Yahoo/AP: NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre

Link.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York lawmakers agreed to pass the toughest gun control law in the nation and the first since the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, calling for a stricter assault weapons ban and provisions to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill who make threats.

"This is a scourge on society," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Monday night, six days after making gun control a centerpiece of his agenda in his State of the State address. The bipartisan effort was fueled by the Newtown tragedy that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. "At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life'?"

The measure also calls for restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns. It is expected to pass Tuesday.

Yes, I know that the broad topic of gun control has been beaten to death, shot with various "assault weapons", set on fire, fed through a wood chipper, and is probably in a landfill in New Jersey.

But I would like to see maybe some discussion of this law.

Could we maybe do that? The article mentions several actual things that this law supposedly does. So there's lots of individual line items that we can discuss.

Some of them:

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip. The language specifically targeted the military-style rifle used in the Newtown shootings.

Current owners of those guns will have to register them.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Personally, the assault weapons laws that I've seen, seemed to really focus on cosmetics, to me. Things like whether the weapon was also made in a different version, which was capable of accepting a bayonet mount.

I mean, is a weapon an "assault weapon" if it doesn't have a feature (bayonet mount, flash suppressor, full auto), but it looks the same as a different model that does have it? Really?

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

Stores that sell ammunition will have to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.

Really? Bullet registration?

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

Now, this one I can kind-of understand. Although I do remember somebody, in a different thread on gun control, observing that going down that road might discourage people from seeking help for mental health issues.

Registration is tantamount to disenfranchisement. I wonder how the courts will feel about it.

Registration is tantamount to disenfranchisement. I wonder how the courts will feel about it.

I don't see anything in this law that would raise Constitutional issues. Heller protected the right to bear arms for self-protection in the home, and neither a folding stock, high-capacity magazine, nor unlimited bullets are necessary for home protection.

That's an odd statement, since "disenfranchisement" is usually discussed in the context of voting, and registration is required for voting.

I don't see anything in this law that would raise Constitutional issues. Heller protected the right to bear arms for self-protection in the home, and neither a folding stock, high-capacity magazine, nor unlimited bullets are necessary for home protection.

I believe it deals with the registration of law abiding citizens for practicing constitutional rights and that registration being made public information. You can use that information for the purposes of discrimination, which is why registration has never really been something widely done (but I may be mistaken). It would be like forcing everyone to publicly register their religion. Maybe it is just me being somewhat paranoid. I just generally frown on any reduction in rights.

Like the mental health provision. Ok with the minor alteration of "military-style" weapon. Bullet sales database (and background checks), as well as making ownership of a high cap magazine a crime, seem to fall somewhere between unnecessary and stupid in my opinion.

Question: Should this gun be banned?

M&P 15-22 .22LR 16", 6-POSITION STOCK, 10 ROUND MAG, CALIFORNIA COMPLIANT

States' Rights in action.

He would have been better off going after the gun trade show permits in N.Y., and then registering guns bought out of State.

Question: Should this gun be banned?

It's a .22LR, good for killing squirrels. That's about it. So no.

Also- NY would ban this because it has pistol grip, 6 position stock, and flash suppressor. (as well as a 10 round mag instead of 7)

It certainly does "look scary" though, so I'm sure suburban mothers would feel better if they were off the streets.

I like most of the laws, especially the no internet sales one and background checks on all purchases outside of immediate family. In the gun control thread, I suggested that proper, secure storage of guns should be required by law and that it would curb down gun thefts so I'm glad that law was passed.

I don't have a problem with background checks to buy bullets as I think it is a smart way to check on people who had guns before these laws or who have unregistered guns.

The reduced magazine from 10 to 7 seems odd to me though, and selling them out of state instead of the state buying them or something seems like passing the buck. Still, I'm glad to see some states starting to take measures while still allowing guns.

We don't need gun control. No, what we need is bullet control.

~Chris Rock

Question: Should this gun be banned?

10 rounds.. only good for those .22 killers in CA, not NY.

We don't need gun control. No, what we need is bullet control.

~Chris Rock

"DAAAYYYUUMMM, he MUST have done something." great show

I believe it deals with the registration of law abiding citizens for practicing constitutional rights and that registration being made public information. You can use that information for the purposes of discrimination, which is why registration has never really been something widely done (but I may be mistaken). It would be like forcing everyone to publicly register their religion. Maybe it is just me being somewhat paranoid. I just generally frown on any reduction in rights.

Churches have to register with the government. You need a permit to have a protest march or to hang a billboard. Many Constitutional rights are regulated through licensing.

For the Second Amendment in particular, history is probably not on your side, since early state militias kept registers of personal firearms. I seriously doubt that the courts would reverse course and find that registration violates the Constitution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5258192-504383.html

It's a .22LR, good for killing squirrels. That's about it. So no.

Also- NY would ban this because it has pistol grip, 6 position stock, and flash suppressor. (as well as a 10 round mag instead of 7)

It certainly does "look scary" though, so I'm sure suburban mothers would feel better if they were off the streets.

Pretty much my point. I was hoping a few people would have the chance to freak out over it before it was outed as a 22 though.

Oh, and those bullet/capacity laws are stupid too. 10 rounds is a common capacity. How many law abiding citizens are going to get screwed over that one?

Question: Should this gun be banned?

http://www.impactguns.com/data/default/images/catalog/535/sw_%20811062.jpg

Pretty much my point. I was hoping a few people would have the chance to freak out over it before it was outed as a 22 though.

Oh, and those bullet/capacity laws are stupid too. 10 rounds is a common capacity. How many law abiding citizens are going to get screwed over that one?

I agree the 10 to 7 limit is really dumb. There are probably hundreds of thousands of gun owners in NY that would have to buy new magazines in order to comply. Actually might have been thrown in there for gun companies since people will have to buy new mags.

Also, looks like you got your wish anyway

Yes, if the people of a state believe that the benefits of having this type of gun (it makes it easier to kill criminals in self-defense? it's more fun at the shooting range?) are outweighed by the negatives (it makes it easier to kill innocents? it looks scary?).

I agree the 10 to 7 limit is really dumb. There are probably hundreds of thousands of gun owners in NY that would have to buy new magazines in order to comply. Actually might have been thrown in there for gun companies since people will have to buy new mags.

Also, looks like you got your wish anyway

7 round capacity eliminates all 1911 clones... which is why I think they may have chosen it.

Like the mental health provision. Ok with the minor alteration of "military-style" weapon. Bullet sales database (and background checks), as well as making ownership of a high cap magazine a crime, seem to fall somewhere between unnecessary and stupid in my opinion.

I agree that at the moment, some of those measures seem unnecessary, but the one thing that hasn't happened yet in a mass shooting is where a suspect gets away from the scene. If that does ever happen-doesn't even have to be a mass shooting-, something as insignificant as a empty magazine could be traced back to the purchaser to help identify the suspect or prosecute.

Pretty much my point. I was hoping a few people would have the chance to freak out over it before it was outed as a 22 though.

You do of course realise that an M-16 .223 (which that pic is not) is only slightly larger than a .22, the difference is that it uses a 30.06 casing fir high velocity and range. BTW, that .223 will tear you to pieces. Oh, and we were trained to use it in semi-automatic mode, and when we used full-auto it was in three round bursts. Blasting through an entire magazine on full auto is for suppressive fire and guys who think they're Rambo.

I agree the 10 to 7 limit is really dumb. There are probably hundreds of thousands of gun owners in NY that would have to buy new magazines in order to comply. Actually might have been thrown in there for gun companies since people will have to buy new mags.

Also, looks like you got your wish anyway

Thing is, that not every gun is even available with a smaller clip. The Ruger P89 is a ten year old 9mm full sized handgun with a 15 round capacity. There are no 7 round clips available, nor will there ever be. In fact, the *low capacity* variant clip is 10 rounds. So someone with such a gun who has lawfully and responsibly owned it for years would have to sell it.

Registration is tantamount to disenfranchisement. I wonder how the courts will feel about it.

I dunno amigo, I feel like an agent whose dossier is filling rapidly on someone hitherto off the radar. <insert dead grin smiley>

---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 10:14 AM ----------

It's a .22LR, good for killing squirrels. That's about it. So no.

Cmon dude.You kow there's a lot of people who kill people professionally laughing at that as its stated---besides, it's a most desirable caliber for zombies.

I will go a little (OK maybe pretty far) off topic here.

Would you all be OK with a governmental ban on Automobiles with V8 engines? What if it were "proven" that cars with V8 engines were more likely to result in death when involved in multi-car collisions?

This is about saving lives right?

Maybe I am weird on this, but I fail to see the real difference between a gun murder and a stabbing murder or a bombing murder or intentionally running someone down with a car. "Evil people" will use the tools at their disposal, to cause harm. A side effect of "gun control" legislation is to limit the tools at the disposal of the "good" law abiding people.

To the OP thank you for creating this thread. It is good to read multiple opinions on the issue (even if I disagree with some of them.) perhaps I need a shift in my perspective.

I will go a little (OK maybe pretty far) off topic here.

Would you all be OK with a governmental ban on Automobiles with V8 engines? What if it were "proven" that cars with V8 engines were more likely to result in death when involved in multi-car collisions?

This is about saving lives right?

Maybe I am weird on this, but I fail to see the real difference between a gun murder and a stabbing murder or a bombing murder or intentionally running someone down with a car. "Evil people" will use the tools at their disposal, to cause harm. A side effect of "gun control" legislation is to limit the tools at the disposal of the "good" law abiding people.

To the OP thank you for creating this thread. It is good to read multiple opinions on the issue (even if I disagree with some of them.) perhaps I need a shift in my perspective.

I see your point, but that's why we have speed limits and seat belt laws.

Cmon dude.You kow there's a lot of people who kill people professionally laughing at that as its stated---besides, it's a most desirable caliber for zombies.

Zombies aside, if someone tried a mass shooting with a .22LR there would be a lot more injuries than deaths. It's not very effective unless you hit a vital organ.