New York State Gun Control - Passed!

Congrats NY, you guys now have the worst gun law in the nation. Worse(for now) than California or NJ. On the plus side if CT gets their way only single shot guns will be legal so you guys will no longer be the worst; either way I am sure California will find a way to outdo everyone.

I feel for you guys being an Illinois resident. My father grew up in NYC and I have visited often, I love it up state. It is a shame to see you guys getting screwed over like this.
Get ready for the legal fight.
A Couple of years of hardship and hopefully the SCOTUS tosses this BS out.

The scary part is in places like Illinois the talk is simply people won't register their firearms if something like this is passed, screw the establishment. They don't have the man power here to come after you.
I know for a fact NYC does, for years after my father left NY in the 70's the police would go to his old address (his parents home) asking if he was there, if the guns were there, why he didn't renew his registration etc. This went on for several years before someone finally believed he had moved out of the state.

The only thing you can do now is get ready to PUNISH and I mean PUNISH Hard any legislator from up state who votes for this. 1 year and 10 months seems like a long time but hopefully you can get some of the people voting for this out in 2014.


Side note; does NY use its own system for background checks like Colorado or do they use the national database? The thing not discussed yet here is this is going to put an exponential strain on the system either way.


I am kind of flabbergasted by this legislation. In terms of restrictions, NY residents are arguably better off if they were to move to Canada.
Click to expand...

If memory serves in Canada they have all kinds of cool guns we can't currently import like the Tavor. So yes, compared to Canada NY is downright tyrannical
 
Last edited:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...s-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.



The New York gun control provisions expected to be passed Monday cover several fronts.

The provisions discussed in private conferences were confirmed to The Associated Press by five officials, Republicans and Democrats, in the Assembly and the Senate. The proposals would:

—Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.

—Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.

—Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.

—Establish a state registry for all private sales, with a background check done through a licensed dealer for a fee, excluding sales to immediate relatives.

—Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally to report the threat to a mental health director who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

—Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.

—Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

—Require that stolen guns be reported within 24 hours. Otherwise, the owner would face a possible misdemeanor.

—Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property.

—Limit the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. The provision would allow a handgun permit holder a means to maintain privacy under the Freedom of Information law.
 
Current owners of 10 round mags are being grandfathered, but can only have 7 rounds in them. Those do not need to be turned into the state or sold. Just clarifying...
 
It will almost immediately be challenged in court. The Heller decision protects the ownership of handguns, and of weapons "in common use."

Now, does a 10-round cap violate that? Perhaps not. But nobody makes 7-round mags for the Glock 17, the Beretta 92, the Sig P226, the Ruger P95, or any other major service pistol. Cuomo's proposal would effectively ban hundreds of service pistols in common use, and the Supreme Court would be none too pleased to see him flouting their verdict.
Click to expand...

Screw the magazine capacity issue.
That's nothing more than a diversion.

The real threat is in the mental health portion.

Read the bill - I did.

http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/S2230.pdf

"Amendments to the Mental Hygiene Law will help ensure that persons who
are mentally ill and dangerous cannot retain or obtain a firearm.
First, mental health records that are currently sent to NIDCS for a
federal background check will also be housed in a New York State data-
base. A new Section 9.46 of the Mental Hygiene Law will require mental
health professionals, in the exercise of reasonable professional judg-
ment, to report if an individual they are treating is likely to engage
in conduct that will cause serious harm to him- or herself or others. A
good faith decision about whether to report will not be a basis for any
criminal or civil liability. When a Section 9.46 report is made, the
Division of Criminal Justice Services will determine whether the person
possesses a firearms license and, if so, will notify the appropriate
local licensing official, who must suspend the license. The person's
firearms will then be removed

Here's who are required to turn in anyone they suspect is a risk or threat.:
"S 9.46 REPORTS OF SUBSTANTIAL RISK OR THREAT OF HARM BY MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS.
(A) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM "MENTAL HEALTH PROFES
SIONAL" SHALL INCLUDE A PHYSICIAN, PSYCHOLOGIST, REGISTERED NURSE OR
LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER."


So any RN or LCSW has the authority to, effectively, remove someone's firearms.
Worse yet, it says they are required to report it.
AFAIK and can tell, there's no penalty mentioned if they fail to report it - yet.
I'm sure once the ball gets rolling, there will be.

BTW - they (the mental health professionals) don't have to prove anything - just report it.

My wife works for the county Board of DD. She runs into this type of thing all the time...
 
It will almost immediately be challenged in court. The Heller decision protects the ownership of handguns, and of weapons "in common use."

Now, does a 10-round cap violate that? Perhaps not. But nobody makes 7-round mags for the Glock 17, the Beretta 92, the Sig P226, the Ruger P95, or any other major service pistol. Cuomo's proposal would effectively ban hundreds of service pistols in common use, and the Supreme Court would be none too pleased to see him flouting their verdict.
Click to expand...

@Tom: That is assuming that by the time this reaches the SCOTUS one of the justices who ruled in our favor in Heller or McDonald has not been replaced by another activist zealot. Remember those two cases were 5-4 cases. Every major gun case in the last few years has been a 5-4 case. With one little change they could be 4-5 cases...
 
He's got you there Tom, some of the justices who voted for us last go around are old enough to have seen the constitution written. They'll retire or die and Obama will stick an anti-gun judge in there one way or another.
 
Currently possessed 10 round magazines are grandfathered:

legislation said:
Magazines that can hold more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currently possessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain
seven rounds of ammunition.
Click to expand...

But you can only put 7 rounds in. :rolleyes:
 
Wonder what this does to Kimber? They moved from relatively progun OR to NY. Would you be able to send a gun or mag to them for repair now?

Personally, I think all gun companies in states like NY, CT or MA should contact states like TX and move.
 
One consequence of such reporting is that folks will avoid getting mental health care due to the fear of losing gun rights.

Having problems with PTSD after the war, going for marital counseling, some depression, etc. - you are subject to the whim of the professional.

Thus, avoid going to such.
 
He's got you there Tom, some of the justices who voted for us last go around are old enough to have seen the constitution written. They'll retire or die and Obama will stick an anti-gun judge in there one way or another.
Click to expand...

Well here's to praying for the health of our SCOTUS justices.
 
"MENTAL HEALTH PROFES
SIONAL" SHALL INCLUDE A PHYSICIAN, PSYCHOLOGIST, REGISTERED NURSE OR
LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER."
Click to expand...

This would almost certainly be outside the Scope of Practice of an RN and a social worker would be completely unqualified.
 
It appears as though Garands will become illegal, forcing their sale out of state or confiscation by the State.
Click to expand...
I believe that Garands should be exempt because they "CANNOT ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE THAT HOLDS MORE THAN FIVE ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION" [S.37.22(G)(II)]

It appears from reading the law that Garand 8rd clips may be exempt due to potential Curio & Relic status. HOWEVER... this is a big "if" because the NY law defines certain "ammunition feeding devices" as Curios & Relics rather than firearms! The NY definition seems to rely solely on the 50-year-old rule- there's no apparent provision for military, historically significant, and/or specifically listed ammunition feeding devices, nor any exemptions from the NFA. Furthermore, the ammunition feeding device is only exempt if it cannot be used in a newer firearm AND is registered!

How are you supposed to prove that a non-serialized 8rd clip is over 50 years old and then register it? :confused:
 
Last edited:
I personally believe gun manufacturers could have the biggest impact on legislation like this.

"Civilians can't own em? Fine then NO ONE can."

Instead of modifying their weapons to qualify they need to refuse to sell their pistols, rifles, mags at all. Wait until local residents hear about that? Imagine what the PDs would do when they cannot purchase ARs or 30 round mags for their patrol cars or SWAT, enjoy those 7 rounders guys! Much like Barrett did. Now I know that it would require ALOT of companies to cooperate, I realize it would hurt the gun companies profits but IMO, if gun companies keep submitting to all these demands then they are just slowing allowing anti-gunners to take their consumer base and industry apart little by little.

Now I know a lot of you would disagree with this method but I really think something like this is NEEDED by the gun industry, this would really wake people up.

I'm sure the antis would be thrilled until the backlash came. How many people would move? How many PDs would complain when they require new weapons or mags? so on and so forth.
 
Anybody see an exclusion for tube feed or rimfire? These are usual and customary if you live in Cali. Even my trapper 94 holds more than seven.
Makes me wonder if Henry is next.
 
Clearly this makes the "doing something about crime" a lie. 769 firearm murders in 2011, 5 with long guns.

Cuomo's rallying cry about not needing a 10-round magazine to shoot deer, under other circumstances, would be hilarious for his ignorance of his state's law in that regard. As it is, it exemplifies that this is an agenda, not a mildly rational process or attempt to deal with a problem.

It is an insult to those who died at Sandy Hook, that their blood should be used to enable rank behavior such as this.

I understand some Republicans went along with this. The "go along to get along" posture simply ensures evisceration later, so that the Rep party becomes an afterthought. This is a lesson the CA Rep establishment still doesn't get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top