some points based on the New York State gun legislation

janklowjanklow god's lonely man.Posts: 5,831 Regulator
so New York quickly rushed through and signed this ban, which i just wanted to make some comments about:
Gov. 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.

New York's law, called the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act:

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.
Most controversially, 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, this should point out that the "high-capacity magazine" concept is bullshit. without debating it in general, the statement has always been that 10-rounds is "acceptable" and more than that is "high-capacity." but here, we have NY defining "high-capacity" as EIGHT rounds or more ... without having to make any kind of logical argument why that is the case.

two, seriously, your law says "you can HAVE the 10-round magazine, but you cannot put more than seven rounds in it?" is there ANY scenario where this matters beyond trying to bang some gun owner with a charge?

three, this "just one feature" is something people do not understand: it's easy to demonize "assault weapons," but when that "one feature" can simple be a detachable magazine, and now weapons with only one feature are getting slammed (and i oh-so-joyously await something similar happening here), you're talking about WWII-era M1 carbines and little plinkers like 10/22s and other stuff no one would otherwise call an "assault weapon."

four, it reminds me of this:

Malcolmxm1carbine3gr.gif

look at that maniac! who defends their home with a one-feature assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine!
bambuWYRMWYRDkingblaze84twatgettaBK Productunspoken_respectPlutarch
«1

Replies

  • jonojono Complacency is the enemy of progress... Posts: 15,980 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'll agree that changing from 10-7 is a bit arbitrary at best, at worst its just petty. I also want to know how they plan to find out how many bullets are in a 10 round clip...are they going to confiscate the weapon to count? If so, Is that a search & seizure (4th amendment) issue?
    Plutarch
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 9,231 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Great thread Janklow, I wonder how easy it would have been for the KKK to kill Malcom X if he didn't have access to an assault weapon.
    Soloman_The_WisePlutarchWild Self
  • The Lonious MonkThe Lonious Monk Man with No Fucks Given Posts: 15,068 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think it's a mixed bag honestly. I agree the arbitrary definition of 8 or more rounds is a bit silly, and the "one feature" thing can lead to a slippery slope. That said, the increased vigilance in screening who gets access to the weapons is good.
    kingblaze84
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    jono wrote: »
    I'll agree that changing from 10-7 is a bit arbitrary at best, at worst its just petty.
    the worst thing about it is at no point that i am aware of did anyone even make an argument about this, beyond, i guess, "well, 7 is less than 10."

    there's also another factor: there are a lot of 10-round magazines on the market for all those guns in all those states that have that limit right now (like NY). but are there a lot of 7-or-less round magazines out there for those guns, guns which are designed for larger-than-10-round magazines anyway?
    jono wrote: »
    I also want to know how they plan to find out how many bullets are in a 10 round clip...are they going to confiscate the weapon to count?
    honestly --and i am admittedly very negative on this point-- i see it simply as a way to harass gun owners and slap them with charges if you can.
    I think it's a mixed bag honestly. I agree the arbitrary definition of 8 or more rounds is a bit silly, and the "one feature" thing can lead to a slippery slope. That said, the increased vigilance in screening who gets access to the weapons is good.
    i would have a little more flex on some of the stuff if:
    a) it wasn't packaged with the aforementioned bullshit;
    b) there was any way the worst stuff would EVER get walked back (it won't);
    c) it was as effective as it seems. mandating private sales have a background check? it SOUNDS great. my state has a less-than-100% version ("regulated firearms" require the transaction to run through our state police) and i've done it, and it wasn't really a big deal. but here's the thing: i'm still consciously obeying the law. what stops actual criminals from saying "fuck it?" well...
    d) the registry wasn't bullshit. really, it's just of being able to do confiscation later and if i recall correctly, Cuomo specifically talked pro-confiscation prior to this;
    e) the part about the "internet ammo" wasn't meant to kill sales of ammunition over the internet without saying so.

    and look, i am not arguing against background checks in principle. i'm completely fine with that. it's the petty, arbitrary shit that drives me up the wall.
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    Great thread Janklow, I wonder how easy it would have been for the KKK to kill Malcom X if he didn't have access to an assault weapon.
    this is where i flip out and say "damn it, it's not an assault weapon! it's a light, controllable WWII-era .30-caliber carbine! this is actually the kind of scenario it's meant for: where a full-sized rifle is too much but you want a rifle for self-defense!"

    (takes deep breath)

    it's just the image i think of when someone tells me you don't need a rifle to defend your home.
    kingblaze84Soloman_The_Wise
  • twatgettatwatgetta Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • unspoken_respectunspoken_respect I smell tittys Posts: 8,969 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I fail to see how these new laws will stop CHILDREN from shooting shit up.

    Also, its not like a person that plans on shooting a large group of people is going to abide by the law just to get from point A to point B. They will use what they need to get the job done. Even if that means slowly and strategically planting a stash in that location or gearing up and heading straight there.

    What's the big picture here?
    Plutarch
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    Also, its not like a person that plans on shooting a large group of people is going to abide by the law just to get from point A to point B.
    well, this stuff is always, always fucking over the law-abiding citizen. take the "universal background check" thing: is it a nice theory? sure. but ultimately you still have to have to two citizens involved in the sale making sure it goes down legally, which is why it would have been nice to push for that WITHOUT poisoning the atmosphere by pairing it with AWB/magazine capacity restriction talk.

    unspoken_respect
  • dr funky resurrecteddr funky resurrected Posts: 868 ✭✭✭✭
    this is the ONLY thing i have ever in my life agreed with conservative right wing republicans on. ever Cuomo is a dumbass for this shit
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    this is the ONLY thing i have ever in my life agreed with conservative right wing republicans on. ever Cuomo is a dumbass for this shit
    well, then you would be the actual demographic that needs to express it to Cuomo and friends

  • dr funky resurrecteddr funky resurrected Posts: 868 ✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    this is the ONLY thing i have ever in my life agreed with conservative right wing republicans on. ever Cuomo is a dumbass for this shit
    well, then you would be the actual demographic that needs to express it to Cuomo and friends

    already signed LOTS of petitions lol

  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    already signed LOTS of petitions lol
    good. no, really, it is, because a lot of pro-gun types in states that are fucking with them are not going to get a legitimate response from the politicians in their states fucking with them.

  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 9,231 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I hear California wants to enact gun laws even stricter then NY smh.....no wonder people are leaving NY and Cali in huge numbers, these laws are only gona make criminals flock to these states. They know they will have easy prey now when planning a home invasion robbery or burglary.....
    Soloman_The_WiseWild Self
  • twatgettatwatgetta Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭✭✭
    New Yorkers are sitting ducks. the Criminals will run shit for sure now.
    kingblaze84
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 9,231 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2013
    twatgetta wrote: »
    New Yorkers are sitting ducks. the Criminals will run shit for sure now.

    If I was living thug life, and had a wide choice of states to choose from to commit home invasions, New York, Chicago, and California would be my prime targets. I'd make a quick couple of stacks easily. An old lady in her home with just 5 bullets in a clip? MAAAAAAAN........it'd be like taking candy from a baby if I brought 3 or 4 of my boys with me. And god help that lady when those 5 bullets run out. Good job Governor Cuomo. You just fucked over Old Lady Patterson and her checking account.
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    I hear California wants to enact gun laws even stricter then NY smh...
    right now, it seems they're going hard with a "neuter your rifles further or it's going to be a felony to continue to possess them" push, among other things. and yet people wonder why gun owners question the need for them to provide the state with a list of rifles to be treated in this fashion.

  • dr funky resurrecteddr funky resurrected Posts: 868 ✭✭✭✭
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    Im bout to get my lower next monday anyway lol bauce
    good luck getting it all kitted out

  • Soloman_The_WiseSoloman_The_Wise The Make It Happen Man... Posts: 1,936 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    John F. Kennedy
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    the actual worst about this all, of course, is that the end result is going to be Obama/Biden talking nonsense but not really accomplishing much federally... and those of us in poorly-run states getting fucked over regardless.
    Soloman_The_Wise
  • Soloman_The_WiseSoloman_The_Wise The Make It Happen Man... Posts: 1,936 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2013
    janklow wrote: »
    the actual worst about this all, of course, is that the end result is going to be Obama/Biden talking nonsense but not really accomplishing much federally... and those of us in poorly-run states getting fucked over regardless.
    on that note...
    A new gun law calls on sheriffs to search the home of assault weapon owners.

    A proposed Washington State gun law will call on the county sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners.
    Seattle Times reported, via Free Republic:

    One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

    Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

    As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

    That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

    “They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

    That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

    Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

    But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

    “In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/17/washington-state-proposed-gun-law-calls-on-sheriff-to-inspect-homes-of-assault-weapon-owners/

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/5737.pdf
  • gem$tonegem$tone Posts: 403 ✭✭✭✭
    Wish I was up on guns like some in here. Don't really want tactical assault rifles, but I would like to own some nice handguns. My next purchase will be a desert eagle. Saw in some other thread @janklow calling it a piece of shit or waste of money, but I think I want it just to have.
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    A new gun law calls on sheriffs to search the home of assault weapon owners.

    A proposed Washington State gun law will call on the county sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners.
    Seattle Times reported, via Free Republic
    it's actually even worse in a way, because one of the sponsors made this claim:
    I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

    “I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

    That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.
    which is bad enough, since you have a guy who's supposedly big on civil liberties co-signing this on the grounds that he didn't read an eight-page bill closely enough. but actually, it might be even worse, because he might actually be outright lying about that:
    Yesterday we wrote about a Washington State “assault” weapons bill, sponsored by two Democrats, that would have required warrantless searches of homes by sheriffs to enforce a new firearm ban. When caught, those Democrats claimed that it was a “mistake.” The media in Washington State duly noted the oversight and did no further investigation. But the blog The Sure Things of Life did investigate further. Guess what they found?

    (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

    (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;

    That’s from a bill that one of the same Democrats, state Sen. Adam Kline, introduced in 2009.

    But wait, there’s more! He introduced similar language in a gun bill in 2005.

    (b) Unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the sheriff of the county in which the weapon is usually stored;

    (c) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;

    That’s an awfully consistent “mistake” to keep making, across three bills and eight long years.

    This isn’t a mistake. It’s history. Adam Kline has a history of trying to slip a police state into anti-gun legislation. If some legislator hadn’t thought to actually read the bill before any votes had occurred, it may well have become the law in Washington — third try would have been the charm.

    The Seattle Times reporter who bought the “mistake” excuse, Danny Westneat, hasn’t corrected the record. I’m not holding my breath that he ever will.
    it remains incredibly frustrating to me how people can worry so much about civil liberties only to stop caring when guns are involved.
    Soloman_The_Wise
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,831 Regulator
    gem$tone wrote: »
    Wish I was up on guns like some in here.
    well, you know, this is what i really care about (and it shows, i guess). some dudes like cars.
    gem$tone wrote: »
    Don't really want tactical assault rifles, but I would like to own some nice handguns. My next purchase will be a desert eagle. Saw in some other thread @janklow calling it a piece of shit or waste of money, but I think I want it just to have.
    let me be clear about my position on the Desert Eagle. my primary problems with it on this forum have been:
    --it is an overpriced gun for what it does;
    --it is a TERRIBLE choice for a home-defense handgun (this, i think, is usually when i start trashing it);
    --it's got a history of reliability issues, and the larger the round it's chambered for, the worse they get;
    --how annoying i get when i am in a gun shop that's selling a DE and some teenage boys come in and have the most childish display of joy at the sight of it. disgusting.

    now, all that being said, if you really want one? and the price isn't an issue? and it's more of a range toy than anything else? buy a Desert Eagle and enjoy it. i definitely own some firearms that, strictly speaking, aren't much more than fun range toys when you consider the totality of my collection. my major concern is typically the dude who owns no guns but intends to make a DE his first one ever because he wants a pistol for home defense.

    but let me add this: if you're in a state where you're looking at an AWB and you might ever want a "tactical assault rifle," you should think about it, because despite all the purple prose being spilled about them, they're great tools and great fun. and there are situations where an AR-15 is a solid, if not the best, home defense or hunting or sporting solution. now, if you're not looking at a ban or you just don't like them? no worries. might want to give them a try sometime, though.

    Soloman_The_Wise
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.