![]() |
|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2007
Posts: 208
|
NY Gov signs Comprehensive Ten Bill Package
I'm sure the pen has run dry after signing all this...
NY Gov signs Comprehensive Ten Bill Package Some lowlights (Senate bills linked): [Firearms] Licenses required for semi-auto rifle purchases; must be 21 or older. Legislation S.4116-A/A.7926-A Full capacity magazines now retroactively banned (grandfather clause eliminated). Legislation S.9229-A/A.10428-A Microstamping required if deemed viable by "Division of Criminal Justice Services" (not necessarily new designs, just new production runs) Legislation S.4116-A/A.7926-A In the microstamping legislation, I did not see where the Senate Bill specifically makes exception for existing firearms. I think it will technically require retro-fitting as it makes it a crime for FFL to transfer those without it (after effective date). I think this one can become a defacto ban.
__________________
José |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,095
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,486
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,387
|
Most of the issues that get people elected, agencies funded or stay in office have been issues my entire life... it’s almost like government doesn’t really want to solve them.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,450
|
Well, formerly as a former upstate NY resident I've got to say I hope they forget to write in anything about after market or factory replacement firing pins on micro stamped firearms.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 448
|
yeah well lets not remind them
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,486
|
Microstamping is a wonderful pipe dream (if you put something other than tobacco in your pipe...
![]() Quote:
Microstamping was pushed hard in several states some time back, primarily by groups with ties to the originator and patent holder. If I remember correctly, CA tried to adopt it then, but implementation was legally blocked until after the patent expired. I think they have it as a requirement now, and some firearms makers have chosen to stop selling their guns in CA, because of it. There are so many simple easy ways to defeat or work around microstamping, it is a laughable concept. I believe the entire intent is to use the requirement to reduce the amount of guns that can legally be sold (at first) and later on, even legally owned. No matter what they claim about how it would help solving crimes, I think that's not their true agenda. This is tip of the same iceberg that includes "smart gun" technology. In principle, if not in detail. Require something not easily done, or even not proven reliable to achieve the stated objective, then, once in place in law, declare everything without the "required new tech" to be unsafe, or illegal and ban them. I do wonder how requiring existing LEGAL guns to be "retrofitted" stands up to the legal concept of ex post facto. I do recognize that govt sometimes violates this principle (and sometimes even gets away with it ![]()
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,387
|
I’m ignorant on the topic, but if it is the brass that is micro-stamped, then couldn’t bad guys use a brass catcher in pre-meditated crimes?
I think most school shooters are dead on the scene, so what would be the point anyway?
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,486
|
The usual thing I hear is that the microstamp gets put on the primer by the microstamping firing pin.
The claim is that this will help the police solving crimes. I suppose its possible, IF each individual gun has a unique stamp, and IF there is some kind of database listing each gun by its stamp, however, even if they have that, that can only track the gun up to its last point of legal sale. This is also something serial#s and records already do. Another point is that inorder to use microstamping as a tracing tool, you have to have "readable" stamps on the fired brass recovered from the crime scene. There are many ways around that, one you already thought of, a brass catcher. There are others. As to the mass shootings and the killers often being dead at the scene, there's no use for microstamping there, there's no crime to "solve" only one to investigate the exact sequence of events and speculate about the "why", the "who" is right there out in the open. Same for when the killers are taken alive. They know WHO, don't need to investigate to find that.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,450
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,486
|
Quote:
Also heard a story (of course, its JUST a story) supposedly from a guy who worked at a (shall remain nameless) gun manufacturer, who included a couple fired cases shipped with each pistol. According to the story, what the guys would do was test fire the gun, then grab a couple empties from the range bin, and drop them into the envelope that went into the gun box. According to them, they were more than complying with the law. The law required a piece of fired brass to go with each gun, and they provided TWO of them! ![]()
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,095
|
Quote:
We have the data, and... Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Posts: 2,681
|
Quote:
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,486
|
Quote:
The entire concept is based on popular assumption, reinforced by virtually every crime type tv show plotline, that rapid, positive, and conclusive matches between a specific gun and its fired case (or bullet) are not only possible, but are the norm. This is not the full truth. Not even by half...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,486
|
I notice that one of the many things in the new NY law is a restriction on body armor.
I understand the reasoning, the Buffalo killer was armored and while shot, wasn't stopped, and they want to prevent that happening again... But I can't help but wonder, since body armor/bullet proof vests etc are completely passive protection systems, why make it difficult or illegal for people to have them? Police have them, in some cases are required to wear them. Now, private citizens can't, in NY. Seems to me to be an "all for me, none for thee" thing, doesn't it??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,483
|
When the state has the complete monopoly on the use of deadly physical force, they don't want others to have the ability to deny them that use of deadly physical force, perhaps?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,486
|
Perhaps....
Or it might just be a not so subtle way to say "the lives of our employees (the police) are more important to us than the lives of our employers (the people who voted us into office)" that's the impression it gives me, anyway....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2007
Posts: 208
|
Maybe I'm missing the mark (not being versed in current ballistic protection technologies), but the definition they apply seems to leave a lot of room for work-arounds:
Quote:
Like most legislation, it doesn't seem to accomplish what is promised. After all, I imagine that "hard" armor (i.e. ceramic plates) would defeat the purpose of this legislation...unless the purpose is just to reserve the good stuff for law enforcement.
__________________
José |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,450
|
The way that reads, if you are wearing body armor and NOT committing a violent felony you are in the clear. I guess they are just making felonies more illegal.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,450
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|