Background checks on everything including ammo sounds good to me. But, I can't help but notice that reduction of magazine capacity is exactly what many pro-gun folks predicted. They said if we agree to a certain number, the gun control side will then want to lower it further. But, whether that means it's a bad thing, I don't know.Mr. Cuomo’s aides said the proposed legislation in New York would expand the definition of what is considered an assault weapon to match California’s law, currently the most restrictive in the nation. But the overall package would go further, they said, by limiting detachable ammunition magazines to 7 rounds from the current 10, and requiring background checks for purchases of ammunition, not just weapons.Limiting magazines to seven rounds would give New York the toughest restrictions in the nation. Only around half a dozen states currently limit the size of magazines, and most of them allow magazines that contain up to 10 rounds, according to a survey by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates gun control. The New York law would also close a loophole that has thwarted enforcement of limits on the size of magazines.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Illinois may also set the example with SB2899, which will impose some much needed disarmament.
ReplyDeleteThank the gods I don't live in New York. I feel sorry for the citizens of that state, but the reports that I've heard say that the state senate may throw a spanner in the works. And yes, Mikeb, this is an illustration of what we've told you for a long time. There's no end to what your side would take, given the chance.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThank you for acknowledging that about the magazine size limit. Your admission there shows more integrity than many people I've debated on this issue--If I were wearing my hat right now, it would be tipped.
I hadn't heard about the reduction to 7, but I had heard about the "loophole" the article refers to closing. This isn't a loophole, but is an intentional feature of the previous ban that said that pre-ban magazines would be grandfathered. The argument Cuomo has made is that magazines don't have serial numbers, so there is no way to track them and when they are made.
The thing is, this isn't totally true. I have three 12 round magazines for my .45. One predates the '94 ban and has a plain body. The other two have text stamped into them saying 9-94 Restricted Law Enforcement & Military Use Only... They're legal here since the AWB has expired, but would be illegal in NY, MA, CT, CA, etc. Many, if not all, manufacturers have continued putting these or similar stamps on magazines because of these states and their bans, so while you can't show the exact date of the magazine's manufacture, you can typically tell if it was made before these bans.
To close this "loophole," the plan is to have a mandatory, uncompensated turn in of all of these magazines. This deprivation of property would be bad enough if it was just for the 12, 13, and 15 round magazines that were grandfathered, but this new info makes it far worse since the standard capacity of most handguns is over 7 rounds, so most people have 8-10 round magazines that are either standard capacity for the gun, or a reduced capacity one manufactured specifically for the current ban.
This means that all of these people will be deprived of their magazines and will have an unusable gun (or a single shot if they're lucky enough to have a model that will fire without a magazine in it) until the manufacturers can design even more reduced capacity magazines, manufacture them, and ship them to stores in NY.
Moreover, there will be many people who will have to turn in pistols because every target shooting .22 revolver I've ever seen was designed with a 9 shot cylinder.
This is a remarkably bad law. I disliked what I knew of it, but with this added to it, this is worthy of utilizing some molasses and feathers.
The goal is to turn otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals. Many won't be aware of this new magic number. Some will refuse to comply. But anyone caught with a standard magazine will be called a criminal by the benighted government of New York. That way, the person can be thoroughly disarmed--the goal of gun control freaks.
DeleteThe goal is the gaol.
DeleteWhy should you interfere on a criminal's right to incarceration?
I'll admit another thing. There are those on my side of the debate who are doing just what you say, secretly planning an incremental reduction of gun rights until none remain for civilians. I don't think they are in the majority, though.
DeleteCan you recognize that your desires, if achieved, would enable theirs?
DeleteArbitrary and ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteExactly. The primary objective of the judicial system is to achieve the maximum level of incarceration that is legally and fiscally permissible.
DeleteThe fact that you don't really believe this bull and are trolling is showing
DeleteI'm so glad "no one wants to take your guns"...
ReplyDeleteFrom the proposed legislation in New York as it prepares to "lead the nation in gun control": Section 265.20 of the penal law is amended by adding a new subdi
vision e to read as follows:
E. POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON ON PROPERTY OWNED OR IMMEDIATELY
CONTROLLED BY THE PERSON, OR WHILE ON THE PREMISES OF A LICENSED
GUNSMITH FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAWFUL REPAIR, OR WHILE ENGAGED IN THE LEGAL
USE OF THE ASSAULT WEAPON AT A DULY LICENSED FIRING RANGE, OR WHILE
TRAVELING TO OR FROM THESE LOCATIONS, BY A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED
SUCH WEAPON PRIOR TO JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN AND WHO, PRIOR
TO APRIL FIRST, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN:
1. RENDERS THE ASSAULT WEAPON PERMANENTLY INOPERABLE; OR
2. SURRENDERS THE ASSAULT WEAPON TO THE APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY AS PROVIDED FOR IN SUBPARAGRAPH (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF SUBDIVI
SION A OF THIS SECTION. You can read it all here: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S1422-2013