New York Gun Control

[SChrist82]

Hey I got some questions about the recent gun control mess. A lot of people I know are talking about gun control and of coarse a few are ranting and raving the usual 'there gonna take our guns' stuff even though (as far as i know) a proposal hasnt even been made yet (or has it?). it does look like New York State has passed its own law and there doesnt seems to be anything about confiscation in it. here's a summary i found on NBCNews.com


Called the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, New York's law:
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.
•Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.
•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.
•Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others 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, as well.
•Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.
•Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature
•Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.


seems pretty reasonable to me, though im not sure it will really make a difference. What does everyone else think. This is considered a very strict set of laws by some, but i dont think that it deserves all the 'bad politics' and 'turning citizens into criminals' statements that are popping up already. (and yes, even a few hitler comparisons). Will any of this help or is it just to make people feel like something is being done.

On some progun sites they claim every time gun registration was enacted it lead to confiscation, the true purpose is to make it easier for the govt to 'take our guns away'. im sure it has happened some times, but are there examples of countries with mandatory registrations and no confiscation. What are the pros of gun registration (or in this case assualt weapon registration). Will it aid in keep guns away from mentaly ill or criminals somewhow, or will it just make more work and cost more taxpayer money to keep track of?

Also is there more to this law than mentioned on this website?

What if there was an application process for a gun like there is for a drivers license, where you take a drivers ed class and then get so many hours of on the road experience before you can drive a car. learn the laws and safety stuff etc etc. for first time buyers at least.

BTW here's my bias: I dont think there is a reason for the average person to have an assault rifle or anything automatic, I dont own a gun but im not opposed to pistols for self defence or shotugns and rifles for hunting.

 

[casebro]

Banning possession sounds like confiscation without due process. Which might get the whole law tossed out. ( I hope.) Is there a severability clause?

I expect it is "semi auto, plus one feature"?

But, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision the us individuals have the right to keep and bear arms that are "in common usage", this whole round of new gun laws might all be tossed out. There is millions of them black guns out there.

 

[lionking]

New York is heading in the right direction, that's for sure. Now if they could only ban handguns....

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Hey I got some questions about the recent gun control mess. A lot of people I know are talking about gun control and of coarse a few are ranting and raving the usual 'there gonna take our guns' stuff even though (as far as i know) a proposal hasnt even been made yet (or has it?). it does look like New York State has passed its own law and there doesnt seems to be anything about confiscation in it. here's a summary i found on NBCNews.com


Called the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, New York's law:
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.
•Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.
•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.
•Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others 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, as well.
•Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.
•Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature
•Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.


seems pretty reasonable to me, though im not sure it will really make a difference. What does everyone else think. This is considered a very strict set of laws by some, but i dont think that it deserves all the 'bad politics' and 'turning citizens into criminals' statements that are popping up already. (and yes, even a few hitler comparisons). Will any of this help or is it just to make people feel like something is being done.

On some progun sites they claim every time gun registration was enacted it lead to confiscation, the true purpose is to make it easier for the govt to 'take our guns away'. im sure it has happened some times, but are there examples of countries with mandatory registrations and no confiscation. What are the pros of gun registration (or in this case assualt weapon registration). Will it aid in keep guns away from mentaly ill or criminals somewhow, or will it just make more work and cost more taxpayer money to keep track of?

Also is there more to this law than mentioned on this website?

What if there was an application process for a gun like there is for a drivers license, where you take a drivers ed class and then get so many hours of on the road experience before you can drive a car. learn the laws and safety stuff etc etc. for first time buyers at least.

BTW here's my bias: I dont think there is a reason for the average person to have an assault rifle or anything automatic, I dont own a gun but im not opposed to pistols for self defence or shotugns and rifles for hunting.

If that's what the residents of New York want, then I guess there's no problem. I'm not a resident so it's not going to affect me directly, although it may in the future when the inevitable claim comes up, "look how successful they were in NY", regardless of how successful they may actually have been.
We'll know in about four or five years. If the murder rate drops dramatically (that is to say,well beyond its current rate of decline or a projected national rate) and no other factors change, then you can't help but say that it worked.
As to how reasonable the measures are, that depends on how they are enforced.

The Ban on LCMs (Large Capacity Magazines) will probably have little or no impact on crime, other than possibly causing some criminals to practice combat reload techniques. With a citizenry that has already been pretty thoroughly indoctrinated in the concept of "don't fight back, run away or comply" then you probably won't even see that. Come to think of it, they'll definitely have less to fight back with, so that might be a useful concept after all.

The ammunition control feature will definitely create a few jobs somewhere, but again, I don't see it as anything but a feel good clause. Time will tell. If criminals begin running out of bullets in NY anytime soon (like within the next 20 years or so) then you can chalk it up as a win.If not, you can always blame George Bush.
I know, I'm being snarky, and I apologize, but realistically I can't see how it's going to do much good.

The registration of current owners could have serious implications for those gun owners. NY already has a precedent (in NYC) for suddenly deciding to send out letters that say, "Dear registered Firearm Owner, Please turn in or get rid of your (name weapon of choice here)" and making them go away.
For criminals, again, I don't see how it will have much effect, and again, time will tell.

The military features reduction from 2 features to 1 could have the most impact, as virtually every firearm on Earth has at least one military feature.
So it depends entirely on how they interpret it.
Banning or restricting a firearm based on its cosmetic appearance to a military weapon does not seem to be a very intelligent way of dealing with the relative merits of a firearm anymore than classifying automobiles capabilities based on their paint jobs would appear to be particularly effective.
OTOH, during the 10 years of the last AWB, not one drive by bayoneting was reported, so who am I to judge?

If a therapist reports a person as a credible threat, and there is good solid evidence to back up that the individual is indeed in violation of the law,( there are terroristic threat laws on the books in most states), and the individual is given due process, sure. Why not? Just as long as it isn't used as a cudgel to disarm anyone out of the therapist personal aversion to firearms or due to "defensive medicine" guidelines. And as long as the individual has the right to sue for malpractice and violation of patient confidentiality in the event there isn't an actual basis in fact for the allegation.

No problem on background checks, although putting it into practice is probably going to require some "tweaking".

Guns should be reported as stolen. In the past its effectiveness has been less than spectacular as far as actually arresting anyone, but I won't be petty enough to make a big issue of it.
I think that covers them all.
In closing, as i said in he opening, a lot of it depends on how the new laws are interpreted, and I guess it depends on how responsive the State Government is to the wishes of its people.

 

[Trakar]

...Called the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, New York's law:
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.

No real problem with this.

•Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.

ridiculous, moreso because it is a state law with no restrictions on possession, just on in-state sales. Short drive to Jersey and you can fill your trunk with ammo and drive home.

•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.

based on what subjective standard of "assault weapon"?

•Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others 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, as well.

I'm under the impression that this is already an ethical/licensure issue, not sure how a law re-iterating standard practices actually accomplishes anything useful.

•Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.

And this is new or controversial how?

•Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature

"tightening" isn't as important as making the definition meaningful, clear and obvious.

•Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

Over the top if it applies to all rifles and shotguns, and largely unenforceable.

...Will any of this help or is it just to make people feel like something is being done.

Nothing in any of these rules would rule out or make impossible any of the recent mass shootings that are driving the klaxon call for firearm regulation in some quarters.

 

[Cain]

New York, like a lot of those states on the east coast, are not part of Real America (Thank God). What would they know about the Revolutionary War and the Boston Tea Party? George Washington always envisioned Wyoming and Kansas and Texas as the Real United States.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Over the top if it applies to all rifles and shotguns, and largely unenforceable.

Actually it's easy. Issue a licence to all gun holders, part of which is a background check, then only allow sales to those with licences. Set up a website where people can search to check valid licences (for example you have to put in both the number and the name on the licence and it returns basic information that should be on the licence like a name and photo and a valid until date.) This way you can check a person's licence almost instantly anywhere you are if you have a smartphone. Licence holders have an automatic background check every five years to retain their licence.

Then come down really, really heavily on people who fail to get one. See this is the thing about registration and licencing. If you have a gun and are in the system then the authorities know you are good and can safety ignore you. If you have one and aren't in the system, then they can crack down on you because you're likely to be the exact sort of person everyone should be worried about have guns.

 

[triforcharity]

New York is heading in the right direction, that's for sure. Now if they could only ban handguns....

If only they could violate the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald.....

 

[lionking]

If only they could violate the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald.....

As I've said before, the tide is turning. One day the US will be worthy of a place in the civilised world.

 

[SChrist82]

Thanks for the responses I also found this, it has a few more details:

Here are 13 provision of the NY SAFE ACT, according to the Associated Press:

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

2.Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.


3.Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.


4.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.


5.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.


6.Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.





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


8.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. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.


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


10.Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property.


11.Increase penalties for shooting first responders, called the "Webster provision." 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.


12.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.


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


So what does registration involve? number 13 says assault rifle owners need to be recertified to make sure they are still legally able to own the guns. I wonder what 'legally able' means?

 

[triforcharity]

I'll admit my bias, as you have do so.

I'm an avid supporter of all of our Amendments, but especially the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th. I am an avid sport shooter, hunter, and gun collector. Have been collecting for almost 20 years, shooting for sport for about 10 or so, and hunting since I was a wee lad.

Called the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, New York's law:
•Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.

Here's whats funny: It didn't exempt law enforcement. LOL! Tells me that nobody really read the law, and those who voted for it are incompetent.

It also requires people to either sell them out of state, or turn them in. This violates the 4th Amendment, as they do not have a provision to offer even fair market value for them.

•Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.

This is asinine. If they want to regulate ammo sales, fine. Here's the problem. They're going to be FLOODED with more work. My guess, based on what an average shooter uses in a year, they're going to be doing 100,000,000 checks yearly. This is a TON of additional work for some government agency.

•Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.

This is just a feel good law, as I don't see much use for it.

•Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others 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, as well.

Could violates the HIPPA laws of the US DOH&HS. Also, unless a judge rules a person incompetent, it would violate the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and due process.

•Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.

This is an ok provision, but it's going to be hard to prove that an owner knew the gun was gone before the time they finally reported it, or the police discovered it was used in a crime and went to question the registered owner.

Again, feel good. It seems good on the face, but it would be almost impossible to prove they knew the gun was missing.

•Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature

This is just stupid. The whole label of "assault weapon" was made up by politicians who want to make a gun sound more scary than it really is.

•Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

I'm 100% supportive of this.

Also is there more to this law than mentioned on this website?

Yeah, as I said, it didn't exempt the police. So, now they have to go and fix this MAJOR snafu before it can be implemented. Not to mention the other problems with it.

Can you have any respect for a politician who pushes a law through on emotions alone, only to find out it makes the cops into criminals, and most obviously never had the ability to read the full text? That doesn't seem incompetent to you? It does to me.

BTW here's my bias: I dont think there is a reason for the average person to have an assault rifle or anything automatic, I dont own a gun but im not opposed to pistols for self defence or shotugns and rifles for hunting.

I disagree.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Could violates the HIPPA laws of the US DOH&HS. Also, unless a judge rules a person incompetent, it would violate the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and due process.

Actually it wouldn't. There are three reasons Doctors may disclose information. The second of which is when and where they are required to by law, and the third where there when the public interest in disclosure is greater than the need for non-disclosure, for instance when a patient threatens to kill others. In fact under Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California [1976]...

‘when a doctor determines, or should determine that a warning is essential to avert danger arising from medical or psychological condition of his patient, he incurs a legal obligation to give that warning’.

So this part of the new NY law basically covers what doctors should already be doing in such a way that the doctors are totally covered from any legal comeback.

 

[triforcharity]

Actually it wouldn't. There are three reasons Doctors may disclose information. The second of which is when and where they are required to by law, and the third where there when the public interest in disclosure is greater than the need for non-disclosure, for instance when a patient threatens to kill others. In fact under Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California [1976]...

‘when a doctor determines, or should determine that a warning is essential to avert danger arising from medical or psychological condition of his patient, he incurs a legal obligation to give that warning’.

So this part of the new NY law basically covers what doctors should already be doing in such a way that the doctors are totally covered from any legal comeback.

It had better be a clear and convincing threat. Patient privacy is pretty important IMO. Surely you and I can agree with that. No "I believe" or "I think" will float. It had better be clear cut threats.

However, the removal of someone's guns without due process (meaning a court hearing in front of a judge) is wrong, and unconstitutional. Hopefully you could agree with that also, right?

 

[Checkmite]

However, the removal of someone's guns without due process (meaning a court hearing in front of a judge) is wrong, and unconstitutional. Hopefully you could agree with that also, right?

The permanent confiscation of someone's guns for medical or psychological reasons should involve a hearing of some type, yes. However, I would have no problem with the police securing the weapons pending the outcome of the hearing. I don't like to imply that a law-abiding citizen would do something like hide his guns or otherwise refuse to surrender them should a court rule against him; but it would be stupid to ignore the likely possibility of that happening.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It had better be a clear and convincing threat. Patient privacy is pretty important IMO. Surely you and I can agree with that. No "I believe" or "I think" will float. It had better be clear cut threats.

I think that the Californian decision makes it pretty clear.

"when a doctor determines, or should determine that a warning is essential to avert danger"

If the Doctor determines that there is a danger and a warning can avert it, he is legally bound to give that warning.

However, the removal of someone's guns without due process (meaning a court hearing in front of a judge) is wrong, and unconstitutional. Hopefully you could agree with that also, right?

The permanent confiscation of someone's guns for medical or psychological reasons should involve a hearing of some type, yes. However, I would have no problem with the police securing the weapons pending the outcome of the hearing. I don't like to imply that a law-abiding citizen would do something like hide his guns or otherwise refuse to surrender them should a court rule against him; but it would be stupid to ignore the likely possibility of that happening.

^This. Would you consider it unconstitutional for the police to remove weapons from someone arrested for a violent crime?

 

[lopeyschools]

Why the focus on registration? We tried that in Canada and all that happened was we wasted billions of dollars on something that could provide no evidence of efficacy. Magazine limits and background checks seem far more sensible.

 

[Bikewer]

Until quite recently, New York had one of the most-restrictive weapons laws in all the states.
Essentially, it was almost impossible to legally own a handgun. Yet, during this period, crime and homicide rates had soared and police yearly took thousands of weapons from criminals....
It's almost as if the criminal class had decided to ignore the law.

In recent years, NY has been cleaned up considerably, and new police tactics like the "broken window" approach and cleaning up neighborhoods and getting rid of "petty" street crime and all have had a great effect on crime... Even though restrictions on firearm ownership were greatly reduced.

Much the same situation in Chicago... Without the cleanup. Again, essentially impossible to legally own a handgun in the city, yet the homicide rate is extremely high and the numbers of guns in the hands of the criminal class is undiminished.
Thousands seized each year.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Nothing in this NYC gun law would have helped against Adam Lanza.
He didn't own a single weapon, so no gun to report and take away.
The bs of 7 rounds per magazin is so stupid that ROFLOL is unsufficient to describe my reaction.
Part of the success of the Glock 17 (used by NYPD) is it's 17 round magazin (developed for the Austrian military). And due to not reading the law before pushing it through the lawmakers made the NYPD one of the biggest criminal gangs of all time.
Good job Mayor!

 

[WildCat]

The ammunition restrictions are just stupid. Criminals don't go through much ammunition, in fact most have never fired their weapons. Legitimate gun owners burn through lots of it to keep their skills sharp. They'll just make their own ammo now, if they wern't already.

Magazine capacity restrictions are just mindless, but I thought it was funny that they rushed it through so fast they forgot to exempt police from this restriction. Now the pols will have to explain how larger magazine capacities don't aid at all in self defense but are necessary for the police to defend themselves. And the pols, of course, will continue to surround themselves with armed bodyguards while telling everyone else that guns don't make them safer.

 

[WildCat]

As I've said before, the tide is turning. One day the US will be worthy of a place in the civilised world.

We could have the same ineffective and useless gun laws Australia has someday!