NY SAFE Act of 2013 (Gun Law)

[50-65 205]

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.

Do you really think that the gov and his henchmen are interested in the constituion? Their recent actions and comments would suggest not.

The "assault weapon" I used to own was made in the 60's. One of the magazines was made in 1920. The others were WW2-Korean war era.

In the 20 years that I owned it, it never killed anything but paper and a few cans and bowling pins. Suddenly it is evil.

[JetPhoto 626]

This is great!

The bill moved so fast, some mistakes were made and will have to be corrected in separate legislation in the weeks ahead, lawmakers acknowledge. One problem: Police agencies were not exempted from the restrictions on bullets.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-passes-1st-gun-control-bill-newtown-school-massacre-article-1.1240644#ixzz2I8pR0EvQ

Edited January 16, 2013 by JetPhoto

[Spartan052 43]

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.

im bot gonnan lie some things in the seem reasonable while others dont does anyone think we can come to a comprimse with this

[newsbuff 286]

im bot gonnan lie some things in the seem reasonable while others dont does anyone think we can come to a comprimse with this

Who cares what we think! We absolutely can come to a compromise, but the governor wants to do it his way or no way.

[v85 212]

I have a question about the magazine part of the law.

On one part it says you can't have a 10 round magazine after a year...but on another it says that if you are caught with 8 bullets in the magazine it is a misdemeanor. So if someone has a 10 round magazine, but only loads it with 7 bullets, is that legal or illegal? It seems to be contradictory.

Maybe those are the mistakes that it refers to that have to be corrected?

They also forgot to exempt active duty police officers from the 7 round limit.

They need to do a lot of work on this law to clarify things

Edited January 16, 2013 by v85

[JM15 386]

The problems keep surfacing!! This shouldnt have been so rushed! Cuomo was trying to make a name for himself and pushed through rushed legislation. This should be repealed and done the right way.

[v85 212]

Apparently in one paper it says it will take weeks to pass additional legislation to fix all of the problems

[Doc 11]

Apparently in one paper it says it will take weeks to pass additional legislation to fix all of the problems

Why should they fix it? All the previously innocent people who get charged with violating this broken law will pay for fixing it through the judicial system. Every person who gets snagged by conflicting and broken legislation get their day (and lose their $$$) in court to fix what our esteemed leaders didn't bother to read. Ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you're making them.

[MLP 0]

I have a question about the magazine part of the law.

On one part it says you can't have a 10 round magazine after a year...but on another it says that if you are caught with 8 bullets in the magazine it is a misdemeanor. So if someone has a 10 round magazine, but only loads it with 7 bullets, is that legal or illegal? It seems to be contradictory.

"Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law � 265.00(23) to ban all largecapacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten roundsof ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under theoriginal assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines thathold more than seven rounds of ammunition. Magazines that can holdmore than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currentlypossessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain seven roundsof ammunition. Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines thatare curios or relics."

Basically if you have a mag that holds ten rounds you can keep it, you just can't have more than 7 bullets in it.

[whyme? 0]

There is no LEO Exception in this piece of crap law. The next cop who fires more than 7 rounds will find himself on the end of the next wanna be johnny Cochrans fishing line...

[Bnechis 3,961]

So can the NY National Guard have more than 7 rounds? What about a 7 round belt for their 50 cals?

[bfd34180 11]

bet their private armed security are excluded from following this "law"

[SOUSGT 357]

"Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law � 265.00(23) to ban all largecapacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten roundsof ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under theoriginal assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines thathold more than seven rounds of ammunition. Magazines that can holdmore than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currentlypossessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain seven roundsof ammunition. Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines thatare curios or relics."

Basically if you have a mag that holds ten rounds you can keep it, you just can't have more than 7 bullets in it.

Stock up on the magazines now!

[JetPhoto 626]

This is a great site that describes what an assault weapon is and isn't. It also contains some information about gun laws on assault weapons.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[moggie6 54]

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.

I will certainly undergo psychological testing when every law enforcement agency in NYS does the same thing for their officers.

[50-65 205]

Stock up on the magazines now!

If you can find them. I've been looking since November and have only been able to find a few for what I don't have. For the other one I used to have, I don't think they make them anymore. Not sure if it would meet the 50 yr rule or not but doesn't matter. Still wouldn't register it if I still had it.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Stock up on the magazines now!

This would at least be a decent investment opportunity, but alas, I have all I need (and likely then some) and I don't want the hassle of having to sell them to a FFL in the future. Same goes for buying an potentially banned firearms, except those I've wanted to own. many places are still advertising magazines but for most firearms, those with capacities over 10 rounds are sold out and back-ordered into the distant (post ban) future.

The whole thing frustrates me to no end, common sense has gone by the way of knee jerk reaction. The website above (www.assaultweapon.info) provides very legitimate and basic facts, now if only it was put on national TV 20-30 times a day. The new bans are going to convert me from an independent thinking, independent voter to a party line voter. Those people I used to scoff at for voting party lines apparently were right, once they have the power look out.

[islander 27]

There is no LEO Exception in this piece of crap law. The next cop who fires more than 7 rounds will find himself on the end of the next wanna be johnny Cochrans fishing line...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-passes-1st-gun-control-bill-newtown-school-massacre-article-1.1240644#ixzz2IFRQHnD6

"The bill moved so fast, some mistakes were made and will have to be corrected in separate legislation in the weeks ahead, lawmakers acknowledge. One problem: Police agencies were not exempted from the restrictions on bullets."

Whoops. If the new sections of the penal law weren't included in the exemptions section of PL265.20 (which I can't seem to find anywhere that they were), this would mean that not only the police are not exempt, but also peace officers, and the military, both state National Guard and federal regular service members. Will the governor send the state police (with their now illegal ten round Glock 37 magazines, unless they download three rounds) over to West Point, Camp Smith, Fort Drum, etc. to collect all non-compliant items from the military?

Edited January 17, 2013 by islander

[efdny2003 16]

I've been following this, and there was in my opinion little to no thought put into this, just as others have stated a knee jerk reaction. Some have stated about politicians private security, are they going to put 7 bullets in their 10 round magazines? Are they going to sell all illegal guns and magazines once they are illegal? All this law is going to do, is make life more difficult for legal, law-abiding gun owners. The criminals could care less what this law says, and are probably laughing at it. Why? Because they already have their guns, and are not going to register them or put only 7 rounds in their magazines. This law is not going to stop gun violence or get illegal guns off the streets. The only thing I don't agree with, and this is not to start a pissing match or piss people off but it is my opinion. Are police department issued guns only going to be excluded from the ban, or is every gun a police officer own going to be excluded. I have no problem what-so-ever if department issued guns are exempt; but if a police officer has lets say two department issued guns, and 5 other privately owned guns are those exempt as well? Again this is not to start a pissing match or have people jump down my throat, it is my serious opinion and a serious question. Why should a privately owned gun that is used for hunting or target practice be exempt just because it's owned by a police officer and has nothing to do with his/her job. But all that aside, I think this law should have had a lot more thought, time, and input before even going for review then to vote; and will accomplish absolutely nothing.

[islander 27]

Are police department issued guns only going to be excluded from the ban, or is every gun a police officer own going to be excluded. I have no problem what-so-ever if department issued guns are exempt; but if a police officer has lets say two department issued guns, and 5 other privately owned guns are those exempt as well? Again this is not to start a pissing match or have people jump down my throat, it is my serious opinion and a serious question. Why should a privately owned gun that is used for hunting or target practice be exempt just because it's owned by a police officer and has nothing to do with his/her job.

It is a good question. Two things. One, the other exemptions for weapons offenses in the penal law address classes of individuals, police officers, peace officers, military, manufacturers, dealers, people possessing weapons on theie way to turn them in, etc. The status of individual weapons aren't addressed. Second, and more importantly I feel, is that departments don't always or can't issue weapons to their officers. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I joined the NYPD in the 90's, I had to "purchase" my own duty gun. I say "purchase" because we were told that the PBA picked up the tab for the gun, but we had to pay for the night sights(which still seems strange, but anyway). I had to privately purchase any backup/off-duty firearms on my own.

I'm curious to your reasoning for prohibiting privately owned firearms by police officers. Isn't the whole (stated) aim of these recent gun control measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally/emotionally unstable? As a police officer, I can't keep my job if I'm either of those, which would make me a private citizen again, which would then prohibit me like anyone else. Not only that, and maybe I shouldn't use logic here when talking about politicans, but isn't another aim of this to help law enforcement? Why wouldn't we as a society want police to be weapons-proficient, which would lead to non-duty ownership of firearms by police officers? The police in Mumbai were fighting terrorists during the hotel attack a few years with WWI era rifles they had never trained on before, and some officers had never had any firearms training, and were unarmed as they engaged the terrorists, do we really want anything like that here?

[50-65 205]

It is a good question. Two things. One, the other exemptions for weapons offenses in the penal law address classes of individuals, police officers, peace officers, military, manufacturers, dealers, people possessing weapons on theie way to turn them in, etc. The status of individual weapons aren't addressed. Second, and more importantly I feel, is that departments don't always or can't issue weapons to their officers. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I joined the NYPD in the 90's, I had to "purchase" my own duty gun. I say "purchase" because we were told that the PBA picked up the tab for the gun, but we had to pay for the night sights(which still seems strange, but anyway). I had to privately purchase any backup/off-duty firearms on my own.

I'm curious to your reasoning for prohibiting privately owned firearms by police officers. Isn't the whole (stated) aim of these recent gun control measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally/emotionally unstable?As a police officer, I can't keep my job if I'm either of those, which would make me a private citizen again, which would then prohibit me like anyone else. Not only that, and maybe I shouldn't use logic here when talking about politicans, but isn't another aim of this to help law enforcement? Why wouldn't we as a society want police to be weapons-proficient, which would lead to non-duty ownership of firearms by police officers? The police in Mumbai were fighting terrorists during the hotel attack a few years with WWI era rifles they had never trained on before, and some officers had never had any firearms training, and were unarmed as they engaged the terrorists, do we really want anything like that here?

Yes, that is the STATED aim. However, Until these measures take effect, I am not, nor have I ever been, a criminal. I would not consider myself, although others may disagree, mentally/emotionally unstable. So why am i prohibited from owning certain firearms that are apparently more dangerous because of the way they look? I can be trusted to handle/possess/transport high explosives but not to put more than 7 bullets in a gun? WTF!?!

[efdny2003 16]

It is a good question. Two things. One, the other exemptions for weapons offenses in the penal law address classes of individuals, police officers, peace officers, military, manufacturers, dealers, people possessing weapons on theie way to turn them in, etc. The status of individual weapons aren't addressed. Second, and more importantly I feel, is that departments don't always or can't issue weapons to their officers. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I joined the NYPD in the 90's, I had to "purchase" my own duty gun. I say "purchase" because we were told that the PBA picked up the tab for the gun, but we had to pay for the night sights(which still seems strange, but anyway). I had to privately purchase any backup/off-duty firearms on my own.

I'm curious to your reasoning for prohibiting privately owned firearms by police officers. Isn't the whole (stated) aim of these recent gun control measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally/emotionally unstable? As a police officer, I can't keep my job if I'm either of those, which would make me a private citizen again, which would then prohibit me like anyone else. Not only that, and maybe I shouldn't use logic here when talking about politicans, but isn't another aim of this to help law enforcement? Why wouldn't we as a society want police to be weapons-proficient, which would lead to non-duty ownership of firearms by police officers? The police in Mumbai were fighting terrorists during the hotel attack a few years with WWI era rifles they had never trained on before, and some officers had never had any firearms training, and were unarmed as they engaged the terrorists, do we really want anything like that here?

I'm not trying to say that police officers shouldn't be able to privately own guns by any means. I personally don't see how these laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, mentally/emotionally unstable yes, criminals no. You are more aware then I am without a doubt, that criminals don't care about what laws are passed, that's why they're criminals. As I said you can make all the laws you want to try to control guns, but criminals don't care about those laws. The aim of these new laws that are and will be coming out we all would hope is to help law enforcement, but basically in my opinion attacking law abiding citizens and turning them into criminals doesn't help law enforcement. Making laws to help get illegal guns off the street would, what criminal that wants to use a gun to commit a crime is going to care whether it follows new laws that are passed. My questioning about police is the difference between department issued or recognized versus personal private use. Again if it's department issued, off-duty, or a back-up weapon the officer carries regularly I have no issues with that being exempt from all these new bans. However if it's a gun that the officer privately owns that his/her department may not even know about, why should that gun also be exempt? I without a doubt want an officer that is highly trained with a firearm. But if the officer owns 5 guns that have nothing to do with his/her job, and are only used personally, why should those guns be exempt as well? Again this is just my personal opinion and feeling, and not meant to start any problems.

Edited January 19, 2013 by efdny2003

[Bnechis 3,961]

And now, for an opposing view: The "Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Preservation Act" is now working its way through the Oklahoma legislature.

The language of the legislation is clear: "Federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations, bans or registration requirements regarding firearms constitute an infringement on the individual right [to keep and bear arms] in the Constitution of the United States...and are hereby declared to be invalid in the State of Oklahoma."

The legislation mentions the "intent" of America's "Founders" and the Constitution's "ratifiers," and sets forth the punishment for trying to enforce new gun control measures:

Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction...shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not to exceed five (5) years.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/17/Oklahoma-Steps-Up-Threatens-5-Years-Imprisonment-For-Federal-Gun-Grabbers

[JM15 386]

Found this FAQ list put out by the state... Should clear up some questions

http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

[ec255 22]

Everything about this bill ( now law) horrifies me- the way it was written, the way it was rushed through in the back rooms of albany, voted on in the middle of the night- it is all about the government asserting power. Weather it has any effect on gun crime was obviously not something these bottom feeding politicians care about

[ex-commish 490]

Everything about this bill ( now law) horrifies me- the way it was written, the way it was rushed through in the back rooms of albany, voted on in the middle of the night- it is all about the government asserting power. Weather it has any effect on gun crime was obviously not something these bottom feeding politicians care about

Like the tax cap, this was all for Cuomo and his bid for president in 2016.

[SOUSGT 357]

Found this FAQ list put out by the state... Should clear up some questions http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

By going to the site its more confusing than the law.,For example:

Q: I own a handgun, is that an assault weapon?

A: Most handguns are not assault weapons and are not affected by this law. A traditionally designed handgun is not an assault weapon. For example a single shot pistol or a revolver cannot be an assault weapon. To confirm that your handgun is not an assault weapon and to see common models and characteristics click here.

Yet they reference magazines. Do they apply to hand guns or just long guns? If the magazine section applies to handguns, then almost all semi automatic handguns are affected by the law. They can’t even be truthful about something they passed yet don’t even know what they passed. Sounds like Pelosi’s statement, “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”.No they have to cover thier tracks by providing inaccurate information.

[ec255 22]

Interesting to think as the government continues to intrude further on the rights of the average law abiding citizen, I would think it would more and more put law enforcement officers on the street in positions that increasingly conflict with their own beliefs- some of these laws are just outright ridiculous. Must be a breaking point.

[JM15 386]

Phase two of the SAFE Act takes effect today....

[50-65 205]

I'll be sure to run right out and register my newly defined "assault weapons".