You are being reasonable and you are respecting prior court decisions. But note that the politicians and legislators just do what they want (what they perceive a majority of the people want). Maybe a court case in the future pushes the other way. Maybe some new priests in robes replace the old ones and change the results. In the mean time, commoners will be harassed, arrested, and deprived of liberty and property. The reality is that no rules and no precedent can ever trump the desire of the mob. You can always spot the loser in a political fight -- he is the one appealing to law or precedent. The winner is writing new laws. Right now, we are the losers.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Tentative Deal : NY Restrict Capacity 7 Rounds
- Thread starter zbomb
- Start date
You are being reasonable and you are respecting prior court decisions. But note that the politicians and legislators just do what they want (what they perceive a majority of the people want). Maybe a court case in the future pushes the other way. Maybe some new priests in robes replace the old ones and change the results. In the mean time, commoners will be harassed, arrested, and deprived of liberty and property. The reality is that no rules and no precedent can ever trump the desire of the mob. You can always spot the loser in a political fight -- he is the one appealing to law or precedent. The winner is writing new laws. Right now, we are the losers.
I would guess this number comes from one of two, or perhaps both of the following:
1. Percent of handguns out there with capacity greater than 7.
2. Percent of gun owners with 7 or less who won't object since it won't affect them.
1. Percent of handguns out there with capacity greater than 7.
2. Percent of gun owners with 7 or less who won't object since it won't affect them.
I was just thinking that. My pre ww2 rifle is now considered a modern assault rifle
What a joke.
Not true in this case. Upstate NY'ers get bullied by the downstaters and are forced to live with laws dictated by the corrupt in NYC. NY is really two different states..........
I've lived in Assachusetts most of my entire life . I feel the discomfort of this BS . We've allowed it to happen .
Yep, two sides of the same authoritarian coin. Heads they win, tails we lose.
Does that mean they can now lock up the Democrats? That would be ironical.
I see major people not happy about the provision added by the Repubs. So, perhaps that was added in to create a bad taste in the mouth of the citizenry in hopes to generate public outcry.
I'm probably giving them way too much credit.
Like Illinois.
That's the whole point of these "gun control" [sic] regulations and laws. I think they know full well that these measures aren't going to do squat.
So when this 7-round maximum limit is imposed and the next kid whacked out on concoction of Zoloft, Ritalin, and Celexa decides to shoot up a school, they're going to turn the screw again. Maybe next time it's a 5 or a 3 round limit. Maybe it's outright confiscation? Maybe the abolishment of CCW in the state? Who knows. All I know is that they know these things won't fix the problem so the government will have to come to the "rescue" again.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
seanc
NES Member
I know it's wishing for far too much.
But it would be wonderful if retailers and manufacturers refused to sell anything greater than 7 round mags to any/ all of the gov/ LE depts in the state.
But it would be wonderful if retailers and manufacturers refused to sell anything greater than 7 round mags to any/ all of the gov/ LE depts in the state.
Sounds like upstate NY needs to separate
Glad u mentioned the PPK,i had forgetten about that.At least i have one i can carry out of the assortment of handguns in the safe.Not keen on 380 but i guess its better than throwing rocks.Never did i think that PPK would be my main carry wep,
![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
In the Heller decision, United States v. Miller was cited in part to show that the 2nd Amendment only applies to certain types of weapons. There are very different interpretations as to what exactly the Miller decision means for the 2nd Amendment, partly because it is seen as a test case initiated by the federal government in order to further New Deal gun control measures, but more so because it allows for a hybrid thoery to emerge with respect to collective versus individual rights theory.
In Parker v. District of Columbia, the Miller case was interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to posses and use weapons of the kind "in common use at the time", which is the source for the language to which you allude.
It remains an open question exactly what limits the government has regarding the type of firearm one may posses, but the Parker case would provide some solid footing with which to launch a challenge.
Interestingly and somewhat ironically given the current state of affairs, in Miller, the United States was arguing that the 2nd Amendment "protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia" since they were tying to prosecute Miller for possession of a sawed off shotgun, which was prohibited under the NFA of 1934.
In other words, if the sawed off shotgun was in use by the military at the time, it would have been protected, it follows logically then that individuals would have a right to own any weapon which was also in use by the military, in addition to those that weren't, but which were legally permissible under the NFA.
Last edited:
So supposedly they are going after existing "high-round clips."
"Silver said the deal is expected to reduce the bullet capacity for magazines to seven, from 10, and no longer exempt high-round clips manufactured before 1994...He said the legislation will require owners of guns that become illegal under the stricter statute to register their weapons and that the new laws will prohibit transfer of those weapons."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_senate_leader_says_he_expects_d4DTQm0ulHNfjI047Zlz4M
Discuss...
"Silver said the deal is expected to reduce the bullet capacity for magazines to seven, from 10, and no longer exempt high-round clips manufactured before 1994...He said the legislation will require owners of guns that become illegal under the stricter statute to register their weapons and that the new laws will prohibit transfer of those weapons."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_senate_leader_says_he_expects_d4DTQm0ulHNfjI047Zlz4M
Discuss...
So whats gonna happen with all those Garands?
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 968
- Likes
- 123
So... register you're extra killy weapons AND they can not be Transfered and no grandfathering?!?!... WOW, F$%# you.
I suspect they will say they must be turned in for destruction once the current owner is deceased.
ETA: Stick the gun into a trust - that can survive indefinitely more or less if it is written correctly. Then no actual transfer of the gun would ever take place.
Damn lawyers already coming up with ways around a law that isn't even passed. LOL.
Last edited:
Certainly true. Most laws are not well defined - they leave it up to the courts to figure those things out at a later time.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 567
- Likes
- 65
So is it go time in NY?
Hopefully that clown James Yeager isn't visiting NY right now.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 567
- Likes
- 65
So how much is an AR worth right now minutes before "new laws will prohibit transfer of those weapons." It could be now or never.
Knob Creek
NES Member
So 10 round mags will now be "High Caps"? Who would have thunk it?
