NY: New Tough Gun Law

http://www.usatoday.com/story/new...s/1835785/

Quote : The Senate -- controlled by a coalition of Republicans and breakaway Democrats – passed Cuomo's bill by a wide margin after 11 p.m. Monday. Cuomo praised the Senate for "coming together in a bipartisan, collaborative manner to meet the challenges that face our state and our nation, as we have seen far too many senseless acts of gun violence." The legislation, known as the NY SAFE Act, includes a ban on magazines that hold more than seven rounds and requires universal background checks for all gun sales, regardless if they are private, person-to-person sales. It also includes stricter penalties for firearm-related crimes, including a "Webster provision," a life-without-parole prison sentence for anyone who murders a first responder. The provision is named after the Monroe County town where a pair of firefighters were shot and killed on Christmas Eve. The assault-weapons and magazine bans would take effect as soon the bill is passed and signed by Cuomo. The Senate voted on the bill less than three hours after it was formally introduced by Cuomo and released to the public. Cuomo waived a mandatory three-day aging period for the bill so the Legislature could vote immediately, a practice often criticized by good-government groups.

Now they made it illegal to own a clip that hold more than 7 rounds. I'm curious.. because I don't even own anything w/ a 7 round clip or less.. Actually I didn't even know they make them that small. But are they not making it illegal to own things that you already legally purchased? What if you own a gun shop, what do you do with thousands of clips that most likely all hold more than 7 rounds (probably 9 or more)?

Quote from djplayer : what if you own a gun shop, what do you do with thousands of clips that most likely all hold more than 7 rounds (probably 9 or more)?

rtv???

why 7 and not 8? why not 6?

No one will have a good answer.

Also interesting that the aging period is waived.Mandatory provisions aren't mandatory when you have an agenda, I guess.

Quote from Dr. J : why 7 and not 8? why not 6? No one will have a good answer.

The fact no one can have a good answer as to why not 6 or 8 does not mean the law limiting it to 7 is bad law. Does it?

Quote from TRNT : The fact no one can have a good answer as to why not 6 or 8 does not mean the law limiting it to 7 is bad law. Does it?

it just means it's arbitrary.

Do you like arbitrary laws?

To me it indicates that the people crafting the law have no idea what they are regulating or why - if they could produce some sort of data/study/etc showing that 7 is the "magic number" that tends (correlation) to decrease (if not directly impacts, causation) the deadliness of a mass shooting, then I'd bite.

Laws need not be perfect, but should at least be rational.

Quote from Dr. J : why 7 and not 8? why not 6? No one will have a good answer. Also interesting that the aging period is waived.Mandatory provisions aren't mandatory when you have an agenda, I guess.

Political posturing. Would be willing to bet no one even talked to gun manufacturers to see if 7 rounds, as opposed to 8, would be more or less detrimental to business tooling costs.

Quote from Dr. J : it just means it's arbitrary. Do you like arbitrary laws? To me it indicates that the people crafting the law have no idea what they are regulating or why - if they could produce some sort of data/study/etc showing that 7 is the "magic number" that tends (correlation) to decrease (if not directly impacts, causation) the deadliness of a mass shooting, then I'd bite. Laws need not be perfect, but should at least be rational.

Arbitrary and rational are not mutually exclusive. For example, age of consent is arbitrary but it is also not irrational.

Perhaps you were thinking of random. A random law wold be awful.

I would like to have laws that are not arbitrary at all but often that is not possible.

BTW, it should also be noted that none of these new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook, which is what they were designed in response to. But of course all the dumb sheeple will see this as significant political action on the issue and vote for these idiots next election.

the criminals are unimpressed and the law abiders are hamstrung, stupid and unconstitutional.


well I guess NY was stupid enough to elect that back water hick Hillary Clinton they are dumb enough for this.

Sounds like the law was written by the revolver lobby.

Quote from brbubba : BTW, it should also be noted that none of these new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook, which is what they were designed in response to. But of course all the dumb sheeple will see this as significant political action on the issue and vote for these idiots next election.

Exactly.

Quote from brbubba : BTW, it should also be noted that none of these new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook, which is what they were designed in response to. But of course all the dumb sheeple will see this as significant political action on the issue and vote for these idiots next election.

Agreed - I bring this up often - the reason for the knee-jerk response is to prevent Sandy Hook-type shootings, but nothing I've seen offered would have done anything to prevent that shooting. Therefore, we can conclude that SH is simply being used as an opportunity to further an agenda - never let a crisis go to waste.

The 7 round limit is likely a very clever and underhanded ploy. If passed it would be another example why pro-gun rights people are so wary of claims of "common sense" and compromise.

There was never any real logic behind the 10 round magazine limit. Some people feel the number came from a gun maker, Bill Ruger. The story is Ruger's Mini-14 sales were suffering due to imports of semi-automatic rifles of similar size and weight. Ruger's rifle used a 10 round magazine. The imports used more than 10 rounds. Ruger suggested a 10 round limit because it would allow him to keep selling his rifle while stifling the competition. Many gun people still curse his name for it. I have no idea if this story is actually true or if, like the Nova not selling in Mexico because of its name, it has become a legend that won't die.

Regardless, if you ask someone who is in favor of these laws how many rounds would they want if they had just a gun to protect themselves you will find they are more likely than not going to ask for all they can practically have. Even on this forum you will find such an answer.

So back to why 7. That's easy. It's rare for any modern semi-automatic gun to have just 7 rounds. Most will have at least 8 and often more than 10. The 1994 magazine limit meant that manufactures had to produce 10 round mags so they did. That equipment is still in use for states like CA that have 10 round limits. NY is a relatively small gun market. A 7 round magazine is yet another thing for a gun maker to deal with. Most will simply say, forget it, it's not worth the trouble and won't sell in NY. Hence the state has created an economic disincentive for the gun makers.

It's not clear what will be a legal retrofit for a 10 round magazine. Can the owner just add a block or is it something more complex.

Overall this seems like a VERY stupid law. For example, why raise the penalties for carrying a gun onto school property? The previous penalties would keep any honest gun owner at bay. The person looking to commit a crime won't worry about the stricter new penalties. Basically this whole law won't do the things it claims to do but will further erode the rights of legal gun owners.

This is Coumo positioning himself for a run for prez in 2016.

Why 7? Because it is less than 10 and pokes a stick in the eye of owners of many classic single stack pistols like the 1911 .45 which holds 8 rounds.

One more reason to move out of NY to a free state, as if there weren't enough already.