New York magazine capacity limits to be suspended

[Broondog]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/misfiring_squad_9noW09cc6725TETcursqxJ


ALBANY — Gov. Cuomo and state lawmakers rushed a gun-control law through in January that prohibits the sale of magazines that can hold more than seven bullets, the nation’s lowest limit.


Problem is, nobody makes seven-bullet magazines.


Now, state leaders are planning to suspend the prohibition, which is due to take effect April 15, until they can rewrite the measure.


The nation’s first new gun-control law since last December’s Newtown school massacre reduces the number of bullets allowed in a magazine to seven from 10, except at firing ranges and shooting competitions.

“Gun manufacturers don’t make seven-round magazines and aren’t planning to,” Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver conceded yesterday.



i love how things backfire on these idiots when they don't fully think things through.

[was_peacemaker]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/misfiring_squad_9noW09cc6725TETcursqxJ



i love how things backfire on these idiots when they don't fully think things through.

Well this is good news for sure. Hope it helps ole Krupski out.

[deth502]

state leaders are planning to suspend the prohibition until they can rewrite the measure.

all meaningless bullshit. its still on the table. id bet anything the only revision being made is the leo exemption they forgot the first time.

[was_peacemaker]

all meaningless bullshit. its still on the table. id bet anything the only revision being made is the leo exemption they forgot the first time.

Good point! I forgot about that. Like someone here on the board said about a week ago....check the other hand they are holding.

[Skip]

As Nancy P stated for ObamaCare. We have to sign it to see what's in it.
It's like signing a mortage before seeing how much your monthly payments are.

[ltorlo64]

As Nancy P stated for ObamaCare. We have to sign it to see what's in it.
It's like signing a mortage before seeing how much your monthly payments are.

Great analogy.

[Schuetzenman]

Two faced bastards, they'll probably reset it to 10 rounds or as mentioned write an exception for the local Gestap. ... err, I mean law enfarcement .... I mean Police Officers.

[imanaknut]

Like Schuetzenman said, they will probably just rewrite it to 10 rounds since most if not all manufacturers make a mag that size already.

Regardless as to the mag issue, isn't the bigger thing that you have to register or turn in your "evil" weapons by a certain date?

[Penguin]

all meaningless bullshit. its still on the table. id bet anything the only revision being made is the leo exemption they forgot the first time.

That was the first thing that cross my mind as well.

[Gunner1558]

Cumo was on the local news with a statement to the effect that "I realize there are no manufacturers making 7 round clips, so we will have to change the law to allow 10 round magazines, but they will only be allowed to load 7 rounds."

This is not a direct quote, word for word, but it is very close to the drivel that he spewed.

[ltorlo64]

Cumo was on the local news with a statement to the effect that "I realize there are no manufacturers making 7 round clips, so we will have to change the law to allow 10 round magazines, but they will only be allowed to load 7 rounds."

This is not a direct quote, word for word, but it is very close to the drivel that he spewed.

Isn't that what his insanely stupid law already says?

[rci2950]

so looking at this, of all the moronic liberal, gobblygook, rat shit they attempted to chip away at the constitution with, what actually remains?

looks to me that it all turned into dust....

[Krupski]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/misfiring_squad_9noW09cc6725TETcursqxJ



i love how things backfire on these idiots when they don't fully think things through.

Lawsuit (PDF): www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NYSRPA-SAFE-Lawsuit.pdf (http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NYSRPA-SAFE-Lawsuit.pdf)

Some relevant parts for those of you too lazy to read it (bold text by me - not bold in original):


This is an action to vindicate the right of the people of the State of New York to keep
and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits
infringement of the right of law-abiding citizens to keep commonly-possessed firearms in the home
for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes.


The Act’s restriction of ammunition sales to New York businesses authorized by the
State Police violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, which is inherent in the power of Congress “to
regulate commerce . . . among the several States,” as provided by Article I, § 8, cl. 3, of the United
States Constitution.

Prior to the Act, ammunition could be lawfully purchased from entities in New York
and outside New York. It was not required that ammunition be purchased from a seller of
ammunition registered with the State Police or from a licensed dealer in firearms.

The effect of § 400.03 is to grant a monopoly on ammunition sales to sellers of
ammunition and dealers in firearms which are based only in New York. By allowing in-state
businesses to sell ammunition directly to consumers in New York but prohibiting out-of-state
businesses from doing so, the Act discriminates against interstate commerce, in violation of the
Commerce Clause.


“Can be readily restored or converted to accept”
144. Several provisions refer an ammunition feeding device that “has a capacity of, or that
can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than” either seven or ten rounds of ammunition.
§§ 265.00(23), 265.02(8), 265.36, & 265.37. These terms fail to inform a reasonable person as to
who can readily restore or convert such devices, whether lay persons or trained experts with the
requisite knowledge and skill, and with what equipment, ranging from common household tools to
machine shops. Nor do these provisions inform a reasonable person as to how much time is
encompassed in “readily.”

145. An ordinary person may be able to ascertain the capacity of a magazine by counting
the number of rounds that may be inserted into the magazine. However, such person would not
know by outward examination of a magazine if it “can be readily restored or converted to accept,
more than” a certain number of rounds. Just to begin the inquiry, one would be required to
disassemble every magazine in one’s possession, if one has the knowledge and skill to do so, and if
the magazine is capable of being disassembled without destroying it.

146. If the magazine is disassembled, the resultant pile of parts would not inform one
whether it “can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than” a certain number of rounds,
and if so, how many. The average person may not be able to reassemble the magazine, and to do so
in a manner that would decrease the number of rounds it will hold. That would likely require the
alteration, cutting, filing, or other manipulation of parts, matters about which the ordinary person
would have no information.


“Manufactured weight”
171. “Assault weapon” is defined to include certain pistols with “a manufactured weight
of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded . . . .” § 265.00(22)(c)(vii). A reasonable
person has no way to know the weight of a pistol when it was manufactured. Slides, barrels, grips,
and other components of a pistol may easily be changed that would alter its weight.
172. Accordingly, the terms “a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the
pistol is unloaded” are unconstitutionally vague.


In sum, all of the aforesaid terms and definitions fail to give notice of the conduct
proscribed, are unconstitutionally vague, and violate the right of plaintiffs and members of plaintiff
associations not to be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, contrary to
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and are thus void.



This is in addition to the court order that requires NY to prove the Constitutionality of the "Safe" act by 29 April, or else an injunction will be issued against it.

This heinous law is going down in flames. And then the rest of you guys in other states will have a good legal precedent to use against the stupid crap YOUR states are doing.

[Krupski]

Two faced bastards, they'll probably reset it to 10 rounds or as mentioned write an exception for the local Gestap. ... err, I mean law enfarcement .... I mean Police Officers.

The "Gestapo" is the NY STATE police. The local police and local sheriffs from almost every NY county have issued statements and resolutions stating that they do not support and do not plan to enforce the "Safe" act.

It's only the STATE police (i.e. Cuomo's personal stormtroopers) who you have to watch out for.

[Krupski]

Well this is good news for sure. Hope it helps ole Krupski out.

"Ole Krupski" doesn't give a rat's ass what Cuomo thinks......

http://www.gunsnet.net/photopost/data/500/pmag.jpg

http://www.gunsnet.net/photopost/data/500/beta-c-mag.jpg


Yes Andy, those "clips" are loaded with 7 "bullets". And a lot more.


Hey Cuomo! :flip-bird:

[Partisan1983]

Once a Torrey state....always a Torrey state.


Sorry Krupski (nothing against you).

[ltorlo64]

Krupski,
One question, where in the Second Amendment does it say "commonly used firearms"? I hate it when lawyers add things that are not there and then then become law based on precedent.

[N/A]

Krupski,
One question, where in the Second Amendment does it say "commonly used firearms"? I hate it when lawyers add things that are not there and then then become law based on precedent.

I think it was the SCOTUS that made the distinction that the 2nd was intended to protect the firearms in "common use". Their interpretation of what the Founders of the Nation intended.

[imanaknut]

On another note, I finally couldn't take it anymore and fixed the title of this thread. :smiley31:

[ltorlo64]

I think it was the SCOTUS that made the distinction that the 2nd was intended to protect the firearms in "common use". Their interpretation of what the Founders of the Nation intended.

So who determines what "common use" is? That seems like a definition that could be used against us quite easily. For instance, the majority of guns owned are .22s, so all other firearms would not be as common. I know it was not Krupski that wrote it, he just posted what lawyers had decided what the law should be. I don't know why they can't just go with the words as written.

[Krupski]

I think it was the SCOTUS that made the distinction that the 2nd was intended to protect the firearms in "common use". Their interpretation of what the Founders of the Nation intended.

Yes you are correct. The SCOTUS ruling that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to use firearms "in common use" was to defeat the logic that 2A only applied to "muskets".

[Krupski]

On another note, I finally couldn't take it anymore and fixed the title of this thread. :smiley31:

What was the title before? I didn't notice.

[imanaknut]

What was the title before? I didn't notice.

"Nev York"

[N/A]

"Nev York" The Socialist spelling....kinda like saying Amerika when talking about the socialist take over.

[imanaknut]

The Socialist spelling....kinda like saying Amerika when talking about the socialist take over.

OK, I missed that. PM sent to Broondog.

[N/A]

OK, I missed that. PM sent to Broondog.

LOL....I made that up....

[weevil]

It's a stupid law cobbled together by idiots with no regard for the Constitution or the personal freedoms and rights of the people.


Tyranny at it's finest, just like Bloomberg's "arbitrary and capricious" soda-pop law.

[imanaknut]

LOL....I made that up....


Actually I like the idea!

[N/A]

Actually I like the idea!

LOL again....I had thought about starting to use it.

Nev York, USSA, Amerika

[Broondog]

"Nev York"


The Socialist spelling....kinda like saying Amerika when talking about the socialist take over.

actually it was a complete brain fart and typo on my part. thanks for catching that and fixing it up Nut. :thumbsup:


carry on!