JetPhoto

NY SAFE Act of 2013 (Gun Law)

82 posts in this topic

I do not own a gun, I have shot guns in target practice and don't usually have comments about the gun laws however I have a real problem with this knee jerk reaction by someone who wants to be President some day. I don’t understand how the government sees this as a way to curb gun violence. This law kicks law abiding citizens in the chest making them potential criminals if they have 8 bullets in their in a magazine instead of 7 (I know there are restrictions now but for legal gun owners who have a 10 round clip and would now only be allowed to have 7 it can be a problem) . The government goes after the so called "assault weapons" some of which are a basic shot gun with modern day plastic pieces attached.

The majority of shootings that happen in this country are by criminals who can care less what the law says. Few are committed by legal gun owners.

Senator William Larkin (R- Cornwall-on-Hudson) said the bill was “too restrictive on our legal, law abiding gun owners and does not adequately address the issue of illegal weapons and their use during the commission of a crime.” He said gun violence “will not be stopped by restricting lawful, honest gun owners. It is career criminals and their access to illegal weapons that are the main problem facing our cities, towns and villages – not people who support the Second Amendment.”
Senator Gregory Ball (R- Patterson) said he could not support a bill “that turns law abiding citizens into criminals by creating an entire new category of illegal firearms out of currently legal rifles and shotguns.” He said society needs “solid provisions to keep the violently, mentally ill from harming our communities, our kids and our families” and that, he said, did not happen Monday night.
One of the Hudson Valley’s new Assembly members, Kieran Michael Lalor (R- Fishkill), said he would vote against the bill when it reaches that house.

He said the legislation was drafted by “four men in the room” while Assembly Democrats were at a hotel fundraiser.

While some feel the opposite is the way to go...

Senator David Carlucci (D- Nanuet) called the legislation that the Senate approved “a common sense measure that will protect New Yorkers from senseless gun violence while recognizing and protecting every citizen’s Second Amendment right.”

If you look at the city of Chicago who has the stingiest gun laws in the nation, you see that criminals don't care about laws! Dozens are shot or killed every day and even more on weekends.

Now NY plans these ridiculous laws let us not forget the federal government plans on revising the laws as well. The people must rise up and defeat the government on this one, Go after the true criminals not the guy who follows the law

*Quotes taken from a story on www.midhudson news .com

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2013/January/15/gun_control-15Jan13.html

helicopper, bfd34180 and fire2141 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the proposals would:

—Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.

—Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.

—Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.

—Establish a state registry for all private sales, with a background check done through a licensed dealer for a fee, excluding sales to immediate relatives.

—Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally 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.

—Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.

—Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. 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.

—Require that stolen guns be reported within 24 hours. Otherwise, the owner would face a possible misdemeanor.

—Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property. The "Webster provision" would increase penalties for shooting first responders. Two firefighters were killed when shot by a person who set a fire in the western New York town of Webster last month. The crime would be punishable by life in prison without parole.

—Limit the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. The provision would allow a handgun permit holder a means to maintain privacy under the Freedom of Information law.

—Require pistol permit holders or those who will be registered as owners of assault rifles to be recertifies at least every five years to make sure they are still legally able to own the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While something needs to be done, an assault on The Constitution and The Bill of Rights for LEGAL GUN OWNERS is not the answer.

We all know Gov.Cuomo is aspiring for a future presidential run, and (IMO) this is nothing more than a hot-button topic for him to ride on.

For a snapshot of the effect that the toughest gun laws in the nation are capable of, all one needs to do is take a look at ChIcago, the guns-down, murder capitol of the country.

Is this what you want for NY, too, Mr Governor?

1911, helicopper, bfd34180 and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the proposals would:

—Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.

—Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.

—Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.

—Establish a state registry for all private sales, with a background check done through a licensed dealer for a fee, excluding sales to immediate relatives.

—Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally 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.

—Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.

—Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. 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.

—Require that stolen guns be reported within 24 hours. Otherwise, the owner would face a possible misdemeanor.

—Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property. The "Webster provision" would increase penalties for shooting first responders. Two firefighters were killed when shot by a person who set a fire in the western New York town of Webster last month. The crime would be punishable by life in prison without parole.

—Limit the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. The provision would allow a handgun permit holder a means to maintain privacy under the Freedom of Information law.

—Require pistol permit holders or those who will be registered as owners of assault rifles to be recertifies at least every five years to make sure they are still legally able to own the guns.

Based on the above, if passed Looks like the Journal News will be publishing the names and addresses of “assault weapon owners”. If there has to be a “Police Registry” that would be a public record and subject to the FOIL. The bill provides for handgun owners to have some protection but I don’t see the same for “assault weapon” owners.

Also does the amount of bullets in a magazine apply to all guns or just “assault weapons”?

My semi auto pistol has a 14 round magazine but it’s grandfathered. Do I now have to sell it and but a smaller one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way and if I am feel free to correct me...In the 1930's prohibition was established...did it stop people from getting booze? I think people drank more. Second how long has the war on drugs been in effect? Has it done anything to prevent illegal drug sales? Last I read Oxycodone abuse is on the rise and people are getting more and more addicted to it and it it easily available illegally on the streets. Drugs are out there.

You can pass all the laws you want the crooks will continue to beat the overloaded system and with the big push to reduce the amount of cops today they crooks will have the advantage because they know they can and will get all the guns they want without clip restrictions they want to put on law abiding citizens.

helicopper, JM15, bfd34180 and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched this go down via their live feed last night and noticed some interesting points.

1. Even some supporters of this bill stated that they didn't think that banning certain types of weapons would help.. But that we need a societal change

2. As stated legislators had 20 minutes to review this bill before a vote? Children spend more time then that on math homework!! This sounds like a back door deal that was shoved down our throats.

3. Greg Ball is very right

Just my two cents....

ffper5112, steph, helicopper and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The symbolism of the bill is huge. NY is the first state to vote on such a ban regarding assault weapons. Additionally the law extends Kendra's law until 2017 which is crucial in helping the mentally ill. If gun owners are so responsible they shouldn't have any problems with registering an assault weapon. Yes, criminals will still do the crime, but people from all respected political parties are saying we need to act to prevent senseless violence. This is that first step in acting. Do I agree with every earmark in the bill, no, but it seems like an excellent starting point as I said. I don't see any other politicians stepping up to the plate to take on this issue, especially Mr. Ball, but yes we MUST fix our mental health system, much more than just extending Kendra's law. But, I think its crazy that someone could simply buy an assault weapon online before this bill passed. But really, most of this stuff is common sense, and I'm very proud that NY stood up to the plate first to take on this issue.

SRS131EMTFF and peterose313 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions for you.

1) what is an "assault weapon"?

2) what are all the law abiding citizens who own weapons that have magazines with 10 rounds (or11, 12 or 13) supposed to do with their guns now? Magazines that hold 7 rounds don't exist. This law makes law abiding citizens instant criminals. How does that help?

This legislation is simply feel good political junk. There were laws in place before Newtown. Did the law against THEFT stop Lanza? How about the law against BREAKING AND ENTERING? Oh, and don't we have laws against MURDER? Did any of those laws stop him? NO. Not one.

I don't understand how you think new laws will stop people like him? He obtained the guns illegally. Why do you think restricting me will prevent this from happening again?

JM15, ffper5112, SOUSGT and 5 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few questions for you.

1) what is an "assault weapon"?

2) what are all the law abiding citizens who own weapons that have magazines with 10 rounds (or11, 12 or 13) supposed to do with their guns now? Magazines that hold 7 rounds don't exist. This law makes law abiding citizens instant criminals. How does that help?

This legislation is simply feel good political junk. There were laws in place before Newtown. Did the law against THEFT stop Lanza? How about the law against BREAKING AND ENTERING? Oh, and don't we have laws against MURDER? Did any of those laws stop him? NO. Not one.

I don't understand how you think new laws will stop people like him? He obtained the guns illegally. Why do you think restricting me will prevent this from happening again?

Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle
Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Definition of MILITARY

: of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war

(all from www.merriam-webster.com)

Further more it can be defined as a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun with 1 or more military style attachments. Pretty clear to me.

2. Magazines that do hold 5 rounds to exist

AR-15: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/MAG-052

Colt 45: http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/kahr-automatic-colt-pistol-round-stainless-magazine-k525-p-101633.html

If you think the death toll at Sandy Hook would have been the same had Lanza had a 10 round magazine as opposed to a 30 round magazine then you are delusional.

From USA TODAY:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/15/new-york-assault-weapons-guns/1835785/

Assault weapons -- defined as any rifle with a "military style" feature, such as a bayonet or a telescoping stock -- that are currently owned would be grandfathered and would have to be registered with the state. Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds.
Edited by SRS131EMTFF
ARI1220 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm delusional? Please. To drop the magazine and reload another 10 rounder takes seconds. There was NO ONE THERE TO STOP HIM. All that stopped him was a gun. Thirty round magazines certainly made it easier, but the results would have been the same. Why does banning these magazines change anything? Criminals will still have them.

Your definition has thought put into it. Most don't.

Your response about magazine size however shows the ignorance that went into the thinking in Albany with this bill. You posted two types of guns. Yup, you can find 5 round magazines for them. How about all the rest?

THEY DON'T MAKE THEM FOR MY GUNS.

So, now what do I do? I presently follow all the laws of my state. Am I supposed to stop carrying my handgun? Do I now lose the right to defend myself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, now what do I do? I presently follow all the laws of my state. Am I supposed to stop carrying my handgun? Do I now lose the right to defend myself?

Na....your good..."Live Free Or Die" right?

steph likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If gun owners are so responsible they shouldn't have any problems with registering an assault weapon.

Ok valid point EXCEPT it's just another way for the state to make money! Do you think registering a gun is free, it's not!

What's wrong with 7 round clips (that they don't make) now the perp can fit more of them in his/her pocket when they commit a crime.....that's if they were following that law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SRS131EMTFF You and so many others fail to realize that magazine capacity had little to do with most of these cases, considering the shooters carried multiple loaded weapons, thus making a reload "under pressure" unnecessary. Mag reloads can be conducted in mere seconds with very little training, and dropping one gun while reaching for a second is pretty fast too.

On the other hand, in the case in GA last week where the mother backed her kids into a crawlspace and had to shoot the intruder as he opened the space coming for them, she fired all 6 of her rounds hitting the perp 5 times (way better than most armed confrontation stats on hits/shots) and he still drove away, thankfully there wasn't more than one assailant.

The number of rounds does matter, likely more to someone forced into self defense than a killer executing a planned assault on innocent people. When fighting for your life it has been noted that most people lose their fine motor skills, thus accuracy is less likely, but in the case of cold killers seeking to execute innocent people one should not expect they're having the same physiological "fight or flight" reaction, thus they're more liklely to be far more deadly.

If you think the death toll at Sandy Hook would have been the same had Lanza had a 10 round magazine as opposed to a 30 round magazine then you are delusional.
Edited by antiquefirelt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle

Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Definition of MILITARY

: of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war

(all from www.merriam-webster.com)

Further more it can be defined as a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun with 1 or more military style attachments. Pretty clear to me.

2. Magazines that do hold 5 rounds to exist

AR-15: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/MAG-052

Colt 45: http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/kahr-automatic-colt-pistol-round-stainless-magazine-k525-p-101633.html

If you think the death toll at Sandy Hook would have been the same had Lanza had a 10 round magazine as opposed to a 30 round magazine then you are delusional.

From USA TODAY:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/15/new-york-assault-weapons-guns/1835785/

. Correct me if iam wrong but I thought he used four handguns to comitt the horrible act and the rifle was left in the car.
bfd34180, JM15, ffper5112 and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. Correct me if iam wrong but I thought he used four handguns to comitt the horrible act and the rifle was left in the car.

Can anyone find an actual link to this claim? I've seen it many times but never anywhere except forum style boards. This of course would be a huge deal if the media and officials kept pushing the Bushmaster carbine as the weapon when it was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. Correct me if iam wrong but I thought he used four handguns to comitt the horrible act and the rifle was left in the car.
Can anyone find an actual link to this claim? I've seen it many times but never anywhere except forum style boards. This of course would be a huge deal if the media and officials kept pushing the Bushmaster carbine as the weapon when it was not.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Segments of the media and some politicians have had a long standing agenda against guns and this tragedy is their excuse to take action.

JM15, BFD1054, fire2141 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
—Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.

I love the fact that politicians use the term "assault weapon" or "military style" to make people think they are only needed by the military to kill people, but most of the legal "assault" weapons are not used by the military as they are not good enough.

So a person with a hand injury (say a retired police officer who was injuried on the job) wont be able to get a pistol grip...I we no longer consider ADA, only legal gun owners as potential mass killers.

Edited by Bnechis
JetPhoto, helicopper and BFD1054 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

—Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally 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.

So if they only threaten to poison or blow people up, they can keep their guns?

—Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.

1. Does that overstep state authority, since only the Feds can regulate interstate commerce

2. How can you possible enforce this?

—Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. 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.

So if a retired LEO has had a larger capacity mag, because it mrrors what he was issued/trained on, he cant.

—Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property. The "Webster provision" would increase penalties for shooting first responders. Two firefighters were killed when shot by a person who set a fire in the western New York town of Webster last month. The crime would be punishable by life in prison without parole.

Wow, I person kills a bunch of kids at school and we will make his sentence longer, Life in prison only works if he does not kill himself.

If you make the law strict enough and stupid enough (like over stepping the states constitutional power) you are more likely to get someone to challenge it in federal court.

JetPhoto, BFD1054, x129K and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media and Gov. Had an agenda and the Bushmaster AR-15 was the scapegoat... It was reported sometime last week that he used handguns and not a "assault rifle" in that horrible crime.

My biggest problem with this bill is the hastiness that came with it. We will see what Obama has to say tomorrow since he is supposedly unveiling his new gun control policies. There are gun companies in NY state will they be re-locating? How is that going to hurt the state economy?

Edit: While it was nasty I did mean hastiness

Edited by JM15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Break into a certain house in Westchester and your still getting 17 9mm beans center mass. All this does is turn many law abiding citizens into felons. Typical NY liberal BULLSHIT, and still a gun/rifle has yet to kill anyone...

50-65, BFD1054, BBBMF and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question,

Psychiatrists must report patients "who could potentially harm themselves or others." If such a patient owns a gun, it will be confiscated.

Doesn't this violate federal HIPPA laws, No crimes has been committed so how can they be obligated to tell the law? Unless potential terrorist threats are made how can this be allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also going to keep mentally ill people from seeking help...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Break into a certain house in Westchester and your still getting 17 9mm beans center mass. All this does is turn many law abiding citizens into felons. Typical NY liberal BULLSHIT, and still a gun/rifle has yet to kill anyone..

yes but because you are a law abiding citizen, you either reloaded 3 times or have at least 3 7round magazines.

You need to remember that Cuomo's original call was for CONFISCATION. Don't believe for a second that his goal has changed. Why else register and ban the transfer of "assault" weapons? This is so the state knows who has them. Makes it a whole lot easier to knock on your door and "ask" you to give them up. It'll be real interesting to see how many actually register out of the thousands that are said to exist in this state.

The reason this was rushed through was so that no one could have a chance to read it. This bill is 78 pages. We are only beginning to find out what is in it. Cuomo used his executive powers to circumvent the state constitution which requires a 3 day aging period for new legislation. This was done so that the legislature and the public would not have a chance to review it. Some legislatures complained they had less than 20 minutes to look at the bill before the vote.

Mental health? How about requiring prospective owners to undergo psychological testing, from a state sponsored psychiatrist, at a substantial cost, to see if you are fit to own a firearm (in the eyes of the state). It's coming. You're an LEO? You think you will be exempt? Think again. Mmm... Sounds like some Eastern European countries where it might take you 5 years to get state permission to own a single shot shotgun with limited amounts of state approved ammunition.

And guess what? With all the restrictions, rules, taxes, etc. the bad guys still have guns.

TimesUp likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY and CT has some of strictest policies for obtaining a gun permit in the country.

Did it prevent what happened to these innocent people in Newtown - NOPE !!

Does changing these laws prevent the illegal use of firearms - NOPE !!

Does the process that these changes were implemented violate laws, and many of the people you voted to represent you committed this action - YEP!!

It does not matter whether you are for or against these changes, these changes were forced onto the floor by the Governor that has his own agenda for 2016.

Forcing a vote 20 minutes after presentation is ridiculous especially at 11pm!!, can anyone here read and fully comprehend a 70+ page document in 20 minutes? I know I can't and I certainly can't expect someone that is representing me to do so either.

I think the changes should be declared in violation of state law of process, and re-done the right way.. If it passes after properly being presented and represented to the people then implement them, until then all they have done is opened the court system and our tax dollars for a lot of litigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am missing something or don't understand the legal intricacies, but how is the new magazine ban not an ex post facto law and therefore unconstitutional under Art. 1 Sect. 10 of the constitution? I purchased all of the magazines that I own legally, according to the law as it existed at the time of my purchase. It seems that retroactively banning these items would be a prime example of an ex post facto law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read one article that also said NY was restricitng the number of magazines you could own to 2, although the article said it was unclear if it was 2 per person or 2 per gun.

Amid all the proposals in CT this week there is actually one to ban all guns capable of firing more than one (1) round and all magazines capable of holding mor ethan one (1) round. I am not sure where all these disposable guns are going to come from, but apparently we will all now be held to the Barney Fife standard, you are allowed a single bullet whih must be carried in your shirt pocket not in your gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.