Does this not cover your point?
"Possession of the newly defined assault weapons is allowed only if they were possessed at the time that the law was passed, and must be registered with the state within one year."
The point is still that private gun ownership still exists and none of what was passed (and, as I understand it, at least in parts of the state, it's simply not enforced) would seem to seriously affect that.
minus the part where, for no good reason, they made a formerly legal firearm illegal despite its relative lack of use in violent crime.
saying that "private gun ownership still exists [in NY]" is like henry ford saying you can have any color car you want, as long as it's black. since NY arbitrarily changed what can be owned, private gun ownership is not the same as it was a year ago. and what would stop the state legislature from becoming even more restrictive on what firearms may or may not be owned? NY (potentially) turned thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. for what? a feel-good measure from politicians to show that they are supposedly doing something about gun crime. considering how often rifles of any kind are used in violent crime, lawmakers essentially did nothing.
washington DC, in its brilliance, passed a law that made being a gun owner worse than a sex offender. the law required gun owners to register with the local PD every 5 years, and you had to bring your license, get finger printed, etc. that's utterly ridiculous (and thank god it's getting challenged)