New York State Gun Control - Passed!
- Thread starter Drummer101
- Start date
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
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
New member
Here's hoping the gun manufacturers don't start making 7 round mags. That way it might give the Heller argument more teeth.
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
New member
What makes them turncoats? Did they run on a pro gun platform?
(Sorry I can't figure out how to "quote" the way others have)
Carguychris said
"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."
So with my NYC Residence/ Premises Permit, I'm able to shoot at a pistol range with a magazine holding 10 rounds but, if I ever have to actually use my gun in my home in self defense, I'm only allowed to load 7 rounds?
Carguychris said
"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."
So with my NYC Residence/ Premises Permit, I'm able to shoot at a pistol range with a magazine holding 10 rounds but, if I ever have to actually use my gun in my home in self defense, I'm only allowed to load 7 rounds?
Alabama Shooter
New member
They will need bigger holsters.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
Bubsy,
The premise of the bill doesn't make sense after logical scrutiny. Do you think that all the details would not contradict themselves?
The premise of the bill doesn't make sense after logical scrutiny. Do you think that all the details would not contradict themselves?
Justice06RR
New member
Ultra12 said:
you made some really good points that I didn't even think about. Now a Mosin Nagant can be considered an "Assault Weapon/Rifle" -- Ridiculous.
NY is really getting out of hand, almost like NJ or CA. I've always wanted to live in NYC or CA, but the draconian gun laws you have there (among others) are just plain insane. Maybe most people don't care and wouldn't know what they're missing, but to those of us who are "enlightened" it is a big deal.
Stu,
Thanks for the input. I've read the legislation twice now. It is VERY fuzzy. It doesn't just specify detachable magazine. I don't have it in front of me now, but it basically says "magazine, drum, other feeding device..etc". I haven't gotten one response from anyone who KNOWS, including the State Police, if revolvers are affected. Their own list, on the State Police website admits that the list is incomplete.
The law seems to focus on 'assault weapons', but doesn't specifity if the magazine rules apply to pistols and there's nothing at ALL anywhere mentioning revolvers, whether they're included or excluded from the capacity regulations.
In the meantime, I'm erring on the side of caution and not buying a 9-shot revolver.
Joel
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Sutton
Moderator
M1 Garand seems an obvious loser.
Sad.
Willie
.
Sad.
Willie
.
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
while everything / body is a loser in this situation, they do make a 5 round spring clip for hunting in states where capacity is limited while hunting, so those with those Garands, still have an option... besides I think they are exempt anyway, because of their age / history ???
what bothers me ( most ) is the incorrect termonolgy used, the word "bullets" used in the place of cartridges, clips ( like the Garand uses ) used in place of magazines... they have gone & gotten everybody corn fused, to where even those that are supposed to enforce the new regs don't know what to do... which I guess is better for those who don't want more restrictions, as everything will need to be redefined & clairifyed... & in essence make "them" look like even bigger idiots for not knowing what even they want to ban...
what bothers me ( most ) is the incorrect termonolgy used, the word "bullets" used in the place of cartridges, clips ( like the Garand uses ) used in place of magazines... they have gone & gotten everybody corn fused, to where even those that are supposed to enforce the new regs don't know what to do... which I guess is better for those who don't want more restrictions, as everything will need to be redefined & clairifyed... & in essence make "them" look like even bigger idiots for not knowing what even they want to ban...
carguychris
New member
As I read it, yes, although IANAL.
I believe this is incorrect; as stu925 pointed out in post #222, bolt-action firearms are specifically exempted.
Also, it's worth pointing out that the act does not seem to restrict the mere ability to accept a bayonet; it restricts bayonet mounts. This is significant because certain military firearms such as the Mosin Nagant do not have a separate bayonet mount; the bayonet fits around the front sight.
Revolvers are the subject of a lengthy discussion in another thread in L&CR. In my non-lawyerly opinion, the definition of "large capacity ammunition feeding device" is vague enough that it may eventually encompass 8-10 shot revolvers, but it's unclear whether they'll be regulated in the short term.
Has anybody considered non-detachable rifle magazines of 8-10 rounds capacity (SKS, pistol caliber levers)? These obviously don't fall under the new assault weapons definition as they don't have detachable magazines.
And I guess you can't load them with more than 7 rounds now.
But does it mean owners of such rifles will not be able to sell them inside the state anymore? Are they basically grandfathered, just like 10 round magazines?
Alex.
And I guess you can't load them with more than 7 rounds now.
But does it mean owners of such rifles will not be able to sell them inside the state anymore? Are they basically grandfathered, just like 10 round magazines?
Alex.
carguychris
New member
This is true in theory, although in practice, most all SKS (and many Mini-14) variants have features that would otherwise qualify them as assault weapons.
OTOH you're absolutely right about lever rifles; IMHO the product planners at Mossberg may be on to something with the 464 SPX, although I suggest that they also offer a .44Mag or .45 Colt version to allow the use of a 7rd magazine tube.
http://www.mossberg.com/product/rifles-lever-action-centerfire-464-spx/41026
Correct.
The law seems to exempt lever rifles.
Honestly folks, what do you think is our chances of actually winning a lawsuit in the SCOTUS? There are some very clear violations of civil rights from what I can tell especially if you take into account the cases presented by Alan Gura and the Heller case.
In the event that we DO win this case and the SCOUTUS sides with the 2A plaintiff's, how do you think this will affect future attempts to implement gun control?
In the event that we DO win this case and the SCOUTUS sides with the 2A plaintiff's, how do you think this will affect future attempts to implement gun control?
How could SKS be possibly considered an assault weapon, no matter what the features? This is from the text of the bill: "(A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS....". A detachable magazine is obviously a must criteria.
My question is, assuming that it is NOT an assault weapon, would it be subject to regulation same as a separate 10rd magazine? I mean that you can continue possessing it but can't sell/transfer it to anybody in the state. This is what the law says about 10rd magazines, or do I misunderstand?
Alex.
My question is, assuming that it is NOT an assault weapon, would it be subject to regulation same as a separate 10rd magazine? I mean that you can continue possessing it but can't sell/transfer it to anybody in the state. This is what the law says about 10rd magazines, or do I misunderstand?
Alex.
carguychris
New member
You're right, my bad.
I believe that I understand your question correctly now.
In my humble non-lawyerly opinion, yes, it seems to me that this provision could conceivably apply to the rifle itself. The definition of "large capacity ammunition feeding device" does not obviously exempt a magazine that is integral with the firearm! 
There is one conceivable exemption.
The definition specifically exempts an ammunition feeding device that is a "curio or relic" (OR, not AND), but the act does not use the familiar federal definition of a C&R firearm- it creates its own definition.
(Emphasis mine)
I believe that this provision should allow an SKS or similar rifle with an integral 10rd mag to be brought into NY and legally transferred, but only if the individual rifle is over 50 years old. The problem is that the build dates of SKS rifles from some countries cannot be positively determined, or are too recent to allow legal transfer.