NY State *passes* most restrictive weapons ban ever after being rushed to a vote.

[Matt1970]

So someone in New York can still buy/sell/posses an AR-15 who doesn't already have one?

You can no longer buy or sell it in NY but you can posses it if you register it. You can only have a 7 round Magazine for it though and even some rifles I think are only allowed 5 round magazines.

 

[exdeath]

Like machine guns?

Who said that wasn't wrong?

At the very least the 1986 amendment needs to go away. Heavy registration is one thing, complete prohibition to anyone who doesn't already have one and who wasn't around or old enough to vote when it was enacted is entirely another.

 

[Cerb]

You can no longer buy or sell it in NY but you can posses it if you register it.

Or, you can not register it? How many people in the state side of New York do you think are actually going to sell or register them? Unless records already exist of them, it would make much more sense to quietly keep them.

 

[micrometers]

Or, you can not register it? How many people in the state side of New York do you think are actually going to sell or register them? Unless records already exist of them, it would make much more sense to quietly keep them.

oOOOoooOOoOOo

edgy.

 

[Doppel]

Next it will be 4-5 rounds. Specifically to effectively ban revolvers while claiming the whole time they aren't banning your guns.

"You don't need a revolver to hunt".

I think of what NY did the clause that is least likely to stand up to challenge is the 7 round clip. It substantially reduces effectiveness of a firearm; you're now down 30% the rounds in your pistol before a reload and that can absolutely matter when defending yourself. And for those won't don't believe me: the cops won't be subjected to 7 rounds. Why? Inhibits their lethality when acting in a defensive manner (since cops are only supposed to kill in defense of themselves or others).

And of course not to mention as long as there is no 10 round mag limit in the greater US it's a quick jaunt to any border state for a mass killer planning his attack to stock up elsewhere.

You can no longer buy or sell it in NY but you can posses it if you register it. You can only have a 7 round Magazine for it though and even some rifles I think are only allowed 5 round magazines.

I have not heard of a 5 limit, but yes now in NY you CANNOT buy new any rifle that has even a pistol grip and NO weapon of any kind can have more than 7 in the mag.

Or, you can not register it? How many people in the state side of New York do you think are actually going to sell or register them? Unless records already exist of them, it would make much more sense to quietly keep them.

Probably a lot of them will, my guess most. Reason why? Because if they don't register it it's a misdemeanor, but if they are in possession of one it's a grade d felony (I'm not clear on the semantics of the first condition vs the second). And then if you get that felony you cannot pass any background check on a new firearm. Most ARs not registered will be either:

1) Owned by a guy looking to do something very awful
2) The die-hard "screw you gov" types and/or doomsday prepper type people

I expect almost everybody else to register them.

 

[Matt1970]

Or, you can not register it? How many people in the state side of New York do you think are actually going to sell or register them? Unless records already exist of them, it would make much more sense to quietly keep them.

If they must, and I am sure that is going through a lot of peoples minds, but there is a song about fighting the law and who wins.

 

[BladeVenom]

Rapists in NY are applauding Cuomo's action. The state will soon be safe for rapists again.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you register it, they will take it. Sooner or later, one way or another. Once it's registered, all it takes is one complaint from a neighbor, one argument with a vindictive person, one fight with your girlfriend, etc., and they will come and remove your guns.

They will only need the thinnest excuse, once they have you in the registry.

 

[exdeath]

Nope, they're still legal😀

False. I know by the 😀 that you know a pseudo ban is still a effective ban and you think it's clever.

 

[exdeath]

If you register it, they will take it. Sooner or later, one way or another. Once it's registered, all it takes is one complaint from a neighbor, one argument with a vindictive person, one fight with your girlfriend, etc., and they will come and remove your guns.

They will only need the thinnest excuse, once they have you in the registry.

So by an extra AK to register...

 

[Cerb]

oOOOoooOOoOOo

edgy.

Also likely, IMO. The other state of NY is not the same as NYC/Albany. Are they going to go breaking other amendments (like 4th) to find them?

If they must, and I am sure that is going through a lot of peoples minds, but there is a song about fighting the law and who wins.

I don't see people marching out loudly saying they won't register their gun. By passively not registering, they would need to have their property searched, with a warrant or under some probably cause, for the possession to be known. I imagine most that would not register would also do so with the expectation of the law being relaxed, repealed, or overturned within the next several years, as well.

 

[exdeath]

Also likely, IMO. The other state of NY is not the same as NYC/Albany. Are they going to go breaking other amendments (like 4th) to find them?

That's still ass because then you can't take them out and shoot them leisurely without someone at the range or a random hiker or UAV or ranger in the desert spotting you by chance and being nosy and reporting it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Who said that wasn't wrong?

At the very least the 1986 amendment needs to go away. Heavy registration is one thing, complete prohibition to anyone who doesn't already have one and who wasn't around or old enough to vote when it was enacted is entirely another.

Don't know what you are talking about but I would guess the Supreme Court has either not had a challenge to the machine gun prohibition or a challenge was defeated.

 

[Cerb]

That's still ass because then you can't take them out and shoot them leisurely without someone at the range or a random hiker or UAV or ranger in the desert spotting you by chance and being nosy and reporting it.

Indeed. At the least, I know some people that will wait until the deadline, to see if it gets changed quickly, but I will be interested to hear what some I know in NY think about it. Personally, you couldn't pay enough to live there, given the people the majority keep electing.

 

[momeNt]

Like machine guns?

If that's true then yes. It's illegal to own something that was produced without harm to anybody (different than owning a severed human head) and further that you don't ever intend to harm anybody with. Handguns, machine guns, suitcase nukes should all be legal to own if they are your property and you didn't harm anybody in the procurement of said item.

 

[micrometers]

"You don't need a revolver to hunt".

I think of what NY did the clause that is least likely to stand up to challenge is the 7 round clip. It substantially reduces effectiveness of a firearm; you're now down 30% the rounds in your pistol before a reload and that can absolutely matter when defending yourself. And for those won't don't believe me: the cops won't be subjected to 7 rounds. Why? Inhibits their lethality when acting in a defensive manner (since cops are only supposed to kill in defense of themselves or others).

And of course not to mention as long as there is no 10 round mag limit in the greater US it's a quick jaunt to any border state for a mass killer planning his attack to stock up elsewhere.I have not heard of a 5 limit, but yes now in NY you CANNOT buy new any rifle that has even a pistol grip and NO weapon of any kind can have more than 7 in the mag.Probably a lot of them will, my guess most. Reason why? Because if they don't register it it's a misdemeanor, but if they are in possession of one it's a grade d felony (I'm not clear on the semantics of the first condition vs the second). And then if you get that felony you cannot pass any background check on a new firearm. Most ARs not registered will be either:

1) Owned by a guy looking to do something very awful
2) The die-hard "screw you gov" types and/or doomsday prepper type people

I expect almost everybody else to register them.

A 7 round limit would have made Sandy Hook less lethal.

Nancy Lanza had the most lethal weapons available to her by the full extent of the law.

Also, law enforcement goes into danger areas every single day as part of their jobs. Citizens do not face a fraction of the danger that law enforcement. So no, there is no real need for someone to have high capacity weapons as a civvie.

unless you're a drug dealer or tim mcveigh-like person.

 

[micrometers]

This is absolutely true. Sex slaves are still around, but they are very rare. We don't have an industry based on slavery anymore. That change only happened when laws and enforcement made it so.

No gun laws will prevent all gun crimes. To argue that there will still be gun crime so we don't need gun laws is silly. Gun laws will have an impact, and making them harder to acquire is a major factor in that. Opportunity plus intent equals just about anything in life. Reduce the opportunity to acquire guns and there will be results.

Remember, this legislation doesn't make guns illegal. It just makes you have to jump through some reasonable hoops to acquire them legally.

+1

 

[micrometers]

You missed it.

Define "mentally ill" for the purpose of this discussion. Please be specific.

That's the beauty of it.

 

[styroe]

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/...nveils-gun-bill-but-no-deal-for-vote-tonight/

No time for debate, Cuomo and Democrats pushing the bill to a vote without any debate.


Edit.
Bill passed 43 to 18 in the Senate and 104 to 43 in the Assembly. Signed by Cuomo shortly thereafter.

Crime should be dropping any second..............

 

[micrometers]

Crime should be dropping any second..............

NYC is actually the pioneer in combating crime in urban areas.

 

[styroe]

NYC is actually the pioneer in combating crime in urban areas.

I understand certain things work in NYC. But this is a state ban, not just in the locality of a city, so I am not specifically concerning myself with the city itself.

A lot of the progress the city claims it has "combated" is more a circumstance of correlation without cause and effect. I believe it was those freak-o-nomics guys who actually did a nice piece in one of there podcasts about that very issue.

I'd be willing to entertain some of you pioneer stats or programs, currently I am operating under different facts but am open to new information.

 

[Fenixgoon]

A 7 round limit would have made Sandy Hook less lethal.

Nancy Lanza had the most lethal weapons available to her by the full extent of the law.

Also, law enforcement goes into danger areas every single day as part of their jobs. Citizens do not face a fraction of the danger that law enforcement. So no, there is no real need for someone to have high capacity weapons as a civvie.

unless you're a drug dealer or tim mcveigh-like person.

incorrect on both counts.

1) there is a thing called reloading. the VT shooter killed more people with two pistols than lazna did with his AR-15 rifle.

2) nancy lanza did not own the most lethal weapon allowed by law. first, fully automatic weapons are legal to own, but they are extraordinarily expensive to acquire.
second - you need to define "lethal". is it rate of fire? if so, any semi-auto is equally effective, rifle or pistol. is it magazine capacity? in that case, there are plenty of 50+ round aftermarket magazines available that clearly were not used. is it the bullet? the 5.56/.223 are not very deadly rounds compared to other rifle cartridges which fire larger bullets at higher velocities and have deeper penetration. even some pistol rounds have better penetration. is it a combination of factors? which ones are more important than the others?

so "most lethal", until you define lethality in a technical and comparative manner, is a completely subjective term. what you might think is "most lethal" - in this case, an AR-15 rifle, may not be the "most lethal" thing that a person well versed in firearms (or even relatively poorly versed, such as myself) knows.

 

[micrometers]

I understand certain things work in NYC. But this is a state ban, not just in the locality of a city, so I am not specifically concerning myself with the city itself.

A lot of the progress the city claims it has "combated" is more a circumstance of correlation without cause and effect. I believe it was those freak-o-nomics guys who actually did a nice piece in one of there podcasts about that very issue.

I'd be willing to entertain some of you pioneer stats or programs, currently I am operating under different facts but am open to new information.

NYC is like 40% of NY's population, more if you count outlying suburbs.

Yes, there's an argument that lead and abortion led to a drop in crime. Still, NYC experienced a drop after a change in operations.

 

[micrometers]

incorrect on both counts.

1) there is a thing called reloading. the VT shooter killed more people with two pistols than lazna did with his AR-15 rifle.

2) nancy lanza did not own the most lethal weapon allowed by law. first, fully automatic weapons are legal to own, but they are extraordinarily expensive to acquire.
second - you need to define "lethal". is it rate of fire? if so, any semi-auto is equally effective, rifle or pistol. is it magazine capacity? in that case, there are plenty of 50+ round aftermarket magazines available that clearly were not used. is it the bullet? the 5.56/.223 are not very deadly rounds compared to other rifle cartridges which fire larger bullets at higher velocities and have deeper penetration. even some pistol rounds have better penetration. is it a combination of factors? which ones are more important than the others?

so "most lethal", until you define lethality in a technical and comparative manner, is a completely subjective term. what you might think is "most lethal" - in this case, an AR-15 rifle, may not be the "most lethal" thing that a person well versed in firearms (or even relatively poorly versed, such as myself) knows.

You're getting too technical. I know lots of you guys are enamoured by the mechanics of these things, but come on. The AR15 is the most lethal widely available firearm. It's practically identical to the battle rifle used by US soldiers in combat.

I'm convinced right now that the reason he didn't use the Saiga Shotgun was because it might have had a "bullet button" that would have interfered with reloading.

Anyways, more reloading means more chance to fumble and drop a magazine. You also have to reach down to some magazine taped to your body more often and you have to memorize where they are. It's more work.

This is common sense, really.

 

[styroe]

NYC is like 40% of NY's population, more if you count outlying suburbs.

Yes, there's an argument that lead and abortion led to a drop in crime. Still, NYC experienced a drop after a change in operations.

I believe there was another change as well.