Consenus on effect of New York State Law?

B

Bam Bam

New member
Are there any fellow New Yorkers out there who understand the effect of the Pataki's new law? Is there a grandfather clause? I am thinking about getting a new Bushmaster before the law takes effect. Any information is welcome.

If the NYS stores run out of these fine tools then what is the requirements for purchasing a long-arm in Ohio, Penn, or New Hampshire?

No, I am not trolling for a strawman sale. I am an upstanding law-abiding citizen, thanks.
 
My understanding is that pre-ban (federal) rifles are O.K. but it is unclear whether or not you have to have owned it before 1994. I'd check with a local gun shop or SCOPE before buying one.

SCOPE's web site is:
http://www.scopeny.org/

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
Thanks ds, I read the text several times already. Due to the especially tricky way it is written the bill is as clear as mud. The SCOPE analysis is helpful but not, IMO, conclusive. The big question remains, if I buy a Bushmaster this month, will I be a felon next month? :(
 
I'm working on this one.

I have a letter from Senator Farley (the Majority Whip) that assures me that "...the final bill simply enacts into state law the federal assault weapon ban. Therefore, this state legislation does not ban or affect any guns which are legally owned or are purchased in compliance with federal law."

That's the good news.

The bad news is that while the Federal Government does not consider a post-ban Bushmaster a "copy or duplicate" of a Colt AR-15, New York State may find that it is. For example, read the 1994 Monroe County Supreme Court case "Citizens for a Safer Community v. City of Rochester" at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/citizens_v_rochester.txt . In it, the Monroe County Supreme Court found that other rifles are duplicates of the Colt AR-15.

The point is, even if the New York State law uses the exact same words as the Federal law, New York State may have different definitions of those words - and thereby change the meaning of the law.

This may mean that post-bans will become illegal.

Even more interesting is the following. The Federal law states:

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
(Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html )
(Bold emphasis mine.)

The Pataki bill states:

(v) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or any of the weapons defined in paragraph (d) of this subdivision lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four.

(Whereas paragraph (d) lists rifles such as the Colt AR-15.)

Our first concern is the meaning of "possessed" and its use in the provision. Does this mean YOU must have possessed this rifle before September 14, 1994? Good question!

Also note that the Pataki bill leaves out "or transfer".

I'm working with the folks at NYSRPA, SCOPE, etc. and will keep you updated. I'll probably know more after the summit meeting.

[This message has been edited by Tortuga (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
Thanks Tortuga,
you hit what I was wondering about. Would one avoid criminal possesion only by possesing the center-fire semi-automatic rifle in 1994? Or would we have to own a pre-ban (which would be enormously expensive)? What a stupid law that is completely unintelligible to the common man, and even lawyers. I am sure the courts would throw out some of it...but who wants to be the test case? :( Who was the team that wrote this thing? I would bet some national "anti" org had a hand in it. Well, I am starting to rave...but it is one heck of an experience to suddenly have those who swore to protect and defend the laws act in a contrary (as I see it) manner to their oath.

ps. I was hoping to work with SCOPE to force a recall election of Spitzer. Turns out there is no provision for recalling elected officials in New York. The citizens really get reamed in this state. I may go back to Texas...on the other hand, if there ain't a Texan around to start kickin' heiney on the Republicat party who else is gonna do it?
[This message has been edited by Bam Bam (edited July 10, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Bam Bam (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
Good ol' NY. When I was a kid in Brooklyn, Macy's (now a yuppie store) had a display of surplus military rifles in the sporting goods section. Right in the center of Flatbush.

And guess what, no one bought one and shot up the neighborhood.

I guess all those laws have helped my old neighborhood - it is a drug den now.
 
The "grandfather clause" is in the definition section: if a gun was lawfully posessed before September 1994, it is by definition NOT an assault weapon. Since the defined identity of an object MUST by all reason be not based on who owns it now, there is no need for you to have owned it then, just that someone legally owned it prior to the cutoff date. The place for restricting particular ownership would be in the criminalization section...but dates are not addressed there.

Conclusion: if the gun was federally legal before Sept. 1994, it remains NY legal now. Concerning assault weapons, it only criminalizes that which was already federally illegal. Not to worry there.

(HOWEVER: being made a state concern, the state may focus on harassing individuals who own questionable guns. The feds were concerned almost exclusively with manufacturers. Since AWs are mostly made out-of-state, NY will focus on individual posession. If I am seen posessing my AR-15, a cop is wholly within SOP to arrest and book me on a violent felony charge (mere posession of an AW), and let a judge determine the legality of the rifle...and even if acquitted, leaving me with the hard-to-explain "violent felony arrest" on my record. Worse still, any assault weapons previously registered as pistols are on state lists...a tyrranical burrowcrat could review the state handgun registration lists, and systematically arrest the owners, leaving it up to the courts to determine legalities...and mar the owner's record for life. Technically, this new law may not actually "infringe" (at least no more than before), but it sets up legal tools easily abused by tyrants.)
 
ctdonath,
you too hit the nail on the head. It seems as if that if I buy a NEW Bushmaster this month then it is possible I can be a Class D violent felon next month. What a joke, what is wrong with the politicians? Don't they leave their offices any more?

Is anyone from the Buffalo area going to the rally in Albany?

[This message has been edited by Bam Bam (edited July 11, 2000).]
 
ctdonath,

While I tend to agree that the term "possession" refers to the gun, not the owner, I'm not too worried about this provision. I'd still like it spelled out better, but still I'm not too worried about it.

What DOES concern me is how the Federal definition of "copy" and "duplicate" may be very different than New York State's view. As I said in my earlier post, this part alone could ban all new AR's, AK's, FAL's, etc. - post-ban and pre-ban. (The exception would be for those rifles possessed before 1994.)

The guy at SCOPE that analyzed the bill is an attorney while I am not. He's concerned about the "copy" thing too.

For those of you that haven't read his analysis, I recommend you read it at http://www.scopeny.org/S8234.html#Analysis .
 
SCOPE is having a rally in Albany on July 29th. John Lott will be there autographing his book. I really want to get copy.

Still up in the air about the Bushmaster copy thing but may give in to the urge of "panic buying". What the heck. It's only starting the military style rifle collection a little earlier than planned...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top