New York surrenders to emotion

| January 15, 2013 | 63 Comments

So, the New York legislature is expected to shoved their new gun ban through the legislative process today, turning some New Yorkers into criminals overnight. Why the rush? Well, the governor, the legacy Cuomo, said it’s because he wanted to beat the panic buying of legal stuff – well, stuff that is legal today, but not tomorrow. From Huffington Post, some highlights of the legislation;

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two “military rifle” features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip. The language specifically targeted the military-style rifle used in the Newtown shootings.

Current owners of those guns will have to register them.

None of those things make a weapon more lethal, just more scary-looking to hand-wringing liberal do-gooders.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

I’m sure the criminals will only sell their guns on the street after a thorough background check. the background checks that are in effect now didn’t stop Dawn Nygun from buying the weapon that she gave to William Spengler in Webster, NY.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and 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, I guess now the police can search your house for a magazine with more than seven rounds capability. And a rifle that still fires from a seven round magazine can kill just as easily as one that has ten rounds.

Stores that sell ammunition will have to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.

So, since there are no serial numbers on bullets, we can reasonably expect that this is just to keep track of people who buy a large quantity of ammunition. And what magic number will trigger an investigation? 100? 101?

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient’s gun could be taken from him or her.

Has there ever been a crazed murderer who made a credible threat to a mental health professional who wasn’t reported and later went on a killing spree? Even crazed murderers have enough sense to keep their mouths shut.

The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the “Webster provision.”

Yeah, there was an increased sentence imposed in 1995. Killing a first responder was in New York’s death sentence provisions signed by Governor Pataki. Seven people were sentenced to death in New York since then and none of them were put to death. Cuomo’s predecessor dismantled New York’s death chamber.

My cousin, who lives in New York emailed this morning that he’s sorry that he didn’t leave New York when I left nearly 15 years ago. Well, Scott, there’s still time. He can leave with the Remington Arms Company, currently headquartered in Ilion, New York, just down the Hudson River from Albany. It’s been there since 1816, but maybe not much longer. from the Herkimer Telegram;

The factory directly employs more than 1,200 residents and their production supports more than 1,500 full-time jobs….

How much does Governor Cuomo care about those overnearly 3,000 people who depends on those scare paychecks in Upstate New York? From YNN;

“I think if the companies are worried about future sales of assault weapons, they’re gonna have to worry about a lot of other things besides the State of New York and the State of New York’s market,” Governor Andrew Cuomo said.

Because emotional knee-jerk reactions are more important than jobs to the Cuomo family.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (63)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Twist says:

    “New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet”

    I hope a New Yorker didn’t have the winning bid for the assault rock being sold on ebay.

  2. SteveS says:

    And so it begins…

  3. Susan says:

    Reason number 942 that I hate NY.

  4. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    It was race and Cuomo won. He even beat O’Malley of Maryland who can now only try to add more onerous provisions to what Cuomo has proposed for the Big Applesauce. Jeez.

  5. LIRight says:

    I’m beyond sick over this crap….on many levels.

    I never thought that I would have to think twice before commenting on this web site for fear of Big Brother.

    So, aside from my 2nd Amendment rights being infringed, my 1st Amendment right to free speech is now limited out of fear of repercussions by the State and Federal Government.

  6. LIRight says:

    Edit:

    “commenting on this web site” – to read; “any web site.”

  7. PintoNag says:

    @5 And it’s not just the government. I find myself censoring what I say around neighbors and co-workers. You know…those ‘anonymous informants’ who might take offense or ‘become afraid’ because of some remark you made about something you own, or where you spent your Saturday afternoon.

  8. John11B says:

    Crazyness. All the things I could say in response to this legislation have already been said by many others, including Jonn. Somehow I don’t see 7 rd magazines for 1 state being a priority in production for gun makers at the moment. Maybe aftermarket mag makers will pick up the slack but if not that means Glocks, Sigs, HK’s, XD’s, M&P’s and every other major self defense pistol will be illegal because I do not know of any mags that hold less than 10 rounds for any of those major, full sized pistols. I am sure Cuomo and his clowns thought of that and are hoping people will just sell their guns instead of waiting for 7 rd mags to be shit out by some manufacturer.

  9. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @5 and @7. Well, this is part of the plan. It worked for gays. It will work for guns. Political correctness and self-censorship are the grease that keep the lib machine running.

  10. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    Instead of worrying about making law abiding citizens overnight, the legislature of New York could focus on why so many murders in NYC happen in certain neighborhoods at a frequency far above other neighborhoods. When black and hispanic youth comprise 88% (3661) of victims and 90% of the perpetrators (3744) of the 4161 homicides reported from ’03 to’11 it’s clear the problem is not “assault” style weapons in suburbia. But as with all useless politicians the idea of looking like you are doing something as opposed to actually doing something is more important.

    It’s difficult to have a race based discussion without accusations flying wildly all over the place, but the reality is if you are white or asian New York City is pretty safe, if you are black or hispanic much less so….a law making it illegal to be black or hispanic and locking up folks in that category would actually do more to prevent murder in NYC than any assault weapons ban will ever accomplish. Obviously I am being extremely facetious, but a serious discussion regarding why this is so and what steps can be taken to remove violence from these neighborhoods would be far more effective than the new law in reducing murders. 1 out of every 4 murders in the state takes place in NYC in spite of their restrictive gun laws, and when you look at other larger metropolitan areas you find the same situation with respect to what is happening with the crime rate and who the victims and perpetrators are. I think it’s more about socio-economics than race to be honest. But race and socio-economic status are closely related in some areas. The resultant pressure of poverty, hopelessness, and lack of education creates scenarios where crime is a valid method for resource attainment for a number of the populations of these areas. Competition for these resources results in violence to reduce competition. An honest discussion about resolving these heavy water issues will actually do something to reduce murders, banning a scary looking weapon from the hands of the law abiding will not.

    Of course the unspoken truth that the politicians, including Mr. Cuomo, won’t get into is that as long as perceived gang bangers and their brethren are killing each other who cares if a couple of poor kids get caught in the crossfire? Apparently nobody, because that discussion isn’t even on the horizon let alone being honestly considered. Kill a bunch of upper middle class white kids and all hell breaks loose…a bunch of black and hispanic kids every day…not so much.

    YMMV

  11. NHSparky says:

    On the bright side, as soon as Cuomo signs this, he just fucked himself out of any chance of getting elected President in 2016.

    Small favors and all that.

  12. NHSparky says:

    And I want people (especially the newspapers that publish gun owner’s info) to note the crime rates in New York after this ban takes effect.

    Not just violent crime, but property crime as well. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s gonna spike. BIG-TIME.

  13. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    “Instead of worrying about making law abiding citizens overnight”

    is missing the word criminals as in

    “Instead of worrying about making law abiding citizens criminals overnight”

    my apologies for teh sloppy

  14. 509thBob says:

    Thank God I don’t live in New York.

  15. Old Trooper says:

    Everything that is in this bill is nothing but nonsense. It does nothing, other than make a few politicians feel good and a few brain dead liberals “feel safer”. It’s past time to try and insert common sense and logic into the equation, since emotion rules the day.

  16. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Will they establish a snitch line? “Spot a magazine with more than 7 rounds in it? Call 1-800-NYS-Rats”

  17. UpNorth says:

    @#12. Sparky, the paper that published the map didn’t want just who owned guns, but what kind and how many guns they owned, so they could include that in the article.
    ” “We knew publication of the database would be controversial but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” said CynDee Royle, [1] Editor and Vice President/News. She’s the editor of the Journal News.

    “People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods. Our Freedom of Information request also sought specifics on how many and what types of weapons people owned. That portion of the request was denied.” [4] Copied from Newsbusters.

  18. Ex-PH2 says:

    @10, VOV — Those same statistics apply to the Chicago area. It is not unique to New York City.

  19. NHSparky says:

    Frankly, NY state is complicit in what the Journal News pulled, considering that it’s NOBODY’S FUCKING BUSINESS who is armed and who isn’t.

    Consider–would the Journal News print an interactive map of all welfare recipients in those areas as well? Yeah, didn’t think so.

  20. Ranger11C says:

    They are just moving the goal post. Used to be 10 round mags, now it is 7, then it will be 5 and that would get rid of all revolvers too, then 3 kiss your hunting guns goodbye, then 0.

  21. LIRight says:

    @ #15 Old Trooper

    A major problem here in NY is not only the Libs are behind Cuomo – - Dean Skelos (Rino), Majority Leader of the New York State Senate was thanked in a statement from Cuomo’s office for his assistance:

    “Tonight, the Senators that voted for the NY SAFE Act of 2013 made a bold statement, coming together in a bipartisan, collaborative manner to meet the challenges that face our state and our nation, as we have seen far too many senseless acts of gun violence,” Cuomo said in a statement.

    “I commend Senator Skelos, Senator Klein, and Senator Stewart-Cousins for their hard work on this important legislation.”

    Scumbag!

  22. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    In cmt 4, I mentioned Cuomo out-libbing O’Malley or, as I prefer, beating him to the draw. Made me wonder what the Connecticut legislature is doing. The answer is, not much. The only thing is a proposal to establish a bipartisan committee to look at the state’s gun laws. That Cuomo is soooo quick.

    The revolution has to start somewhere. New York seems a fitting place.

  23. RandomNCO says:

    Scumbag politicians. Using the deaths of those kids to pass their BS “laws”.

  24. H1 says:

    Mag restrictions better apply to everyone in NY.
    Including his protection detail.
    Or are some people “more special” than others?
    Parse that.

  25. USMCE8Ret says:

    And the lawmakers are supposed to be lawyers? Well, I’m not one, but isn’t there a document that’s recently been getting trashed that prohibits ex post facto laws (rather, “Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action…and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive.”) Article I, Seciton 9, Clause 3.

    Can someone enlighten me? It seems that if something was legal, then all of a sudden becomes illegal, this is the very definition of an ex post facto law.

  26. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Yeah, USMC8Ret, as I understand it, there will be a year before enforcement kicks in. The good people of NY are going to have a year to divest themselves of their soon-to-be-illegal possession.

  27. ron says:

    so now, new york is almost as screwed up as california, where i live. feinstein has a CCW, but it’s mighty tough for other regular guys to get one. sacramento also records your ammo purchases.

  28. B Woodman says:

    Dear Remington Arms,
    Come move out west to Utah. A HELL of a friendlier political atmosphere, where jobs and guns are appreciated. We even have damn fine skiing within 1/2-1 hour of Salt Lake City.

  29. B Woodman says:

    As for all those now-illegal gun items that were legal yesterday, I’m sure that all the New York state citizens (i.e., not serfs) can play one fine shell game when the po-po come knocking.

  30. JP says:

    Obamao’s laws are expected to be similar.

    Fuck you, window lickers…I’m keeping my guns and all my magazines.

  31. Twist says:

    “and 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.”

    Doesn’t the Constitution forbid that.

  32. Common Sense says:

    Sounds like having a gun shop just outside NY borders may be a good financial move.

    As for this: “Has there ever been a crazed murderer who made a credible threat to a mental health professional who wasn’t reported and later went on a killing spree? Even crazed murderers have enough sense to keep their mouths shut.”

    Actually, James Holmes, the theater murderer, was reported to campus police during the first week of June, but it never went any further so didn’t prevent additional firearms purchases. Here’s a timeline of his actions:

    http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/01/james_holmes_read_a_timeline_o.php

  33. USMCE8Ret says:

    @31/Twist – I have the same arguement in #25.

  34. LFR says:

    @30: I don’t know about you, but I sold all my guns at the gun show last weekend. Forgot to get a recipt too.

    The thing that really gets me is this,
    “The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the “Webster provision.””

    I love that they think that the life of a first responder is of greater value than the average citizen when it comes to murder. Then again that precident was set years ago with harsher punishments for “hate” crimes.

  35. Old Trooper says:

    @31: According to the gun grabbers, they aren’t taking anything away, or violating the Constitution. Personally, I haven’t yet found anything in the 2nd Amendment that covers that you need to register to buy ammunition, or what capacity of ammunition your arms can carry, or a limit on how much ammunition you can have. But that’s just me. I’ll wait for one of those “experts” to come along and show me where it exists in the Constitution.

  36. Twist says:

    Oops, I missed that one. I just pulled a Biden and plagerized the living crap out of you.

  37. UpNorth says:

    @#28. Or, Remington Arms would be welcome in Michigan. We’re a Right to Work state now.

  38. Flagwaver says:

    I wonder if this means New Yorks finest are going to be turning in their 9mm semi-automatic pistols in exchange for .38 revolvers? You know, because the police have to follow the law, too, right?

    I don’t know about you, but I am sure that every criminal with a firearm that is now illegal will immediately see the light and turn their weapon over to respectable authorities. You know, because criminals ALWAYS obey new laws when they are signed.

    So, if I might ask for a clarification, it is illegal to own any weapon with a pistol grip? Because, that might not make it legal to own pistols anymore. But, if you can own pistols, I would suggest something high caliber.

  39. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @34 The part about first responders and cops is just lip service…they don’t actually put anyone to death in that state. They just write it in the law so it looks like they are doing something….the problem is that a fresh coat of paint only covers up the decay, nothing but a complete overhaul gets the smell and rot out.

  40. LIRight says:

    @ #39 Veritas Omnia Vincit

    Boy, did you hit the nail on the head!!

  41. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @35. Yes, but people have to educate themselves NOW regarding the 2nd amendmentt’s treatment by the Supreme court and not rely on the plain language of the amendment. (The left ignorantly still sp[eaks of “a well regulated militia” as the basis for the amendment but the Supreme Court dispatched that argument summarily. There are reasonable restrictions and prohibitions that keep us from possessing certain weapons or from carrying weapons in certain places. The issue is that reasonableness test and what the court described in Heller as “weapons in common use.” Stay tuned. It should not take too long for this to make the Supremes’ docket.

  42. David says:

    Not sure why anyone is surprised at the “Webster” clause…. for years, killing Federal employees and cops have been classified as special cases which draw higher penalties than killing common folk. We already have two classes of crime and punishment (not to mention the best judges and politicians money can buy)

  43. USMCE8Ret says:

    Any bets on what the 19 issues will be on the less-anticipated Executive Order?

  44. Hondo says:

    Twist, USMCE8Ret: I don’t think what’s going one here fits the definition of an ex post facto law. Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, so I could well be wrong. Perhaps 2/17 Air Cav, Susan, TSO, or one of our other lawyers here could weigh in.

    As I understand it, an ex post facto law makes an act committed before the effective date of the law a retroactively punishable crime. Making something unlawful that used to be legal doesn’t seem to do that. Neither would prosecution – in this case, one would face prosecution for current possession, not for possession that occurred prior to passage of the law.

    Here’s a historical example: until 2005, THG (the designer steroid Bonds reportedly used and called “the clear”) was apparently not listed by the Justice Department as a controlled substance under Federal drug laws. Therefore, Bonds (and anyone else) who used it prior to it being so declared cannot be prosecuted for violations of Federal drug laws concerning possession or use under the Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws. However, anyone who (1) had a supply of the stuff on the date it was declared a controlled substance and (2) kept it and continued to use it COULD be prosecuted for possession and use occurring after that date.

    You might have a case for seizure without just compensation if you were forced to turn your existing “high capacity” mags in to the state without compensation, but IMO even that would be a stretch. But I don’t think ex post facto would apply, period.

  45. Anonymous says:

    “Because emotional knee-jerk reactions are more important than jobs to the Cuomo family.” You got that wrong – here is my corrected version “Because emotional knee-jerk reactions are more important than no cushy government jobs for the Cuomo family.”

  46. Susan says:

    The reason for the first responder rule is that, in theory, they are heading into the fire and you want criminals to think twice about killing those comming to the aid of others. In practice, very few murderers actually think so this is not much of a deterent.

    As for me, I am going to stay here in Georgia where getting a ccw permit takes a background check, some fingerprints and very little else.

  47. Susan says:

    Hondo,

    Ex post facto is, pretty much, what you said. You can’t be prosecuted for something that was legal when the act took place but subsequently became illegal. The fact that there is no “grandfather” provision will make this a little more difficult on the takings issue – that is why they are giving you a year to sell. This may still not be sufficient, but since I thought the USSC would save us from ObamaCare, I won’t make any predictions.

  48. MCPO AR-15 USN (Ret.) says:

    These events all occured on 15 JAN 2013

    0100 Tuesday returned from NH.

    1030 – rolled out of rack and kissed wife as she delivered son to school.

    1115 – walking to work recieved a call that an pre-ban AR-15 mint condition is available at my local gun shop in Rockland County.

    1116 – redirected my freckled faced Irish ass to the garage and proceeded to gun shop.

    1127 – 89 mph on Palisades Parkway northbound.

    1217 – arrive at shop and presented with mint condition Colt AR-15.

    1218 – fill out form.

    1230 – Purchase price for COLT AR-15 was 2,800.00, plus Black Hawk Carry Case, and a big ass case of ammo.

    On a related note: I know a hunter who knows another hunter who needed 11 rounds to take down a deer!

  49. teddy996 says:

    You forgot to mention, Jonn, that my esteemed governor suspended the debate period required by law for new legislation. People were given 20 minutes to review the 78 page bill before voting on it in a closed-door session last night.

  50. LCDR M(Ret) says:

    To my eternal shame, I was born in bred in the NYC area. I am sooooo glad that I left there 30 years ago. My home state is an embarrassment.

    I shake my head at the blatantly political restrictions now placed on gun owners, like the ban on mags which hold over 7 rounds. Anyone with minimal training can change out a magazine under stress in maybe 5 seconds tops.

    What a joke.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *