Can NY residents still buy powder and primers without a background check?

R

rajbcpa

New member
OK - so the new law says New Yorkers cannot buy ammo unless you pass a background check that must be performed in-person by an FFL.

Apparently, the law is silent on ammo components such as smokeless gun powder, primers, brass, bullets, etc.

I suppose this means as a NY resident, I can still buy reloading ammo components on the Internet and have the seller mail them to my NY house.
 
I'm wondering the same thing.

At this point, it's wait-and-see to see what the legislation actually says. Being a NY'er with a varied collection of firearms, and a re-loader, I have a million questions. I'm not even sure I want to know the answers.
 
I read the new NY law - HORRIBLE. Amung other things, new pistols sales with capacity of >7 rounds are completely banned. Old big mags currently in circuation have to be turned in within one year making your gun in-operable. This is a de-facto seizure without compensation. Assulat rifles must be registered - presummably for confiscation at some later date.

A few years ago, I traveled to Mass on business for several weeks. I tried to buy some powder, brass, bullets, primers at a local Gander Mountain. ...NO DEAL - NOT LEGAL IN MASS. Apparently, you need to be a resident and have a special ammo license.

I asked the clerk why Mass residents don't just cross over into NY, CT, NH, VT etc to buy ammo with no hastle. No answer was given.
 
Where did you find the details? I've still only seen the 'talking point' type listings of some of the details.

If you're unable to buy a gun in NY that has 8+ capacity, that will certainly be a game changer.

Also interested to know if you saw anything regarding revolvers, or rimfire handguns.
 
The only exception on rimfire guns is that tubular magazines for rifles only are OK.

Obama will copy this whole law and issue it by executive order - you can bet on that.
 
I live in this disaster of a state. How this raced through the state senate I have no idea. Talk about passed in the dead of night. Suddenly thousands of NY resident become felons or have inoperable firearms. I am surprised Coumo would be so moronic as his goal is to be president. I'm physically ill over this. We were given no notice or chance to argue...
 
Obama will copy this whole law and issue it by executive order - you can bet on that.
Click to expand...

No, he won't.

You may wish to educate yourself on what can and cannot be done by EO. Presidents cannot invent new laws and put them into force via Executive Order.
 
The President cannot ban anything via EO unless the power to do so has already been delegated to him via a law passed by Congress. An example of such would be the 1989 ban on importation of so-called "assault weapons" as that was a regulatory power delegated to the administration via the Gun Control Act of 1968. There has been no law passed by Congress which delegates enough discretionary power to the President to enact sweeping gun control measures like we're seeing in New York.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I live in this disaster of a state. How this raced through the state senate I have no idea. Talk about passed in the dead of night. Suddenly thousands of NY resident become felons or have inoperable firearms. I am surprised Coumo would be so moronic as his goal is to be president. I'm physically ill over this. We were given no notice or chance to argue...
Click to expand...
So it passed and is not about to be taken into effect?
 
Raj, take a deep breath and relax before that vein throbbing in your forehead ruptures.


He took and oath to defend the Constitution of the US, not US Code.

Further, law enforcement officers are not required to enforce ANY law. They can ignore someone else breaking any law they want. It's not always wise, but they can...
 
No, [Obama] he did not create a new law, he simply directed federal law enforcement not to enforce existing ones.

***
This is a perfect example of my point that Obama lives by his own laws. Obama took an oath of office to uphold all the federal laws of the land. Now you are saying its OK for him to order federal officials to ignor existing law?

Where in the Constitution does it permit the president to selectively inforce existing law?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that choosing not to enforce the existing laws is OK, all I'm saying is that there is a difference between enforcing laws selectively and creating new ones through non-existant executive power. If the President could "EO away" anything he liked, he'd not have had so much trouble with Congressional Republicans throughout his first term as such power would make Congress nearly irrelevant. The whole fight over the Affordable Care Act? Unnecessary because he could've just EO'd it. Fiscal Cliff you say? No problem an EO resolves that too. Why fight over the debt ceiling when raising it is but an EO away? You see, if Obama had the kind of power you suggest, I have a hard time believing that he'd have not already used it.
 
I truly feel for the residents of NY...that legislation was rammed through faster than I can order a pizza.


Hopefully they somehow forgot about the people who reload and you guys can still get components.
 
He took and oath to defend the Constitution of the US, not US Code.

Further, law enforcement officers are not required to enforce ANY law. They can ignore someone else breaking any law they want. It's not always wise, but they can...
Click to expand...

JimDandy, read Article II, section 3 of the US constitution
 
Does everything have to be about Obama? Let's get back on topic. My reading of the law does not require that existing 10 round magazines be sold. Those over 10 rounds, yes.
I found it incredible that the legislation was declared an "emergency" and rammed through without public hearing or even the normally required 3 day aging period.
There is already legislation being written to repair all the errors made in the bill.
Much of the bill I can live with. The assault weapon definition is ridiculous, and shows the fallacy of defining what an assault weapon is. A .22 with a thumbhole stock is now an assault weapon. What a joke.
The biggest problem is the 7 round magazine rule. I doubt most manufacturers will produce NY only weapons, so I guess the vast majority of handguns will no longer be available.
The background check each time ammunition is purchased is silly. Permits will be "reverified" every five years. Why, if background check every time ammo is purchased? Or, why not just show a valid permit to buy? Most retailers already required this to buy handgun ammo in an erroneous interpretation of present law.
Oh, and I saw nothing in the bill about reloading supplies, period.
 
Apparently reloading supplies are illegal to buy online. Someone on NY firearms had his components' order denied on midwayusa, citing state/local law conflicts.

Haven't seen any actual legislation, however.
 
to illustrate the absurdity of the the bill:

These guys are carrying "assault weapons".:confused:
Biathlong_zps363d0f00.jpg


In all seriousness, though - this whole thing has to be overturned, right?
Can they really do this? (states can't override the constitution)
 
There's going to be a huge legal battle soon over it. I'm sure people are just gonna way to divest resources if a federal one is passed rather than go state by state.
 
Just read it Musher. End result I get is that POTUS can choose when and how to enforce laws. He can tell the FBI devote all resources to bank robbery, and back burner civil rights. He can tell the ATF to send all their agents to Virginia to deal with moonshiners, which would devastate explosives and firearm enforcement... Additionally there's a no-mans-land wiggle room in inferior officers approved by congress, and "heads of department" that if both sides are willing to wink-wink-nudge-nudge on would be the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top