seems they snuck in some extra "goodies" inside this bill no one had time to read. S 265.02 seems to mention possession of three or more firearms "criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree" and therefore a Class D Felony.

Actually I questioned this very thing a couple days ago not realizing it was already in the penal code. The issue here is that the definition of a Firearm in that section of the penal code is not what you or I would consider a Firearm.

From article 265 of the NYS Penal Law

3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having
one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle
having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d)
any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration,
modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or
otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e)
an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the
barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the
distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or
breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the
overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance
between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to
the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique
firearm.

The rifle and shotguns listed are NFA weapons and there is an exemption in the penal law for pistols and revolvers registered to a license holder

[Cascade1911]

Here's hoping the gun manufacturers don't start making 7 round mags. That way it might give the Heller argument more teeth.

[stu925]

And what about my S&W 10 shot 617 revolver? Guess that is exempt.

Anyone else have any info on this? I read most of the law yesterday and didn't see revolvers addressed anywhere. Just magazines.

I have the same concern.

Birddog, from what I've read of the law so far it doesn't appear to have any effect on revolvers, it is very specifically aimed at detachable magazines. I am no lawyer though so you may want to consult someone better versed in legalese.

Also for this law does not affect the following:
(I) ANY RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR PISTOL THAT (A) IS MANUALLY OPERATED BY BOLT, PUMP, LEVER OR SLIDE ACTION; (B) HAS BEEN RENDERED PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE; OR (C) IS AN ANTIQUE FIREARM AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C. 921(A)(16);

Hope this helps a little bit,
Stu

[Alabama Shooter]

11 GOP turncoats including the GOP leader in the Senate.

What makes them turncoats? Did they run on a pro gun platform?