Is it me or does the new NY gun laws actually ban all handguns now?

[HumblePie]

LOL, here is a list of all explicitly banned guns in NY.

http://troopers.ny.gov/Firearms/NYS_SAFE_Act/

They are banning all AR variant guns by manufacturer now regardless of caliber. So even if that company makes an AIRSOFT gun, it is now banned. LOL. Or a BB gun.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by eskimospy

Incorrect. Ownership of any firearm in Chicago requires a permit, regardless of location. Handguns are in fact illegal everywhere except within your home, but all guns of any type must be registered for ownership.

No, those were in the law originally. But they were struck out. Registration to own a handgun in Chicago is not required.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...r-registry.pdf

[Fern]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

INCORRECT. Ownership of a firearm does not require a license anywhere in the US right now. It will on March 16th in NY though. That is an infringement.

I live in NC. We don't have a requirement for a license for ownership per se, but to purchase a handgun one needs a license/permit from the local sheriff's office. They do a background check. IIRC, it takes less than a week and costs only a few bucks. When you buy the handgun, you turn your piece of paper over to the seller. I don't know what they do with it. (And you don't have to specify to the Sheriff's office what kind of handgun you will buy, it's good for all makes/models.)

Fern

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by Fern

I live in NC. We don't have a requirement for a license for ownership per se, but to purchase a handgun one needs a license/permit from the local sheriff's office. They do a background check. IIRC, it takes less than a week and costs only a few bucks. When you buy the handgun, you turn your piece of paper over to the seller. I don't know what they do with it. (And you don't have to specify to the Sheriff's office what kind of handgun you will buy, it's good for all makes/models.)

Fern

Still not required to obtain a permit or license to own a firearm. Chicago tried to do that before and it's currently removed from the law as it is going through the court system. Wrong date.

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

No, those were in the law originally. But they were struck out. Registration to own a handgun in Chicago is not required.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...r-registry.pdf

Incorrect again. Heller struck down the complete ban on handguns, which Chicago changed to the ability to have in your home. All firearms continue to require registration however.

From your link the relevant passages are:

8-20-020. This establishes that handguns are illegal except in your home, it does not speak to registration requirements.

8-20-110. This establishes that it is illegal to possess any firearm that is not registered. There are no exceptions for a gun being solely in the home.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by eskimospy

Incorrect again. Heller struck down the complete ban on handguns, which Chicago changed to the ability to have in your home. All firearms continue to require registration however.

From your link the relevant passages are:

8-20-020. This establishes that handguns are illegal except in your home, it does not speak to registration requirements.

8-20-110. This establishes that it is illegal to possess any firearm that is not registered. There are no exceptions for a gun being solely in the home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

The laws for Chicago are currently being challenged in court for the forced registration and license requirement as well as the training reqs as being unconstitutional.

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

The laws for Chicago are currently being challenged in court for the forced registration and license requirement as well as the training reqs as being unconstitutional.

This link supports my point as well. Both links you have provided have said exactly what I'm telling you. Possession of any firearm in Chicago, regardless of location, requires a permit.

As in today, right now, this minute.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by eskimospy

This link supports my point as well. Both links you have provided have said exactly what I'm telling you. Possession of any firearm in Chicago, regardless of location, requires a permit.

As in today, right now, this minute.

The previous link had lines struck through those portions. Also, the wiki link says those laws are currently being challenged in court and are waiting to make it to the SCOTUS.

And Chicago is the ONLY place in the US that has put a law like that on the books. Of which it is highly unconstitutional and will be struck down. Just like the NY one will be. Putting in massive requirements to even own a firearm is undue infringement of the 2nd amendment.

[Matt1970]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

INCORRECT. Ownership of a firearm does not require a license anywhere in the US right now. It will on March 16th in NY though. That is an infringement.

You have needed a permit to own a pistol for the longest time in NY.

[eskimospy]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

The previous link had lines struck through those portions. Also, the wiki link says those laws are currently being challenged in court and are waiting to make it to the SCOTUS.

And Chicago is the ONLY place in the US that has put a law like that on the books. Of which it is highly unconstitutional and will be struck down. Just like the NY one will be. Putting in massive requirements to even own a firearm is undue infringement of the 2nd amendment.

No, your first link does not have that. Specifically the two sections I cited to you begin on page 8 with section 8-20-020. As stated before, this establishes that handguns are illegal except in the home. Then on page 12 in section 8-20-110 (a) it says how it is illegal to possess a firearm without a permit.

This is from your own link. (it's also available on the Chicago municipal code website)

Secondly your wiki link talks about how blanket concealed carry prohibitions and transportation restrictions are being challenged. It says nothing about the registration requirement for all firearms.

Seriously man, you are drawing a lot of conclusions from reading things that you either don't understand or aren't reading all the way through.

[monovillage]

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws.

The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers.

Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...ork&id=8958116

I guess they had to pass the law to find out what was in it.

[irishScott]

Originally Posted by monovillage

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...ork&id=8958116

I guess they had to pass the law to find out what was in it.

I also love this bit:

State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"

So the freaking legislature knows the criminals won't be obeying the ban.

[micrometers]

This is exactly the gun reg I want.

Handguns are still legal btw. The 1911 and six shooters are legal.

OTOH, the handguns used in recent massacres are all illegal.

This is EXACTLY the legislation the country needs.

[micrometers]

Originally Posted by irishScott

I also love this bit:



So the freaking legislature knows the criminals won't be obeying the ban.

Some will, some won't.

THis at least is a start to reducing the available guns in NY.

Next step is suing dealers located in Alabama and VA for funneling guns to NY. Bloomberg already does this, but they might step this up more.

win.

[irishScott]

Originally Posted by karmypolitics

This is exactly the gun reg I want.

Handguns are still legal btw. The 1911 and six shooters are legal.

OTOH, the handguns used in recent massacres are all illegal.

This is EXACTLY the legislation the country needs.

So you think something like 80% of all handguns sold in America should be made illegal, including those that have been popular since the 80s and have never been used in a mass shooting. Got it.

[micrometers]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

LOL, here is a list of all explicitly banned guns in NY.

http://troopers.ny.gov/Firearms/NYS_SAFE_Act/

They are banning all AR variant guns by manufacturer now regardless of caliber. So even if that company makes an AIRSOFT gun, it is now banned. LOL. Or a BB gun.

The AR15 has been involved in about 1 massacre/month lately. So yeah, it makes perfect sense.

[irishScott]

Originally Posted by karmypolitics

The AR15 has been involved in about 1 massacre/month lately. So yeah, it makes perfect sense.

Lolwut? Care to link to these 10 "massacres" I missed?

[Doppel]

Originally Posted by karmypolitics

This is exactly the gun reg I want.

Handguns are still legal btw. The 1911 and six shooters are legal.

OTOH, the handguns used in recent massacres are all illegal.

This is EXACTLY the legislation the country needs.

I know it must feel so good to rub it in the faces of those who own these weapons, this despite being given ample evidence it will do nothing. This is because the issue has become emotional now for you, and not applicable to logic.

In short you are lying to yourself pretending this makes people safer. It doesn't and is an illusion some are telling themselves.

[micrometers]

Originally Posted by irishScott

So you think something like 80% of all handguns sold in America should be made illegal, including those that have been popular since the 80s and have never been used in a mass shooting. Got it.

Name a few magazine-fed semis that haven't been used in a mass shooting. Glocks, M9's, and 5-7's have all been used. Even the 1911 has been used in mass shootings.

[micrometers]

Originally Posted by Doppel

I know it must feel so good to rub it in the faces of those who own these weapons, this despite being given ample evidence it will do nothing. This is because the issue has become emotional now for you, and not applicable to logic.

In short you are lying to yourself pretending this makes people safer. It doesn't and is an illusion some are telling themselves.

I've explained quite logically why limiting magazine size is a prudent way to go, why criminals will be affected by these bans because criminals get their guns in the national gun environment, and on and on.

You guys get mad that inanimate objects are banned. I am outraged that people get killed.

[micrometers]

Originally Posted by irishScott

Lolwut? Care to link to these 10 "massacres" I missed?

Past six months:

Oregon mall shooting
Aurora
Newtown
NY firefighters.

I'll have to dig, but there likely are more that slipped under the radar. IN any case, the two worst shootings in recent memory were committed using an AR15.

[irishScott]

Originally Posted by karmypolitics

Name a few magazine-fed semis that haven't been used in a mass shooting. Glocks, M9's, and 5-7's have all been used. Even the 1911 has been used in mass shootings.

The point is irrelevant, as there are literally tens of millions who own Glocks, M9s and 1911s and don't shoot anybody. Tens of millions who commit no crime >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 psycho who does. Never mind that about a gazillion companies make 1911s, and there are many specific models of Glock that have never been used in a mass shooting.


But just to rub it in, here's the list you asked for:
CZ, Smith & Wesson M&P, Beretta PX4, Hi-Point, Taurus, Sigs (carried but not used) and those are just the popular brands/lines.

[irishScott]

Originally Posted by karmypolitics

Past six months:

Oregon mall shooting
Aurora
Newtown
NY firefighters.

I'll have to dig, but there likely are more that slipped under the radar. IN any case, the two worst shootings in recent memory were committed using an AR15.

Oh, so there are likely more, but you can only name 3, one of which (the NY firefighters) only involved 2 fatalities. 4 shot and 2 deaths is not a "massacre", moron.

[micrometers]

Originally Posted by irishScott

The point is irrelevant, as there are literally tens of millions who own Glocks, M9s and 1911s and don't shoot anybody. Tens of millions who commit no crime >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 psycho who does. Never mind that about a gazillion companies make 1911s, and there are many specific models of Glock that have never been used in a mass shooting.


But just to rub it in, here's the list you asked for:
CZ, Smith & Wesson M&P, Beretta PX4, Hi-Point, Taurus, Sigs (carried but not used) and those are just the popular brands/lines.

Society-wide, the US suffers more mass shootings than other countries which heavily restrict firearms. Keeping guns around is not worth an Aurora or Newtown happening every few years. NOt at all.

[Doppel]

Originally Posted by karmypolitics

I've explained quite logically why limiting magazine size is a prudent way to go, why criminals will be affected by these bans because criminals get their guns in the national gun environment, and on and on.

You guys get mad that inanimate objects are banned. I am outraged that people get killed.

Your logic is not logic and has been extensively debunked it the NY gun law thread. The data and reason simply is not on your side, which is why a strong majority in that thread don't see it as you do.

But nothing will change your mind now, so carry on believing what you will.