E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNew York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has signed what many consider to be the toughest gun control legislation in the country, expanding an existing assault weapons ban and limiting gun magazine capacity to seven rounds. NBC's Ron Allen reports.
New York lawmakers on Tuesday approved the toughest gun control law in the nation, expanding the state's existing assault weapons ban and addressing gun ownership by those with mental illnesses in the first major legislative action in response to the Newtown, Conn., school massacre.
The measure passed the state Assembly 104-43 after passing the state Senate 43-18 Monday. Gov. Andrew Cuomo quickly signed the legislation on Tuesday.
"This unfortunately required tragedies and loss of life to actually spur the political process to action," Cuomo said in remarks minutes before signing the bill.
"This will be the toughest gun control package in the nation," Sen. Jeffrey Klein, leader of the Independent Democratic Conference that shares majority control with Republican senators, had told The Associated Press. "All in all, it is a comprehensive, balanced approach that will save lives."
In a statement Tuesday, the National Rifle Association said it was "outraged" and called New York's gun control bill "draconian."
The proposal will include universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, aggressive prosecution of existing laws, and a high capacity magazine ban. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
The vote came as lawmakers in other states as well as the federal government wrestle with how to reduce gun violence after a series of mass shootings.
Obama to release gun proposal as early as Wednesday
President Barack Obama is set to unveil his own proposals -- based on recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden's gun task force -- on Wednesday. He is expected to focus on both legislative measures and steps that could be taken through executive action.
These steps could include cracking down on people who lie on background checks and focusing on improving school safety and mental health care. A federal assault weapons ban would require approval from Congress.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg applauded the state's bipartisan cooperation in a statement Tuesday, and suggested that it "sets an example for Washington to follow."
"The responsible and comprehensive gun reform bills the governor signed into law today will help keep guns away from criminals and others who are already prohibited from purchasing them," Bloomberg said.
Cuomo, who had called for an overhaul of gun laws in New York in his State of the State address last week, defended the provisions of the law.
"Seven bullets in a gun, why? Because the high-capacity magazines that give you the capacity to kill a large number of human beings in a very short period of time is nonsensical to a civil society," Cuomo said, according to Reuters.
Called the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, New York's law:
- Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.
- Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.
- Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.
- Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others 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, as well.
- Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.
- Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature
- Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.
One of the most controversial elements of the bill is the requirement on providers of mental health services.
"People who are mentally ill should not have access to guns, that's common sense," Cuomo said, according to Reuters. "That's probably the hallmark of this bill, coming up with a system that allows for mental-health screens."
Critics are arguing that the provision is unprecedented and draconian, but it is neither, said Art Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center and an NBCNews.com contributor.
"For decades mental health workers have had an ethical obligation to report those they think pose a clear and present danger to others to the police and to the person who has been threatened," Caplan said. "Their codes of ethics require them to do so. The new law in New York now makes that reporting a legal duty and gives the therapist a clear set of directions as to how to report and to whom."
In a statement, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. thanked legislators and said the bill will "provide law enforcement with stronger tools to protect our communities from gun violence, including provisions that better enable us to combat gun trafficking and violent gangs, and others that close the state gun show loophole and regulate large-quantity sales of ammunition and firearms."
Critics of the proposal had accused lawmakers of playing politics with citizens' rights and hundreds of gun manufacturer jobs.
"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," Republican Sen. Greg Ball, who represents part of the Hudson Valley, said after the Senate vote on Monday, according to the AP. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."
Assemblyman Marc Butler, a Republican, represents the upstate district where gun-maker Remington Arms Co., which employs 1,000 workers, is based. He called the closed-door meetings by Senate Republicans and the Democratic majority of the Assembly "politics at its worst."
Remington builds Bushmaster rifles in Illion, N.Y. Bushmaster semi-automatic rifles were used in the Newtown shooting and in the killing of two firefighters in Webster, N.Y.
The NRA expressed skepticism about the new law in a statement Tuesday: "While lawmakers could have taken a step toward strengthening mental health reporting and focusing on criminals, they opted for trampling the rights of law-abiding gun owners in New York, and they did it under a veil of secrecy in the dark of night."
"This legislation is not about hunters, sportsmen, or legal owners who use their guns appropriately," Cuomo said. "It is about reducing gun violence and making New York a safer place to live."
Legislators in other states also are moving forward with gun control legislation.
In New Jersey, one of 18 new gun bills submitted to the legislature would require gun buyers to submit to a psychological evaluation. A bill requiring gun owners to register annually, and another requiring all guns to be kept in lock boxes when not in use may be introduced in California. In Connecticut, state Sen. Beth Bye wants to limit access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and require that firearms be registered by model and serial number.
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
Looks like there are some politicians who are in dire need of treatment for hoplophobia!
the fear of firearms can never be cured in a liberal brain hell bent on power control over innocent people.just ask hitler...oh wait he's dead.
The Second Amendment is already regulated, or "infringed".
Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12#ixzz2I4MPKJ5Q
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/#ixzz2I4MoLOl5
It's amazing how FAST they move when TAKING rights, TAXING, REGULATING and RESTRICTING.... but how SLOWLY they move when balancing a budget, providing tax relief or giving money to schools and expanding MENTAL HEALTH programs............
It's my experience over the last 52 years that knee-jerk reactions usually present more problems than solutions.... like: how is it to be enforced? how is it to be paid for? how will those be punished?
And now that we are banning things retroactively........... can they raise taxes retroactively? increase sales tax retroactively?
Way to go NY now your crime rate will drop just like Chicago ! It is amazing how nobody votes for these Idoits yet somehow they get elected .
Actually crime in NY is already low in NY. Check out the list of top ten states for gun violence. NY ain't one of them. Mississippi is number one and most of the top ten states are politically red.
The protections guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment are simply an insurance policy for the rest of the Constitution. Without the ability to fight tyranny, it's just a matter of time before the rest of the Bill of Rights is stripped away, one at a time. When only the government has the means to defend itself, the people have become totally powerless.
I'm originally from Upstade New York. I grew up with guns in the house. I had a target and skeet range in my back yard (50 acres). New York City does not represent New York State. If those idiots pass stupid laws, they will have an extremely hard time enforcing them outside of the Big Apple.
My message to New Yorkers, RESIST! Do not let them strip away your rights. Whether you agree with guns or not, think about the implications of eroding the Constitution. Where does it end? These laws will not effect the gangs, drug dealers, murderers, etc. These laws will affect you, the "law abiding citizen", and will strip away your ability to defend your family, property, and self against those same gangs, drug dealers, and murderers. When a deranged psychopath breaks into your house swinging an ax, you'll only have to hold out for 10 minutes before the Police arrive.
One last little point. The Police don't carry weapons to protect YOU, they carry to protect THEMSELVES. Don't forget that.
The Second Amendment is already regulated, or "infringed".
Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12#ixzz2I4MPKJ5Q
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/#ixzz2I4MoLOl5
A semi-automatic weapon is not what I'd consider a "dangerous and unusual" weapon. I don't advocate a flame thrower or hand grenades, but my Glock 45 with a 10 round magazine is a semi-auto and could fall into this fray. I don't think the average person needs an UZI for home defense or a MK-19 Automatic 40 mm grenade launcher for deer hunting. But, I think I should be able to own and hunt with an M-1 Grande or M-14 semi-auto rifle.
Go to YouTube and look up speed shooting. There is a dude there who can fire 8 round in 1 second using a revolver. He can do 12 rounds (6 shots, reload, 6 shots in under 3 seconds. I can't make my M-4 (on semi) do 8 shots in 1 second.
The biggest problem I have is with definitions. What exactly is an assault rifle? I own a Ruger 10/22 that has been custom built to target shoot. At 50 feet, I can put 10 rounds into a dime. My 10/22 can also take a 50 round magazine. Would you consider that an assault weapon? Or is it just the current military style rifles that are assault weapons?
The 1994 assault weapons ban identified certain makes and models by name, including the AR-15. Un-named weapons were identified by a list of defining characteristics.
Re-Elect Obama 2012
Defining by characteristics MAKES SENSE (read that as is "reasonable").. provided that the characteristics make sense of course. A functional definition qualifies as making sense... simply because it "looks" this way or that makes no sense. Simply because some firearm is named BIG BAD ARSE should not place it on the list... that was the flaw of the 1994 ban and is a major issue with what CA currently has.
Again, the problem is there is a long barrel version of an AR-15 that is designed for long distance marksmanship that would be extremely unwieldy in an "assault". I have a Remington 870 Tactical 12 gauge shotgun that is designed for "assault", but makes an excellent deer gun. The weapons I mentioned before, the M-1 and the M-14 can both be excellent hunting rifles, but were both designed for war. Are we talking barrel length? Ammo Capacity? Caliber? Looks? What about if I already own some that make the list? Does that allow the government to come in a seize my private property? There goes another Amendment...
Nobody is seizing anything. A ban would only prohibit manufacturing, sales and possession going forward. Existing weapons would be grandfathered in.
Re-Elect..... read the article. It states that current owners of such magazines would be required to rid themselves of them within one year. It also allows confiscation if a "mental health professional" deems you dangerous.............. wow! Do ya' see due process going away??????
Selling a magazine out of state is not confiscation.
Mental health professionals reporting dangerous patients when they believe that a patient may harm themselves or others is reasonable and exactly the kind of precautionary measure that needs to be taken.
Reporting of mental health patients may hvea save 20 5 and 6 year olds.Paul if I were you I would avoid check ups?
Forcing me to sell my property is the same as taking it if I don't want to sell it.
Define "Mental Health Professional". Who is the appeal authority? Someone going through a divorce is most likely mentally distraught, but that doesn't make them dangerous. An abused woman is going to be very mentally distraught, do you take away her guns even if her abuser is still out there?
There was a time when women and blacks were thought to be mentally inferior to white males. That wasn't too long ago either. Determining who is "dangerous" is extremely subjective. Only a judge can make a legal determination if someone should have their privately owned property arbitrarily confiscated. Do you also seize their cars, knives, bats, or rocks? Better yet, let's just lock up the crazy man until he can prove he isn't crazy....
Since they are banning all weapons with 8 or more capacity magazines, every semi automatic hand gun (except 1911's) are useless since smaller magazines aren't available. In essance, this is taking your hand gun away from you, a 22 rifle that a came with a magazine that was made 40 years ago would now be useless, sounds like a constiutional problem for New York.
And don't forget Dan... you would be a criminal for owning that 1960 Colt Woodsman .22 with a 10rd magazine..... or a Marlin Model 60 .22 with a 13rd tubular magazine...
And I wonder what they deem "dangerous" when refering to mental health issues??? If one is deemed "depressed" after the long, painful death of a loved one, given a Prozac and a little time off from work........ would they be banned for life too? Or what about OCD? or ADHD... all mental health issues?
The vague laws we have now have resulted in teenagers being branded "sex offenders" for mooning an old lady..... and now a little depression, compulsive behavior or attention disorders could be branded as "Mental" and Viola'!!!!!!!!!! We can take your gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Existing weapons would be grandfathered in. A ban would only affect manufacturing, sales and possession going forward.
Clinical diagnoses of being a threat to themselves or others are far more specific than simple depression.
Re-Elect Obama 2012
Repeating it doesn't change the fact that there is NOT a grandfather clause in the legislation. Owning a magazine or firearm with more than 7 round capacity would be a misdemeanor after one year.
Again not spelled out in the legislation... a "mental health professional" would be required to report anyone if that person felt the patient was a risk.. it does NOT spell out a diagnosis only some persons opinion that the patient MAY be dangerous without spelling out the process... Please show us in the DSM, current or revised, where there is a "clinical diagnosis of being a threat....."
The way I read it:
NY politicians have passed a law so that only criminals will have more than 7 bullets in their guns.
And when the violence continues to escalate, they will wonder why it is not working and pass more laws!
seriously:
I am for super tight gun control but the problem is
"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
obviously
What type of gun was used in the Sandy Hook shootings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo
During the good old days of the cold war Nikita Khrushchev
(sp) said that the communists would take the USA from the inside. I had no idea it would come about like this. I see this misguided attempt to disarm those
who have lived peacefully as the first step to dismantle our constitution. We have obviously lost the vision of our forefathers and the reason they wrote the grand document in the first place.
Another hundred bucks to the NRA/ILA – I doubt the vast
majority of you even know what that is.
Since they are banning weapons with magazines that hold more than 7 bullets, this will make all semi-automatic hand guns (except 1911's) and 22 rifles that possible were made 40 or 50 years ago useless. I'm not a lawyer, but I think New York has a Constitutional problem.
It was mentioned that there are about 1 million assault weapons in NY alone?? I don't know if that's true but that means close to 1 million voters that own those rifles. So lets see what happens next election. Remember the names of our friends in office that helped pass this law and then remember them next election..... It might not help but it sure won't hurt.....
Obama is a bully - he's gone from zero leadership to attacking the very Nation he is supposed to be leading into prosperity.
Four more years of watching our rights erode and our wallets become thinner.
God help us.
Ben Swann, a local Fox anchor for WXIX-TV in Cincinnati, recently delivered an excoriating fact-check of CNN's Piers Morgan and his anti-gun claims. Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook, many media outlets have essentially remained silent, while taking gun control advocates' talking points at face value.
However, Swann has embraced a very different approach. Last Wednesday, he delved deeply into the debate, intensely fact-checking — in an on-air bit — many of the statistics and statements that the CNN host has most-recently spouted. The segment quickly went viral, raising eyebrows and interest across the blogosphere. On Monday, the local journalist spoke with TheBlaze in detail about the segment.
For Swann, 34, this is nothing new. The journalist regularly does fact checks on statements and scenarios surrounding prominent national issues through WXIX's "Reality Check" segment (an undertaking that the anchor writes, produces and hosts). While his Morgan piece followed the same mold in terms of on-air practices at the station, it has gained the most national attention when compared to past clips.
"The segment that we do called 'Reality Check' — we do this three times per week," he told TheBlaze. "We take things that are going on in the media…and we look to eliminate the bias and opinion out of them. We focus specifically on the facts of the story."
When it comes to Morgan's most recent on-air statements about firearms and gun violence, Swann said that he noticed that the CNN host had been "making a lot of statements that are not quite right." So, he set out to examine the facts, which led to the now-infamous, viral fact-check.
Swann said that he received a few negative e-mails about the segment and that the reaction among individuals who would likely advocate for increased gun control was "much more visceral." These individuals claimed that Swann's facts were wrong and that the segment he produced was incorrect at its core.
"There was a real hatefulness of people who opposed [the Morgan segment] as opposed to people [who stood in opposition to "Reality Check" segments] in the past," he noted.
The local reporter defended his facts and said that assembling the segment took three days of informational gathering. After reviewing critique and the material that followed its initial airing, he did note that there was one indicator that he mentioned that needs to be revisited — so he's planning to do yet another fact check this week — one that clarifies statistics on violent crime.
After the original segment aired, some British viewers informed Swann that the United Kingdom figures violent crime differently than the U.S. So, he's reproaching the numbers "to make more of an apples to apples comparison" to American crime data. In his discussion with TheBlaze, the anchor stressed the importance of being fair and he even advocated that the public fact-check him, too, along the way (which is why he's re-approaching these violent crime numbers).
In the original segment, while exploring the United Kingdom's numbers (Great Britain is part of the UK), Swann noted that the UK has the second-highest overall crime rate in the European Union (EU); the EU has also named Britain the most violent country in the union.
"In the UK, there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people," Swann said in the original clip, showcasing that fewer guns is certainly not indicative of a lower crime rate (the rate in the U.S. is 466 per 100,000 residents).
Even in re-approaching these numbers, the anchor claims that the U.S. still comes out with a more favorable rate. He will release his clarified results during one of this week's "Reality Checks."
"There's a disingenuous argument when you say this is about assault rifles," Swann said of the overarching debate. "For us, it's really an issue of getting into factual numbers so we can have an honest debate."
As for Morgan, Swann said that CNN producers have not yet contacted him, but he assumes they are more than aware of the segment. When asked to weigh in on Morgan's motivations for being so overt about his gun control views, Swann said that there are likely two issues at play. While Morgan seems to be genuine in his push to rid America of assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, there may also be some business elements at play, the journalist contends.
"From a business standpoint, it's an issue that could bring his numbers up — that's not an attack," Swann said. "I also think that he's making a decision to go after people in a way that's not so much about finding solutions to problems, but argue with people about the issue."
Swann also noted that it's important for media and the public, alike, to question and explore the many issues surrounding gun violence. He noted that it's not just a firearms problem that society faces. Families, prescriptions drugs, fatherlessness and numerous related issues have been raised as problematic by some critics. While it's not his job, as a journalist, to definitively determine which issues are at play, Swann said that it's important for media to question "the bigger picture" and to facilitate an exploration
I agree that violent crime has a host of causes all its own, unrelated to firearms. The inclination to commit a violent act won't often be changed by the presence or absence of an assault weapon. However, when a deranged or enraged individual decides inflict his woes on innocent people, wouldn't it be better if his ability to do harm was limited to something less than an automatic weapon loaded with high capacity magazines? Tanks are built for warfare and are the exclusive province of the armed forces, the 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to own a tank that can still fire its cannon. I believe assault rifles should fall into the same category, designed for warfare and used only by our troops to protect our national interests.
Ron, automatic weapons are already illegal. According to FBI statistics of the almost 13,000 murders in the US 358 were committed with rifles (assault weapons fall into this category).
What is amazing is that NO ONE has commented on how this was done behind CLOSED doors by elected PUBLIC officials. Why did they have to meet in SECRET? Were they afraid of a little daylight?
Secret meetings lead to secret government edicts. While I am NOT a believer of conspiracy theories this sort of thing could easily convince a LOT of "normal" people to buy in.
Sounds like a good start NY! I see no problem with these ideas, registering firearms - what have you to hide?, ensuring firearms are locked and protected from unauthorized access - great idea, limiting magazines to 7 rounds - if you need than that to protect your home go back to the range and practice. Such measures would be a lot more effective if they were universal instead of different by merely stepping over a state boundary.
Ron,,, it is your thinking also that all the crooks and robbers will follow all the rules also? There must be some "formal gangs" operating in the state of NY, they too will sell the mags that hold more than 7 rounds out of state in one year?
Does that include hearing a deranged lunatic on the street saying, " We got to kill all them cracker babies...!" ?
It seems that whenever we hear about a shooting in NY, it's not committed with an "assault weapon" it's committed with a handgun. So what exactly is this law supposed to do?
Under the cover of night and the cloak of secrecy while New yorkers slept their elected officials took away a constitutional right!just like in Germany!This is scary folks!
The Second Amendment is already regulated, or "infringed".
Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12#ixzz2I4MPKJ5Q
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/#ixzz2I4MoLOl5
This is so stupid...... All they have to do is ask the bad guys to turn in their guns.......... DUH
Close... When a bad guy breaks into your house and threatens to kill your family, what you should do is talk to the bad guy and ask them nicely to leave. Because the bad guy is really just behaving as a result of his failed childhood relationship with his parents. Its not really the bad guy's fault that he wants to hurt your family. He just has a curable addiction like someone who is addicted to caffeine.
The bad guy has feelings and deserves to be treated kindly, like you would treat your neighbor. If you crazy gun-oweners would just understand this, then you would finally see that we would never need to use guns here in America once we have acheived a perfect society without any violence.
Not sure how this makes any "law abiding citizen" into a criminal. What it will do is make people accountable for the whereabouts of their weapons. And really only the most deadly of those.
Federal law trumps State law. States may not take away from Federal law but may add to it. The question will be does New York's new law infringe on the Federal Constitution in any way? If it does then the State law will be overturned in Federal court or ordered rewritten to comply with the Constitution.
Forcing citizens to sell, or dispose of under duress, or surrender personal property to state officials, legally acquired before the new law went into effect, would certainly appear to be unconstitutional.
A gun grabbing Nazi, like Cuomo, doesn't give a damn about citizen's rights.
Duress? Are all you guys such drama queens?
Interestingly.... you already are a criminal in Texas if you "allow" a minor access to weapons and you can be held liable.
Under the law..... if a juvenile breaks into my home, passed the alarm system, metal door, into the safe and gets a gun, breaks off the trigger lock and kills someone.................I am responsible. Really? And from what I understand... Mich and many other states have similar "interpretations" of "Allow Access."
But if that same drugged up piece of crap steals my car, assaults me or my family... I have to be careful on how I react and answer to a grand jury for protecting my life and property...........We have become a country where we coddle criminals, reward failure and penalize the law abiding citizen..............
Obviously if a juvie gets passed everything you talk about, he's a lot better man than you.
Such snarky remarks Upstate.... must be miserable being you (but don't seek any help as you may be determined "mentally ill")......... simply pointing out that vague laws are open to interpretation......... thus leading to a mess in the long run....
Everything is open to interpretation. Even the 2nd amendment. So your point would be? Make no laws because they aren't 100% effective? Snarky is as valid as impertinent.
upstate John
Duress..... if you possess a firearm or magazine with a capacity of greater than 7 rounds after one year you will be charged with a misdemeanor.... What part of that is NOT duress?
Easily avoidable duress. Unless you are a drama queen and feed off of that sort of thing.
upstate John
Explain how this is easily avoidable without disposing of magazines and firearms that exceed the capacity laws. This would be called a "forced sale".
I remember when the "Brady" Law was passed initially....... they said: Mandatory Background checks. They didn't say what would prohibit one from getting one, what would the process be, who pays for it, who does it or any details. It resulted in a mess of faxes to people and agencies who had no idea what to do with them.... I had customers with parking tickets denied a firearm while another agency in another jurisdiction felt that drug possesion with intent to distribute was NOT a reason to deny them....................
And now we are passing a mishmash of local laws to be intrepreted by whoever is currently in charge and paid for with funds that would go better to Mental Health departments, Women's shelters or........ wait a minute..... Enforcing the laws that are already on the books! (unless there are no laws against criminals owning guns and killing people that is)..................
Federal law trumps State law. States may not take away from Federal law but may add to it. The question will be does New York's new law infringe on the Federal Constitution in any way? If it does then the State law will be overturned in Federal court or ordered rewritten to comply with the Constitution. Forcing citizens to sell, or dispose of under duress, or surrender personal property to state officials, legally acquired before the new law went into effect, would certainly appear to be unconstitutional.
A gun grabbing Nazi, like Cuomo, doesn't give a damn about citizen's rights.
I fail to see how any of the proposed measures would have prevented the crimes they are responding to... The only thing they have done is create criminals out of law abiding citizens.
Did half of you not read the article?
NY is taking away our freedom? self-defence? telling us where to $#*%? What are you people talking about?
Where does it say NYers can't be armed? What I got out of this is we have to go get another toy for our second attachment (ha), fire off 3 rounds on a target and downgrade to 7 cartridge mag... and more importantly it's going to be harder for idiots and crazy people to get guns.
Just like it's "hard" to get drugs or sneak across the borders? Right.......
Criminals (crazys included) will get a gun if they want it.... or a club or knife when they are sure you don't have a gun to protect yourself.............