New York Legislature screws up language, bans all guns

[TimothyC]

Sourced from the New York Times

Taken from page 22 of the above:

6 §_265.01-b Criminal_possession of a firearm.
7 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she:
8 (1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to
9 the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen
10 which added this section subject to the registration requirements of
11 subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly
12 fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision.

Bolding mine, and it's obvious they probably intended to use the word "and" instead of "Or"

Ooops.

And yes, it's screwups like this that feed the "They want to take all of our guns" mindset.

[Soontir C'boath]

I take more issue with "possesses any firearm" than that one word. This part alone sounds like someone can register an illegal firearm and keep it.

[Azazal]

Ok, question time. Section 2 there states that a firearms owner needs to register their guns. However, if possession of a firearm is now criminal offence, as it appears in the poorly written section one, does that mean one can invoke the 5th amendment and not register their weapons?

[Nephtys]

Seems like a word is missing.

It probably should be like..

7 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she:
8 (1) possesses any _________ firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to...

That blank probably is something along the lines of 'unregistered', 'stolen' or 'previously declared illegal' or 'falls under a banned list of types'.

The 'DEY TOOK UR GUNZ' crowd'll probably go berserk nonetheless. Ideally, it gets fixed quickly.

[Terralthra]

I'm pretty sure it's simply a lack of a comma somewhere. It appears to be intended to read:

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she: possesses any firearm ... subject to the registration requirements of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision.

The parallel structure was poorly executed, though.

[SirNitram]

And yes, it's screwups like this that feed the "They want to take all of our guns" mindset.

Can't really beleive that. IIRC, the crazy started in an internal NRA debate over Saturday Night Specials, back in '77, where radicals swept in accusing those who would ban cheap and poorly made guns were after all of them.. Their own fellow NRA members.

[TimothyC]

And yes, it's screwups like this that feed the "They want to take all of our guns" mindset.

Can't really beleive that. IIRC, the crazy started in an internal NRA debate over Saturday Night Specials, back in '77, where radicals swept in accusing those who would ban cheap and poorly made guns were after all of them.. Their own fellow NRA members.

Only in Nitworld would a law who's language is so messed up that it says "possessing a gun is illegal" wouldn't feed into the "They want to take all of our guns!" mindset.

[Terralthra]

And yes, it's screwups like this that feed the "They want to take all of our guns" mindset.

Can't really beleive that. IIRC, the crazy started in an internal NRA debate over Saturday Night Specials, back in '77, where radicals swept in accusing those who would ban cheap and poorly made guns were after all of them.. Their own fellow NRA members.

Only in Nitworld would a law who's language is so messed up that it says "possessing a gun is illegal" wouldn't feed into the "They want to take all of our guns!" mindset.

As noted in my post above, it doesn't say that. It says "possessing a gun is illegal..if it is a registration-required class and isn't registered." Note, searching for things like "new york gun law makes all guns illegal" or "new york gun law bans all guns" will show that the only people reaching this conclusion are you and the posters at Free Republic (of note, people within that thread reached the same conclusion I did).

[Zwinmar]

You are failing to take into account legalese where the precise wording is used to validate a certain point of view.

[Straha]

No. He is. He's merely saying that Tim and others don't understand the syntax of legalese.

If anything this thread should be merged into the degrees thread as proof of what that
article is talking about.

[Azazal]

Score another one for the NY Legislature.

Did anyone proof read this before making it a law?

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"

[Aaron MkII]

Did they turn in the first draft or something?

[RogueIce]

According to this site (which came up in a Google search for state session dates so I literally don't know anything else about it) the NYS legislative session began on the 9th. It wouldn't surprise me if this bill was rushed so they could score some points because they were Doing Something™ and try to be the first to do so, and so on and so forth.

In the process it seems they may have been just a little sloppy.

EDIT: For those who don't care to look, according to the reprint of the bill on the NYT it seems it passed on the 14th. So a whole 5 days into the session. It wouldn't surprise me if it was more than a little rushed in drafting.

[Agent Fisher]

So, what about those with more than seven round magazines (which is a stupid number. If they had gone with ten, at least it wouldn't have been too much of a hassle, since there are already a few states which require ten)? Will they be allowed to keep them or are they going to be forced to sell or destroy them? And how will it be enforced?

[Mr Bean]

So, what about those with more than seven round magazines (which is a stupid number. If they had gone with ten, at least it wouldn't have been too much of a hassle, since there are already a few states which require ten)? Will they be allowed to keep them or are they going to be forced to sell or destroy them? And how will it be enforced?

It's the funniest part of the gun reforms as magazine bans are essentially bans on rectangles of a certain size and shape once you get down to a ten round magazine. There's already mention from the Firearm blogs of all the side things that are going to be banned as in essence a magazine is nothing more than a box with a spring in it. Sure professionally made ones have all sorts of nice groves and grip areas but at the end of the day it's a box with a spring in it. You can spend all of 12$ on a brand new fancy one or get cheapo ones for 5$ a pop or make your own if you have a press and access to a Radio Shack in your town.

I'm very interested if they can even effectively enforce the magazine ban or if it's going to be one of the extra credit crimes. IE crimes that you will never be arrested for, but once arrested will be added on to swell your jail time.

[Col. Crackpot]

Good to see that the ham fisted, self serving, emotional nonsense that was our legislative response to 9/11 is still alive and well in a new form. BAN ALL THE THINGS! And If the prisons don't have enough of space to incarcerate all of the illegal rectangle holders, we can always ship them to Gitmo. For the children.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You can still legally possess up to 10 round magazines, but if you load them with more than 7 rounds, you have committed a crime.

How the hell that makes murdering children harder, I don't know. It would seem that someone would have had enough intelligence to point out that once you decide you're going to kill kids with a gun, loading three more bullets into each of your magazines is not some kind of additional leap which will make you think twice! But apparently not...

[Mr Bean]

You can still legally possess up to 10 round magazines, but if you load them with more than 7 rounds, you have committed a crime.

How the hell that makes murdering children harder, I don't know. It would seem that someone would have had enough intelligence to point out that once you decide you're going to kill kids with a gun, loading three more bullets into each of your magazines is not some kind of additional leap which will make you think twice! But apparently not...

Which is why like the "military features" rules it's a clear indication of legislation written by people who know nothing about guns.
You want to ban 50 round drum magazine or 40 round extended clips? Fine, you want to ban magazines bigger than twenty rounds (Lots of assault rifles are still technically speaking balanced for 20 round magazines) then fine, but why 10? Or in this case 7.

Is New York telling me to buy bigger caliber Glocks because the Glock 17 comes with a 17 9mm clip and the 22 comes 15 in .40 and the Glock 30 comes in ten round clips at .45. And these guns are designed to be balanced with a full clip. I guess I could load less bullets but again I ask if the magazine law is an extra credit law. Not intended to be an enforcement mandate but something designed to increase my fine or jail time when arrested for another offense.

[weemadando]

I'd assume that the 7 round limit rather than 5 is so they don't automatically ban all revolvers or need them to permanently fill/seal one or more chambers of them. Also it means most shotguns and other tube/internal magazine weapons are covered without need for modifications.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You can still legally possess up to 10 round magazines, but if you load them with more than 7 rounds, you have committed a crime.

How the hell that makes murdering children harder, I don't know. It would seem that someone would have had enough intelligence to point out that once you decide you're going to kill kids with a gun, loading three more bullets into each of your magazines is not some kind of additional leap which will make you think twice! But apparently not...

Which is why like the "military features" rules it's a clear indication of legislation written by people who know nothing about guns.
You want to ban 50 round drum magazine or 40 round extended clips? Fine, you want to ban magazines bigger than twenty rounds (Lots of assault rifles are still technically speaking balanced for 20 round magazines) then fine, but why 10? Or in this case 7.

Is New York telling me to buy bigger caliber Glocks because the Glock 17 comes with a 17 9mm clip and the 22 comes 15 in .40 and the Glock 30 comes in ten round clips at .45. And these guns are designed to be balanced with a full clip. I guess I could load less bullets but again I ask if the magazine law is an extra credit law. Not intended to be an enforcement mandate but something designed to increase my fine or jail time when arrested for another offense.

There's nothing wrong with a very low magazine limit like 5 rounds for detachable magazines. Having the same limit for fixed magazines is ridiculous, since you can't pop out an empty magazine and pop in a new one, you have to load each bullet one at a time. So I don't see why they needed to fix the limit at 7 rounds for both. I'm fine with severe limits on detachable magazines.

I also object to the idea that "gun balance" is a legitimate reason for setting the detachable mag limit at 20 rounds instead of five. You can just make mags with weights in them. Heck, that will keep the gun balanced better as you fire.

So I'm in the position of opposing the New York law as it applies to en bloc clips and fixed magazines, but also oppose your effort to defend 20-round magazines, because there's no way a workaround for the balance couldn't be had, and a really small limit for detachable magazines will genuinely help. If you want to fire off a lot of ammo without reloading, get one of those Red Star 20 fixed mags for your SKS and then reload the thing with stripper clips. We're all adults here and detachable magazine restrictions, even sub-10 round ones, are very reasonable compromises.

[Mr Bean]

There's nothing wrong with a very low magazine limit like 5 rounds for detachable magazines. Having the same limit for fixed magazines is ridiculous, since you can't pop out an empty magazine and pop in a new one, you have to load each bullet one at a time. So I don't see why they needed to fix the limit at 7 rounds for both. I'm fine with severe limits on detachable magazines.

The problem with this is it literally makes every non revolver pistol made in the last sixty years illegal with a limit that low.

I also object to the idea that "gun balance" is a legitimate reason for setting the detachable mag limit at 20 rounds instead of five. You can just make mags with weights in them. Heck, that will keep the gun balanced better as you fire.

So I'm in the position of opposing the New York law as it applies to en bloc clips and fixed magazines, but also oppose your effort to defend 20-round magazines, because there's no way a workaround for the balance couldn't be had, and a really small limit for detachable magazines will genuinely help. If you want to fire off a lot of ammo without reloading, get one of those Red Star 20 fixed mags for your SKS and then reload the thing with stripper clips. We're all adults here and detachable magazine restrictions, even sub-10 round ones, are very reasonable compromises.

See here's the thing again Duchess, it comes back to enforcement, is Trooper Steve going to ask to see my gun at the range and see if my twenty round magazine is a counter weighted twenty round magazine that only allows so many bullets? It's why I keep asking about enforcement. The Glock 17, a very common pistol by default comes with a 17 round magazine because that's how many 9mm bullets fit into the dimensions of the grip. Nice easy gun to use, under this law what happens when Trooper Steve pulls me over checks my papers and asks to see my gun, is he going to pop my glock magazine out and start counting bullets? Or is going Glock going to start making 7 round magazines with "New York Legal" stenciled on the side?

This Duchess is why I ask about 7 instead of 20 because at 20 you keep all pistols legal (I don't know of any pistols designed with more than 20 rounds by default) your going to have issues with literally millions of guns by default being illegal because the clip size is to big. It reminds me a bit and stick with me here because this comparison can be considered offensive... that of recent republican moves to ban abortion clinics by saddling them with regulations designed for full scale hospitals instead of outpatient clinics. IE the 7 to 10 round limit is chosen not because its been shown to be the magic number but because it makes the most number of guns illegal without out right just making guns illegal.

I'm coming at it from the prospective of someone who has shotguns (that won't be affected), rifles (bolt action won't be affected) and pistols (Will be effective because I don't buy revolvers)

OAN:I'm one of those bad people who calls all magazine clips and all clips clips, always have to go back and correct myself while typing.

[LaCroix]

So I don't see why they needed to fix the limit at 7 rounds for both.

Colt 1911.
THE American gun, so to speak, and has a standard capacity of 7 rounds.

Might sound strange, but that is how laws are made - take the standard item, make up rules around it.

[Azazal]

So I don't see why they needed to fix the limit at 7 rounds for both.

Colt 1911.
THE American gun, so to speak, and has a standard capacity of 7 rounds.

Might sound strange, but that is how laws are made - take the standard item, make up rules around it.

Ahh, but there is a problem even with the classic 1911, most come with 8 round magazines now, mine did at least. Also, even with a 7 round magazine, what happens if you carry with one in the chamber? You're 7+1 configuration puts you over the limit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's not true at all, Bean. The magazine could come with a sub-diameter thickness stalk for pulling it out of the gun and reinserting it, which it is physically impossible to insert bullets into.

[Sephirius]

Ahh, but there is a problem even with the classic 1911, most come with 8 round magazines now, mine did at least. Also, even with a 7 round magazine, what happens if you carry with one in the chamber? You're 7+1 configuration puts you over the limit.

Not so, the law states magazines- if you have one in the pipe, I don't believe that counts.

(If you CCW a 1911 or other similar single action pistol, this + cocked and locked is the standard.)