warzer0 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 ....and people wonder why I find New York distasteful. http://www.washingto...al-gun-control/ MILLER: New York's radical gun-control law By Emily Miller - The Washington Times January 15, 2013, 02:34PM Gov. Andrew Cuomo is the first to successfully exploit the Newtown, Conn. tragedy to pass the most radical and pointless gun-control law of any state in the country. The most dramatic changes in New York will be to lower the limit on magazines from 10 to only seven rounds and a full ban on all so-called assault weapons. The deal was crafted quickly and behind closed doors in Albany to maximize the urgency of the emotions from the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and minimize input from groups representing gun owners. The first-term Democratic governor announced the legislative priority just last week and signed it into law Tuesday evening. The Democratic Assembly the bill Tuesday the bill 104-43, one day after the state Senate approved it 43-18. While the state already bans semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have two characteristics -- unrelated to the function of the firearm -- like a folding stock or pistol grip, the new law expands the ban to just one. That essentially makes illegal all rifles with cosmetic features that the politicians decide are scary. The entire Empire State would adopt mandatory registration for every gun purchase, as is done by the police in New York City. Counties who grant lifetime gun permit would be forced to make them renewable every five years (with increasing fees.) Federal background checks would be instituted for even private gun sales. Albany would begin mandatory storage laws, similar to the ones struck down by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision in 2008. Current owners of a now-certified "high capacity ammunition feeding device" -- over 7 rounds -- will have one year to sell or give them away out of state or face a class A misdemeanor charge. Dealers will have to start recording every ammunition sale with the buyer's name, age, occupation and residence. Gun retailers will have to record for the state police every sale that involves a firearm. The seller will have to record the buyer's name, age, occupation and home address, along with the calibre, make, model, manufacturer's name and serial number. Although Mr. Cuomo said Monday that gun violence was a "scourge on society," his new law has nothing to do with public safety. Of the 769 people murdered in New York in 2011, only five were by rifle of any type, one less than those killed by strangulation. The top methods of homicide, in order, were: handgun, cutting/stabbing, unknown weapon, unknown firearm, blunt instrument, and hands/fist. This effort was backed by billionaire New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has been the guiding hand behind Vice President Joseph R. Biden's recommendation for new gun laws on the national level. Those proposals are expected to be announced by President Obama later this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MH6~SPARTA~ Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The part that worries me, is that this is only the beginning. But that part that pisses me off even more, is how video games are yet again being blamed for shootings. It shows just how truly out of touch with reality these politicians are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchman~SPARTA~ Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The part that worries me, is that this is only the beginning. But that part that pisses me off even more, is how video games are yet again being blamed for shootings. It shows just how truly out of touch with reality these politicians are. It's the easy win option, for them. Politicians really are retarded in their views on reality. Having said that & I have no wish to start a rage debate but the above just seems like tighter requirements on ownership, which isn't necessarily a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaiSan Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Politicians views on reality aren't retarded, they just have a fantastic ability for self preservation and career advancement. If you could ever (and I don't think it has been done in human history) get a politician to tell the truth then they would probably admit it's ridiculous but the band wagon is there to be jumped on right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilducky Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) How about this. This guy clearly says that hes voting yes, but it wont change the crime in the state? That makes sense right? Also, these 2 people seem to be the only sane people there that are video taped speaking out why they voted no. Kathleen Marchione: Greg ball: Edited January 16, 2013 by evilducky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durka-Durka~SPARTA~ Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) It's the easy win option, for them. Politicians really are retarded in their views on reality. Having said that & I have no wish to start a rage debate but the above just seems like tighter requirements on ownership, which isn't necessarily a bad thing? No rage debate with you guys. My problem is with lawmakers and those who wish to take my right to defense away. As for this law, it's not just tighter requirements, it's just about an all-out ban. They wanted confiscation, but stopped just short with registration, which always leads to confiscation. During the very short debate on the floor, some lawmakers admitted this would do nothing to curb these massacres, but will vote for it anyways. Key Parts: 1. Assault weapon definition now applies if weapon has more than 1 'evil' feature as opposed to being able to have 2 in the past. (If it looks military, it's a nogo) 2. New gun registry, must renew every 5 years. (registry always leads to confiscation) 3. Background checks on all transfers. (Might deter some shooters, but the bad guys always find a way. Sandy Hook shooter was denied a couple days before and stole the firearms) 4. All transfers must go through FFL. (FFL is like an official gun seller. They are licensed to make transferrs and record them. Most purchases go through one already, but in most of the US, firearms are treated as property and can be sold face-to-face without extra paperwork) 5. Background checks on all ammunition purchases. (huge undertaking, and impractical. Will clog up the system and will make buying ammo impractical, does nothing to curb violence) 6. Online ammunition orders must go to FFL to ensure background check. (same as above) 7. Pre-94 mags now banned, 1 year to dispose of. 8. Any magazine over 10 rounds banned. (standard mag for AR-15s are 30rnds. Some use 20rnd mags for the smaller size and easier handling) 9. Prior ban magazines that met the 10 round limit may only be loaded with 7 rounds. (basically, it's an honor system) New mags must hold 7 rounds or less (still not clear how this will apply to internal magazines and tube magazines). Basically, about 50-60% of firearms, rifles and pistols, will be banned. To get caught would be a Class B felony, and 25yr prison sentence. I forget how many thousands of dollars the fine was too. Many good people have been made felons overnight by this law. EDIT: To put it in perspective, a rapist or child molestor would get less time. Edited January 16, 2013 by Durka-Durka~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilducky Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 This has been out for barely 24 hours and already has 10,000+ votes https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/rule-ny-safe-act-be-unconstitutional/W2KLT6t8?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl. There are also Senators getting petitions to overturn this law as well. IDk where that is at at the moment because her site doesn't show numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phisher~SPARTA~ Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) I don't view this as a rage issue either. I am politically to the left but completely don't understand these bans and limitations. I want to purposely make a distinction between background checks and other types of loophole closures. It's a short sided 'feel good' effort that won't stop criminals or those motivated to make the evening news, and what happens when another mass shooting happens? More legislation? Confiscation?. We have an international membership on these boards and I have always heard from friends overseas that our 2nd Amendment is strange and unknown. Without getting into a political discussion, the simple truth is that you can't legislate away certain amendments that you don't agree with. It's all or none. If we analogize it to video games, it's like banning Battlefield 3 because it trains kids to be effective killers - but allowing games like ARMA because it's not as flashy or scary. We all know that Battlefield 3, and video games in general, do not cause violence or make violent offenders more efficient. Just like a pistol grip or 3 additional bullets in a magazine won't stop a motivated criminal. Edited January 16, 2013 by Phisher~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custard~SPARTA~ Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I stopped keeping a shotgun licence when they reduced the shell limit to three in the UK The reason the reduction came in was was a nutter went mad for a few hours and killed his mum and a few others with amongst other weapons an auto shotty. Politicians decided he killed so many because of the number of shells in the auto, you know and I know this is bogus as even I could fire 50 shells from an over and under just as quick as with a 5 shot auto I used to rabbit shoot from the back of a Landy and when you drive into a field 5 rounds without a reload just about does the job in one field so I threw my toys out of the pram as well as my licence in protest As I have said in the past I think gun control is a good thing in my country and something I have grown to be proud of but some of the rules do not make sense It is explicitly against the law for a home owner in the UK to use a firearm for home defense, after some silly cases they have clarified the law so a home owner is allowed to use violence (including using a brick or a knife for example) to defend there home but not a firearm I am not going to be drawn on what should happen in another country it is not my place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel~Sparta~ Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I all I have to say this shit will not fly in Texas or most of the South for that matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warzer0 Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) .................. AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!! And now we see just how much thought actually went into this law: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116 Additions to be made to gun laws for law enforcement New York News Jim Hoffer Jan. 17, 2013 NEW YORK (WABC) -- A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws. The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers. Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March. As the statute is currently written, it does not exempt law enforcement officers. Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity. A spokesman for the governor's office called Eyewitness News to say, "We are still working out some details of the law and the exemption will be included, currently no police officer is in violation." The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President released a statement saying, "The PBA is actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers." State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals" Edited January 18, 2013 by warzer0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel~Sparta~ Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 .................. AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!! And now we see just how much thought actually went into this law: This whole thing needs to be thrown out. The only people that this is going to affect is the law abiding citizens. Criminals dont care about the law... THATS WHY THEY ARE C R I M I N A L S!!!! Hell I think they will LOVE this law. Of course there is an alternative to a 9mm or .40cal.... A .357 revolver. Also I disagree with the thought that retired law enforcement officers should some how be exempt from this law. Sorry but that is wrong, you retire from the force you are a civilian like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilducky Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/APbb57676d4e704db4abed7dae9067e6a7.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) Wait! call in a hot arclight strike on them! Hurry! Broken arrow, Broken arrow!!!! Edited January 19, 2013 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts