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

[DjTj]

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?

Yes, people are not allowed to buy military-style tanks because they will destroy the roads if driven on them. We are not allowed to drive rocket-powered cars because they go to fast and shoot a ball of flaming gas at cars behind them.

If a V8 engine is somehow found to make cars significantly more dangerous then yes, of course we should ban them. There is no constitutional right to own whatever car you want.

---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 01:36 PM ----------

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.

Are the guns that "evil people" use for mass murder different from the guns that "good people" use for self-defense? To perpetrate a mass murder, an automatic or semiautomatic rifle with a high-capacity drum is probably the most effective weapon. To stop a murderer, a shotgun might be best or a concealed handgun that the attacker can't see. Or a well-placed sniper round.

A lot of people are pointing out inconveniences that this law will cause for gun owners. But I don't see anyone pointing out a need for the guns that are being banned.

[twa]

whatever floats their boat

is this illegal there then?

12+ capacity

I do like the mental one

---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 12:48 PM ----------

A lot of people are pointing out inconveniences that this law will cause for gun owners. But I don't see anyone pointing out a need for the guns that are being banned.

Need has no bearing on rights

[Sticksboi05]

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.

How many times will we pretend that comparing cars and guns is realistic?

[Popeman38]

Yes, people are not allowed to buy military-style tanks because they will destroy the roads if driven on them. We are not allowed to drive rocket-powered cars because they go to fast and shoot a ball of flaming gas at cars behind them.

If a V8 engine is somehow found to make cars significantly more dangerous then yes, of course we should ban them. There is no constitutional right to own whatever car you want.

What if it was a car with a conversion kit to make it appear "military style"? "Military style" only means cosmetic. There is no "military style" functionality to an AR-15. It is in no way equal to an M-4/M-16. There is no automatic fire, there is no burst fire. It is a semi-automatic civilian version of the M-16 (notice the word CIVILIAN?) An AR-15 fires what size round? .223 (a 22 long rifle fires a .222 round, hmmmm). We ALREADY have restrictions in place to prevent people from buying military weapons. So now, I can buy a .22 bolt action rifle and do the EXACT damage an AR-15 does. This debate needs MEANINGFUL proposals. What NY is doing isn't going to do anything to impact Sandy Hook type events. But I bet they feel good about themselves.

[Sticksboi05]

What if it was a car with a conversion kit to make it appear "military style"? "Military style" only means cosmetic. There is no "military style" functionality to an AR-15. It is in no way equal to an M-4/M-16. There is no automatic fire, there is no burst fire. It is a semi-automatic civilian version of the M-16 (notice the word CIVILIAN?) An AR-15 fires what size round? .223 (a 22 long rifle fires a .222 round, hmmmm). We ALREADY have restrictions in place to prevent people from buying military weapons. So now, I can buy a .22 bolt action rifle and do the EXACT damage an AR-15 does. This debate needs MEANINGFUL proposals. What NY is doing isn't going to do anything to impact Sandy Hook type events. But I bet they feel good about themselves.

I agree the magazine restriction is like, uh, what? Best part of the law is the mental health provision.

[Popeman38]

I agree the magazine restriction is like, uh, what? Best part of the law is the mental health provision.

How will they execute that? What is the difference between a dream/fantasy/realistic threat? If a mental health expert thought a patient posed an imminent safety risk to themselves and others, they already possessed the power to intervene.

[Sticksboi05]

How will they execute that? What is the difference between a dream/fantasy/realistic threat? If a mental health expert thought a patient posed an imminent safety risk to themselves and others, they already possessed the power to intervene.

We won't know until the law is actually in full writing I suppose.

[DjTj]

Need has no bearing on rights

Of course it does. Westboro Baptist Church has a right to protest at funerals. But do they need to be in the middle of the ceremony? No, they can exercise their rights at the entrance to the cemetery.

We have a right to vote. But do we get to vote however we want whenever we want? No, we get assistance in voting (with a translator, extended hours, braille ,etc.) only if we show that we need it.

We have a right to bear arms to protect ourselves. But do we need rocket-propelled grenades to do that? No we don't.

A right doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want as long as you call it "speech" or "religion" or "arms." A right means that the government can't take away what you need to exercise your right to speak, to worship, or to defend yourself.

[bobbi3stix]

I think having any sort of publicly accessed register of gun owners is completely a disaster of an idea. I'm not legal expert, but for some reason I thought that was illegal to keep track of who owns guns? But in either case, you just made a shopping list for thiefs IMO.

[DC9]

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 was going to say... if you shoot someone with a .22 MOST of the time it doesn't go in and out like larger rounds will... it'll either get into a vein or artery and ride it for a while or it'll bounce around inside the body.

I'd much rather be shot in the leg with a .45 than a .22.

[SkinsWarrior81]

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 ----------

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.

Now that is unfair. Just because you are not outwardly a gun advocate (that I have seen) doesn't mean that firearms and ammunition registration is not a pretty slippery slope for rights erosion.

Also - Walther P22 for zombies.. super awesome.

[DjTj]

I think having any sort of publicly accessed register of gun owners is completely a disaster of an idea. I'm not legal expert, but for some reason I thought that was illegal to keep track of who owns guns? But in either case, you just made a shopping list for thiefs IMO.

You probably believe that because the NRA has been pushing that line for a few decades. DC has mandatory gun registration, and many other states require registration of handguns.

I don't see anything in the proposed New York law that requires the register to be publicly accessible, and I don't think the DC register is. Concealed carry permit databases are often publicly accessible, however.

[SkinsWarrior81]

You probably believe that because the NRA has been pushing that line for a few decades. DC has mandatory gun registration, and many other states require registration of handguns.

I don't see anything in the proposed New York law that requires the register to be publicly accessible, and I don't think the DC register is. Concealed carry permit databases are often publicly accessible, however.

Actually - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/gawker-posts-list-of-new-york-gun-owners.html

In NY, the lists are already public record for everyone who is registered.

---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 02:34 PM ----------

You probably believe that because the NRA has been pushing that line for a few decades. DC has mandatory gun registration, and many other states require registration of handguns.

I don't see anything in the proposed New York law that requires the register to be publicly accessible, and I don't think the DC register is. Concealed carry permit databases are often publicly accessible, however.

Also, I believe, like voter disenfranchisement (PA Voter ID, etc.), forcing a background check and registration on every citizen to purchase a firearm prevents/hinders them form exercising their right to bear arms. The same reasons apply, though current ideology or interpretation may be different by the courts. I am not a fan of either provision or any such thing that makes it more difficult for you to exercise constitutional rights.

[DjTj]

Actually - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/gawker-posts-list-of-new-york-gun-owners.html

In NY, the lists are already public record for everyone who is registered.

That is a previous law, and if anything, I think it's likely that the gun control legislation that ultimately passes in New York will make the registration information confidential.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130104/NEWS/301040103/Rockland-officials-call-legislation-limit-access-gun-permit-data?nclick_check=1

Also, I believe, like voter disenfranchisement (PA Voter ID, etc.), forcing a background check and registration on every citizen to purchase a firearm prevents/hinders them form exercising their right to bear arms. The same reasons apply, though current ideology or interpretation may be different by the courts. I am not a fan of either provision or any such thing that makes it more difficult for you to exercise constitutional rights.

But we need to have some reasonable regulations to prevent fraud and/or to protect public safety, don't we?

We can't have voting with zero registration or verification of identity whatsoever. If we did, then everyone could vote multiple times, and foreign citizens could vote, and we wouldn't be able to trust the outcomes of our elections.

We also can't have gun ownership with zero registration or background checks. Do you want convicted felons to be able to buy guns? Fugitives with outstanding warrants? Should children be able to buy guns?

The Constitution provides flexibility for us to balance public safety and private rights. It is a bad idea to go too far in either direction.

[frostyj]

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.

Wouldn't a spacer be used in the bottom of the magazine to limit the amount of ammo?

[Stugein]

- 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.

This seems silly to me. It's like saying you own a race car because you paint racing stripes on it. I'm not sure exactly what this part of the law is accomplishing.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer.

I'm fine with this. I've always believed that if a gun couldn't be bought from a dealer legally, then it shouldn't be available legally through private sale either. As long as it is not cumbersome (say some online mechanism or for a nominal fee at the gun shop) for the private seller to initiate and get the results of the background check, then I don't have a problem with this.

New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet...

Ehhh...this I'm not a fan of. So long as the transaction is with a registered firearms dealer and all the required application and background requirements are met, then the avenue of sale doesn't make a difference. I don't see what this accomplishes. Restriction for restriction's sake.

and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Any responsible gun owner will be doing this anyway. I'm fine with misdemeanors for those who don't.

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.

7 bullets? Really? This is too low imo. This has nothing to do with "assault rifles" or anything of the sort. Even standard handgun magazines hold 8-10 in many basic cases. This is going to make magazines owned by (assuming) most legal firearms owners in NY illegal. Unless I'm reading this wrong (always possible), its going to outlaw way more than I'm comfortable with.

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.

I don't know what else to say about this. Registering bullet sales? Really?

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.

This one here is on shaky ground and they have to be careful. You don't want to discourage people who need psychiatric care from talking to their doctors. Every time you add a "but they can report you for this..or for this..or if you say this.." it undermines that comfort that exists in the doctor-patient relationship. On the other hand you don't want someone who is a clear violent threat in the doctor's opinion to have access to guns. You also have to ask how far this will go. What defines a "credible threat"? Sure, if a patient says "I'm going to go shoot/kill this person/persons" directly..but...someone feeling depressed, say they've contemplated suicide, the next day their guns are confiscated and they're on a list? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that idea. This one is tough.

[SkinsWarrior81]

That is a previous law, and if anything, I think it's likely that the gun control legislation that ultimately passes in New York will make the registration information confidential.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130104/NEWS/301040103/Rockland-officials-call-legislation-limit-access-gun-permit-data?nclick_check=1

But we need to have some reasonable regulations to prevent fraud and/or to protect public safety, don't we?

We can't have voting with zero registration or verification of identity whatsoever. If we did, then everyone could vote multiple times, and foreign citizens could vote, and we wouldn't be able to trust the outcomes of our elections.

We also can't have gun ownership with zero registration or background checks. Do you want convicted felons to be able to buy guns? Fugitives with outstanding warrants? Should children be able to buy guns?

The Constitution provides flexibility for us to balance public safety and private rights. It is a bad idea to go too far in either direction.

Obviously public safety / voter fraud are important issues. I think the notions behind the reform for them are generally well intended but fail to meet the mark. I know that in PA, the republican state congress pushed through voter ID even though the incidents of voter fraud were insanely low. The dems claimed it was so that they could suppress the vote in urban areas and the elderly. I think a bit of both sides were right, but I cannot say I agree with the idea of making it more difficult for a person to vote. Much in the same way that forcing every gun owner to register their guns on a potential of a list being kept by the government to be confidential is a bit out there for my tastes. The idea was that the populace would be armed.. not that the government would be able to keep tabs on every citizen who was. I think there should be a discussion on the legality of it at least.

I think my main issue with the new law in NY is that it does not actually seem to address a lot of the problems with gun violence there... it just passes laws that cause a hardship for law abiding citizens.

---------- Post added January-15th-2013 at 02:57 PM ----------

Wouldn't a spacer be used in the bottom of the magazine to limit the amount of ammo?

It depends on if the company is willing to make such a thing and if the bill has a provision for altered mags I suppose.

[DjTj]

The idea was that the populace would be armed.. not that the government would be able to keep tabs on every citizen who was. I think there should be a discussion on the legality of it at least.

I am sure the NRA and other organizations will challenge the legality of the law, but I doubt that it will go anywhere. The plaintiffs specifically decided not to challenge the registration requirement in DC in Heller.

I think my main issue with the new law in NY is that it does not actually seem to address a lot of the problems with gun violence there... it just passes laws that cause a hardship for law abiding citizens.

What type of law do you think would actually address the gun violence problem? I think that legislators are just trying to do what they can within the Constitutional limits.

[twa]

Of course it does. Westboro Baptist Church has a right to protest at funerals. But do they need to be in the middle of the ceremony? No, they can exercise their rights at the entrance to the cemetery.

.

They don't protest in the middle because they are restricted to public property

reasonable restrictions come from justifiable reasons...but I will be happy to apply your need test to abortion and speech :evilg:

[mikered30]

Someone who wants to commit mass murder will find a way to get these weapons,either through a relative or a neighbor, or stealing. This law punishes the law abiding. If criminals followed the law, then they wouldn't be criminals. What do they care if the are breaking the law in a gun free school zone with a ten round clip if they want to kill people? This is just a feel good law.

[MattFancy]

Someone who wants to commit mass murder will find a way to get these weapons,either through a relative or a neighbor, or stealing. This law punishes the law abiding. If criminals followed the law, then they wouldn't be criminals. What do they care if the are breaking the law in a gun free school zone with a ten round clip if they want to kill people? This is just a feel good law.

Someone who wants to drive drunk will find a way to drive drunk. The law punishes the law abiding. If the criminals followed the law, then they wouldn't be criminals. Why do they care if they are breaking the law in a drug free school zone if they want to drive drunk. This is just a feel good law.

See what I did there?

[chasefan31]

Under the new NY state laws I would have to sell 9 of my 11 hunting guns, none of which are Armalite Rifles. The only guns I can think of that would have 7 or less capacity would be shotguns, and ultra compacts. Most species I hunt are illegal to shoot with a shotgun, or barrel less than 4" long, leaving me only a muzzleloader and bow. Even then, it's illegal to shoot any furbearer with a shotgun, and illegal to shoot most species with a bow. Basically, there would be very limited hunting, with decreased success rates. Some species populations would soar into disasterous levels, and most likely be nearly wiped out by disease, causing massive government spending to thin out the herd. Oh well, at least the criminals will follow all the same laws that I have to. The laws against murdering someone, or carrying into gun free zones sure seem to be working, so I'm sure criminals will heed this one as well.

[SkinsWarrior81]

I am sure the NRA and other organizations will challenge the legality of the law, but I doubt that it will go anywhere. The plaintiffs specifically decided not to challenge the registration requirement in DC in Heller.

What type of law do you think would actually address the gun violence problem? I think that legislators are just trying to do what they can within the Constitutional limits.

I actually am not sure what specific law would cause an immediate drop in gun violence. Gun violence is already illegal, etc. One measure that I was thinking was to enact a 10% purchase price tax o every new firearm bought from a licensed dealer. The moneys would go to compulsory classes on safety and training on that specific weapon for the first time buyers. the buyer would not be able to receive their firearm until such a time that an evaluation on proficiency could be made by the licensed dealer, whom could instruct the class at that time or at a later date and hold the weapon for the buyer.

I would make the class free for all previous gun owners to take.

I would also loosen drug laws / end the war on drugs. A lot of violent crime stems from the perceived value of drugs... without that value.. there is not much reason to fight. (That is my logic at any rate).

[Larry]

So, does anybody think that their restrictions on magazine capacity will have any effect at all, other than being a massive PITA for current owners? (And, maybe, some money for the manufacturers of special, "NY only" magazines?)

[AsburySkinsFan]

So, does anybody think that their restrictions on magazine capacity will have any effect at all, other than being a massive PITA for current owners? (And, maybe, some money for the manufacturers of special, "NY only" magazines?)

Not sure, but I know that the three round max cap in my 12 gauge slows me down. BTW, a magazine can be easily modified to accept fewer rounds, in the exact same way my shotgun is modified.