NY Gun control bill advances

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Gun-control-bill-advances-4192358.php

"State lawmakers took a step Monday night to broaden the state's definition of banned assault weapons, increase penalties for those convicted of illegal gun possession and create a statewide database for gun permits."

"The legislation, called the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, emerged quickly after several weeks of negotiations and finally saw action on Monday - the one-month anniversary of the deadly school shootings in Newtown, Conn. - when the state Senate approved it 43-18."

"The NY SAFE Act would adjust the definition of a banned assault rifle so that any single characteristic - such as a telescoping stock, flash suppressor, bayonet attachment or pistol grip - on a semiautomatic rifle would render it illegal. Existing weapons would be grandfathered in, but their ownership could not be transferred."

"A statewide registry of these guns would be created, and the county-by-county process for issuing handgun permits would also be standardized and centralized. In a change to the state's Freedom of Information Law, permit applicants would be able to request their name and address not be released..."

"The maximum capacity of an ammunition magazine would be reduced from 10 rounds to seven, and a current exemption for clips manufactured before 1994 will end."

"Private sales of firearms, which now proceed unfettered, would require a background check through a licensed dealer, putting those transactions in line with current purchasing requirements for rifles and shotguns."

Yep....

I'll just comment on the bill paragraphs a bit with my personal opinions on the matter.

"State lawmakers took a step Monday night to broaden the state's definition of banned assault weapons, increase penalties for those convicted of illegal gun possession and create a statewide database for gun permits."

Harsher penalties for illegal gun possessions and all the permit data stuffed into one place, okay.

"The legislation, called the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, emerged quickly after several weeks of negotiations and finally saw action on Monday - the one-month anniversary of the deadly school shootings in Newtown, Conn. - when the state Senate approved it 43-18."

I do not see how that's relevant.

"The NY SAFE Act would adjust the definition of a banned assault rifle so that any single characteristic - such as a telescoping stock, flash suppressor, bayonet attachment or pistol grip - on a semiautomatic rifle would render it illegal. Existing weapons would be grandfathered in, but their ownership could not be transferred."

Interesting about the grandfather clause there, but what happens then when the owner of the gun passes away? I suppose the bill implies it would have to be handed over to the state?

"A statewide registry of these guns would be created, and the county-by-county process for issuing handgun permits would also be standardized and centralized. In a change to the state's Freedom of Information Law, permit applicants would be able to request their name and address not be released..."

Keeping more of an eye where all the guns are so it's easier to track them down if necessary, good thing.

"The maximum capacity of an ammunition magazine would be reduced from 10 rounds to seven, and a current exemption for clips manufactured before 1994 will end."

Technical stuff, no comment.

"Private sales of firearms, which now proceed unfettered, would require a background check through a licensed dealer, putting those transactions in line with current purchasing requirements for rifles and shotguns."

Well about bloody time I'd say. It's not much to ask that if you want to own a firearm, you gotta prove you're not going to be a liability with it.

MO, I'd rather gun laws be like this:

Regarding private sales, enact strict(er) liability, i.e., you as a seller must take reasonable steps to make sure the buyer is not a criminal, on the blacklist etc.

Obviously, allow private gun owners to the Federal Database that is currently available only to Gun Stores to allow the "above" suggestion to work.

The current ATF regulation of fully automatic weapons should stay in place.

DON'T reinstate the assault weapons ban, its just stupid and only bans "scary" looking weapons.
If you're look to reduce accidental gun deaths, require basic safety classes as a prerequisite to getting a gun license/permits.

Also, magazine capacity limits are retarded.

Also, require permits for firearms ownership (common sense restrictions, relatively reasonable ease of acquisition), so at least criminals will have a hard time getting legal guns, but law - abiding owners still have access to equal the playing field.

I'm on the fence regarding CCW.

Also, affirmative proof of mental health/sanity (like Japan, go to a psychiatrist or mental health professional and get a clean bill of health before going to apply for your permit).

Point is, the less "legal" guns used in crimes, the better. Less blowback for people who want to be responsible gun owners.

Whats this? A gun control bill advanced in New York.

Breaking News!: Water is wet, and snow is cold. Also at 11: Winter is also cold and Summer is hot.

And really, thats about all I can get from this. It effects me in no way, except to add the umptinth reason to my list of "Why I wont live in New York." My state of Kansas will continue to allow you to own Machineguns, tanks, and anything short of heavy artillery and guided missiles, so long as you have the money, pass the background checks, and get the paperwork filled out. And no damns will be given.

Compared to Detroit, New York's homicide rate is low. If Detroit had the population New York has, we would have had 4,400 murders last year. We had 386 with 10 times less people, New York didn't break 500. I think measures like these have less to do with feeling safe, which they largely already are; and more to do with government not trusting themselves to run things and and keep society from falling apart.

They know they can't stop things from turning to shit and worry all about the people who are going to just snap. It's self-interest, an insurance policy to soften the fall over their fuck-ups.

The maximum capacity of an ammunition magazine would be reduced from 10 rounds to seven, and a current exemption for clips manufactured before 1994 will end."

Hmm wonder if they will compensate owners for magazines.

Existing weapons would be grandfathered in, but their ownership could not be transferred."

I'm guessing they go to the state, hopefully those that own them sell them out of state before death.

The 1 characteristic test is freaking retarded. Oh you want an adjustable stock can't have it cause its an "assault weapon" now. ( of course that doesn't affect the lethality, just comfort for the shooter or to accommodate multiple shooters ie you and your wife/friend) If you like pistol grips on your browning hunting rifle can't have that cause its an "assault weapon"

AWB's are frustrating because so much of it is just illogical .

Scolar Visari:

"The NY SAFE Act would adjust the definition of a banned assault rifle so that any single characteristic - such as a telescoping stock, flash suppressor, bayonet attachment or pistol grip - on a semiautomatic rifle would render it illegal. Existing weapons would be grandfathered in, but their ownership could not be transferred."

I never got why this wasn't put into the original assault weapon ban. From how someone explained it you could still buy pre-ban weapons/accessories but at 10x what they cost pre-ban; it kinda defeats the purpose of banning the sale of something if you can still buy it (albeit at a higher price). So saying you can't buy/sell pre-ban weapons makes a lot more sense and actually means the bill does something.

Or since there's the right to resale you can only sell to someone that holds a 'grandfather licence' (i.e. a licence that lets them keep a pre-ban gun). That way no new people are can get these kinds of guns as these licences would come into effect on day 1 of the ban and be non-transferable (outside of families). If a licence holder dies their family can apply to have a new licence so the gun can stay in the family (as it may be an heirloom), however this would be a stringent test to make sure the new owner meets tough criteria and would be a 'one in, one out' deal so the number of licences remains (near) constant.

Scolar Visari:

"The NY SAFE Act would adjust the definition of a banned assault rifle so that any single characteristic - such as a telescoping stock, flash suppressor, bayonet attachment or pistol grip - on a semiautomatic rifle would render it illegal. Existing weapons would be grandfathered in, but their ownership could not be transferred."

That is the single most retarded thing that I have ever heard in my entire life. I like how they expanded 'assault weapon' to the individual sets though.

Nice to know that 'Assault Handguns' are a thing now.

The law does exactly nothing to prevent any sort of gun violence, with the sole exception of limiting high-capacity magazines (which were already limited in the first place.) It's a knee-jerk reaction that could have more negative consequences than positive ones.

Consider this; From what I understand, the law requires doctors to report to the state if a patient is possibly a danger to his/herself or others to be put on a list of mentally ill patients that can't be in the same household as a gun. If they don't, the doctor could be liable for any violent acts that person commits. So what happens if doctors begin to deny patients because they don't want to be liable for that sort of stuff? Are those patients shit outta luck? On the flip side, the law is promoting gun-owning patients who are depressed and genuinely need help to not go in to their doctor and talk about things because they could lose their weapons. More than that, requiring doctors to do that could easily be considered a sever breach of patient-doctor confidentiality. Also, think about the possible implications of having a list of people who are mentally-ill sitting around. It could lead to any number of things, from being considered a list of "undesirables" to more discrimination against people who are already the target of a lot of that sort of thing, to a number of other major issues.

As far as the assault weapon limitations, that's just ridiculous. So I want a telescoping stock on my .22 rifle? Great, now it's an assault rifle despite barely being able to kill a human in the first place. Which in turn means I need to buy a second .22 for my kid to shoot, thus putting even more guns in the hands of civilians. What about a pistol grip if I've got arthritis in my wrist and holding a rifle without one hurts? Nope, assault rifle! Yet I could own a .50 caliber rifle with no issues more issues as long as it doesn't have any of those things. That part of the law is only there to take away guns that look scary, not actually do anything about preventing gun violence.

What if people simply decide not to register their weapon? What's the government going to do then?

Absolutely ridiculous. With the exception of the expansion of background checks this is pretty much a useless bill. Especially the bit about reducing mags from 10 to 7. If someone thinks this is anymore then part of a gentile procession to less and less gun rights may need to reevaluate whats been happening here.

Though I bet 1911 fanboys are happy.

Shock and Awe:
Absolutely ridiculous. With the exception of the expansion of background checks this is pretty much a useless bill. Especially the bit about reducing mags from 10 to 7. If someone thinks this is anymore then part of a gentile procession to less and less gun rights may need to reevaluate whats been happening here.

Though I bet 1911 fanboys are happy.

Kimber, Remington, Marlin, LBR, Numrich, Henry.

Expect to see these companies either leave the state, or in the case of the smaller ones financially collapse.

It's a sinking ship and any rat that can, is fleeing.

Apollo45:
What about a pistol grip if I've got arthritis in my wrist and holding a rifle without one hurts?

Then the solution is to stop shooting. Gun regulations don't cause arthritis, so they have nothing to do with it.

Apollo45:
What if people simply decide not to register their weapon? What's the government going to do then?

Probably arrest them in put them in jail, after which everybody learns in a hurry to not behave like a bunch of inresponsible children, and register their weapons.

Don't see any problems with the medical parts either. There's already compulsory reporting of many things, like for instance rape in the family. Would anyone argue it's unfair towards child rapists that doctors report their crimes if a victim is admitted for medical treatment? No. So should anyone argue the same about gun owners? No.

Shock and Awe:
Absolutely ridiculous.

Can you prove it won't work at all? No you can't, so you're wrong.

Kopikatsu:
That is the single most retarded thing that I have ever heard in my entire life. I like how they expanded 'assault weapon' to the individual sets though.

Nice to know that 'Assault Handguns' are a thing now.

Well, the gun lobby made a fuss about bans on assault rifles by screaming that handguns were more often used for crime. It was to be expected that those would be targeted next for both their use in shootings and to take arguments away from the gun violence lobby.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Absolutely ridiculous.

Can you prove it won't work at all? No you can't, so you're wrong.

Well lets see, first off considering that a registration/re-registration would only really matter to people who have legal weapons that does little to effect the other 70% of weapons that are use in gun crime since they are already illegal and won't be registered. Even talking about modern sporting rifles is; again; just so it looks nicer despite the fact that the weapons are used very little in murders. And finally do I really need to explain why a three round drop in magazine counts is just stupid? I hope not.

As for the background checks I have said before I support the measure.

Also, if you reply to this please don't just cherry pick the bits you think you can respond to or redirect this somehow to the "gun lobby". That'd be great.

Kopikatsu:

Scolar Visari:

"The NY SAFE Act would adjust the definition of a banned assault rifle so that any single characteristic - such as a telescoping stock, flash suppressor, bayonet attachment or pistol grip - on a semiautomatic rifle would render it illegal. Existing weapons would be grandfathered in, but their ownership could not be transferred."

That is the single most retarded thing that I have ever heard in my entire life. I like how they expanded 'assault weapon' to the individual sets though.

Nice to know that 'Assault Handguns' are a thing now.

Huh? The legislation has nothing to do with handguns. Or did I miss a joke?

LetalisK:

Kopikatsu:

Scolar Visari:

"The NY SAFE Act would adjust the definition of a banned assault rifle so that any single characteristic - such as a telescoping stock, flash suppressor, bayonet attachment or pistol grip - on a semiautomatic rifle would render it illegal. Existing weapons would be grandfathered in, but their ownership could not be transferred."

That is the single most retarded thing that I have ever heard in my entire life. I like how they expanded 'assault weapon' to the individual sets though.

Nice to know that 'Assault Handguns' are a thing now.

Huh? The legislation has nothing to do with handguns. Or did I miss a joke?

The banned class of weapons are called 'Assault Weapons', which covers Rifles, Handguns, and Shotguns. By calling rifles with those characteristics 'Assault Rifles' (by going Assault Weapon -> Assault Rifle), that means that Assault Handguns are a thing, according to New York.

Kopikatsu:

LetalisK:

Kopikatsu:

That is the single most retarded thing that I have ever heard in my entire life. I like how they expanded 'assault weapon' to the individual sets though.

Nice to know that 'Assault Handguns' are a thing now.

Huh? The legislation has nothing to do with handguns. Or did I miss a joke?

The banned class of weapons are called 'Assault Weapons', which covers Rifles, Handguns, and Shotguns. By calling rifles with those characteristics 'Assault Rifles' (by going Assault Weapon -> Assault Rifle), that means that Assault Handguns are a thing, according to New York.

The only weapons affected by assault weapons characteristics are semi-automatic rifles. It's even in the part you quoted and the article gives no mention of including shotguns or handguns in that category.

LetalisK:

Kopikatsu:

LetalisK:
Huh? The legislation has nothing to do with handguns. Or did I miss a joke?

The banned class of weapons are called 'Assault Weapons', which covers Rifles, Handguns, and Shotguns. By calling rifles with those characteristics 'Assault Rifles' (by going Assault Weapon -> Assault Rifle), that means that Assault Handguns are a thing, according to New York.

The only weapons affected by assault weapons characteristics are semi-automatic rifles. It's even in the part you quoted and the article gives no mention of including shotguns or handguns in that category.

Sigh. I will specify further. Assault Weapon is not the same as Assault Rifle. A semi-automatic rifle that is banned under the Assault Weapons Ban, is considered an Assault Weapon. But they're calling all rifles designated as Assault Weapons 'Assault Rifles', which is a misuse of terms. Going based off the logic they're using, Assault Handguns are a thing that exists; but they do not.

Shock and Awe:
Well lets see, first off considering that a registration/re-registration would only really matter to people who have legal weapons that does little to effect the other 70% of weapons that are use in gun crime since they are already illegal and won't be registered.

The difference between legal and illegal guns is artificial at best. They're the same thing. Any reduction in number or type of legal guns immediatly works into the availability of other weapons. This is why in countries with gun bans, criminals tend to not be armed unless they're rich and well-connected, and in that case only use it against eachother, and not against the public.

Secondly, that's an argument that basically goes "If it's not 100% effective, there's no point in trying", and that's obviously not true. If even one life is saved by these measures, it's worth it.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Well lets see, first off considering that a registration/re-registration would only really matter to people who have legal weapons that does little to effect the other 70% of weapons that are use in gun crime since they are already illegal and won't be registered.

The difference between legal and illegal guns is artificial at best. They're the same thing. Any reduction in number or type of legal guns immediatly works into the availability of other weapons. This is why in countries with gun bans, criminals tend to not be armed unless they're rich and well-connected, and in that case only use it against eachother, and not against the public.

Secondly, that's an argument that basically goes "If it's not 100% effective, there's no point in trying", and that's obviously not true. If even one life is saved by these measures, it's worth it.

Its not a reduction of firearms, its a registration. The idea is to be able to track firearms that are used in crimes. The guns that are mostly likely to be used in crimes will not be registered as they are now.

Blablahb:
Then the solution is to stop shooting. Gun regulations don't cause arthritis, so they have nothing to do with it.

Bit of a story here. My grandpa died when I was about three. He and my dad used to go hunting all the time, and my dad often says that for much of his life it was the only reason they continued to talk to one another. They didn't see eye to eye on many things, but hunting was one of the things they could agree on. So in the last year of his life, when my grandpa had lung cancer and was very quickly going downhill, some of the last things he did with his son consisted of shooting, both targets and hunting. At that point in his life he also had severe arthritis in his wrists. He couldn't shoot a regular gun because it caused him too much pain. If he couldn't use a pistol grip they would have lost out on quite a bit of bonding time before his death. I may be a bit biased there, but that's what I think of when I see people calling guns with pistol grips "assault weapons".

Pistol grips don't make the weapon more deadly, or more accurate. They make the gun easier to hold, especially for people who have wrist problems. I fail to see how that makes it an "assault weapon" in any way, shape or form.

Blablahb:
Probably arrest them in put them in jail, after which everybody learns in a hurry to not behave like a bunch of inresponsible children, and register their weapons.

And how, exactly, would they know that the owners didn't register their already-owned weapon? Unwarranted searches?

Blablahb:
Don't see any problems with the medical parts either. There's already compulsory reporting of many things, like for instance rape in the family. Would anyone argue it's unfair towards child rapists that doctors report their crimes if a victim is admitted for medical treatment? No. So should anyone argue the same about gun owners? No.

Did you even take a moment to read what you just wrote? Go back and read through it.

You're comparing mentally ill people - those that are depressed, have gone through some serious trauma, possibly the very victims of the child rapists that you're talking about - to child rapists. That seems a bit far-fetched, don't you think? Maybe a bit discriminatory, which is exactly what I was talking about in the first place (Thanks for proving my point there, by the way). There's a huge difference between someone who has lost a loved one and is going through a bout of depressing because of it and someone who goes out and rapes children, or anyone for that matter. On top of that, you're comparing gun owners to rapists. Your entire thought process here is one of the more ridiculous things I've heard on these forums, and there's a lot of over the top shit that happens here. You might want to re-think your position on all that before saying that sort of thing outside of the internet.

Kopikatsu:

Sigh. I will specify further. Assault Weapon is not the same as Assault Rifle. A semi-automatic rifle that is banned under the Assault Weapons Ban, is considered an Assault Weapon. But they're calling all rifles designated as Assault Weapons 'Assault Rifles', which is a misuse of terms. Going based off the logic they're using, Assault Handguns are a thing that exists; but they do not.

That only makes sense if there are handguns that are banned under this as well. This update doesn't say anything about handguns and I don't know if the original law does or not.

They're use of "Assault Rifle" to mean "Assault Weapon" is wrong in either case, though, as you noted.

Edit: And that would also be assuming they don't simply name the banned handguns something else, though it would still be a point of attack for their ignorance of the issue.

And NY continues it status as one of the worst states in the Union. It is bad enough that many people and businesses have fled (and continue to flee) upstate NY from decades of the most bonehead decisions ever made in human history. Upstate NY is already a fetid poverity ridden wasteland filled with crime.

High taxes
high utilities
high cost of living
high unemployment and poverity
an environment unfriendly to businesses or industry
high crime

about the only positive thing i can say about NY is that the colleges are pretty good and the autumn season is pretty nice. Oh, the food is pretty good too.

and before anyone tries to say that NY isnt rifed with crime

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/syracuse/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/buffalo/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/rochester/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/albany/crime/

those are all of the major cities in new york state besides new york city. And their crime rate is comparable to chicago.

and just for a frame of reference, here is chicago
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/

BOOM headshot65:
Whats this? A gun control bill advanced in New York.

Breaking News!: Water is wet, and snow is cold. Also at 11: Winter is also cold and Summer is hot.

And really, thats about all I can get from this. It effects me in no way, except to add the umptinth reason to my list of "Why I wont live in New York." My state of Kansas will continue to allow you to own Machineguns, tanks, and anything short of heavy artillery and guided missiles, so long as you have the money, pass the background checks, and get the paperwork filled out. And no damns will be given.

funny enough, we have been getting less and less snow in NY during winter for the past 8 years or so.

Apollo45:
Consider this; From what I understand, the law requires doctors to report to the state if a patient is possibly a danger to his/herself or others to be put on a list of mentally ill patients that can't be in the same household as a gun. If they don't, the doctor could be liable for any violent acts that person commits. So what happens if doctors begin to deny patients because they don't want to be liable for that sort of stuff? Are those patients shit outta luck? On the flip side, the law is promoting gun-owning patients who are depressed and genuinely need help to not go in to their doctor and talk about things because they could lose their weapons. More than that, requiring doctors to do that could easily be considered a sever breach of patient-doctor confidentiality. Also, think about the possible implications of having a list of people who are mentally-ill sitting around. It could lead to any number of things, from being considered a list of "undesirables" to more discrimination against people who are already the target of a lot of that sort of thing, to a number of other major issues.

Seconded.

I'd also point out that mental illness is hardly uncommon as the result of being a victim of a serious crime, and those people are sorta kinda exactly the people self-defense firearms exist for.

Anyone who thinks this bill promotes safety or saves lives needs to have their head examined.

All it does is turn legal gun owners into criminals having done nothing wrong. This will change absolutely nothing in terms of kids being killed. Liberals, celebrate, the authoritarianism continues to rise and rise.

Blablahb:

Secondly, that's an argument that basically goes "If it's not 100% effective, there's no point in trying", and that's obviously not true. If even one life is saved by these measures, it's worth it.

This is a cheap, easy-to-make, cop out. Using "if even one life is saved" to justify... anything at all. You are standing on the graves of dead kids to push your agenda. The one positive about this - you, your team, and the results of you being in charge are starting to wake people up to the kind of deal we bought into by supporting leftist authoritarianism.

Scolar Visari:
Existing weapons would be grandfathered in, but their ownership could not be transferred.

I'm perfectly fine with it if they do something like that with a nationwide bill. On one side, I won't even be able to get a Spectre (which is my favorite gun), but on the other side, I'd get to keep my AK. If there is something like that, I hope it won't go into effect for so long after it's announced so I can sell that piece of crap GSG 522 PK I bought.

harmonic:
Anyone who thinks this bill promotes safety or saves lives needs to have their head examined.

Background checks have proven to work, so go wash your mouth I'd say.

harmonic:
All it does is turn legal gun owners into criminals having done nothing wrong.

Laws against rape have turned legal rapists into criminals who had previously done nothing wrong, so go figure what the value of that argument is.

Just because something was considered good in the past, doesn't mean it is good, or is considered good now.

harmonic:
This is a cheap, easy-to-make, cop out. Using "if even one life is saved" to justify... anything at all. You are standing on the graves of dead kids to push your agenda.

How is trying to save lives, the same as standing on graves? You're standing on graves if you're physically standing on graves, or like the gun lobby is doing, trying to torpedo solutions for the killing from an ulterior motive. For example them wanting to bring gun violence into schools (so bigger profits for the NRA's paymasters) and guilttripping with 'you wouldn't want people to not defend themselves would you?', while the whole idea that you can defend yourself by shooting up classrooms is pure lunacy. That is standing on graves because it abuses the legacy of the dead.

Blablahb:

harmonic:
Anyone who thinks this bill promotes safety or saves lives needs to have their head examined.

Background checks have proven to work, so go wash your mouth I'd say.

harmonic:
All it does is turn legal gun owners into criminals having done nothing wrong.

Laws against rape have turned legal rapists into criminals who had previously done nothing wrong, so go figure what the value of that argument is.

Just because something was considered good in the past, doesn't mean it is good, or is considered good now.

harmonic:
This is a cheap, easy-to-make, cop out. Using "if even one life is saved" to justify... anything at all. You are standing on the graves of dead kids to push your agenda.

How is trying to save lives, the same as standing on graves? You're standing on graves if you're physically standing on graves, or like the gun lobby is doing, trying to torpedo solutions for the killing from an ulterior motive. For example them wanting to bring gun violence into schools (so bigger profits for the NRA's paymasters) and guilttripping with 'you wouldn't want people to not defend themselves would you?', while the whole idea that you can defend yourself by shooting up classrooms is pure lunacy. That is standing on graves because it abuses the legacy of the dead.

In this particular case, yes the NY politicians are standing on the graves. NOT because they want to reopen the gun control discussion, NOT because something was passed, but BECAUSE they wanted to get something, ANYTHING, passed BEFORE Obama could pass his recommendations so that they get publicity and notoriety FIRST. That was their STATED GOAL. They care more about the spotlight than the actual issue.

That is WORSE than exploiting a situation to push a political agenda. That is just greedy and corrupt (which explains our state government down to a T). The timing of the legistlation was MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM THAN THE ACTUAL LEGISTLATION.

They are using the tragedy to specifically increase their own power base. That is despicable.

hang on.. you guys allow people to keep weapons that are now illegal if they owned them before the date the law was passed?
well thats left me completely dumbfounded and makes no sense to me at all

wombat_of_war:
hang on.. you guys allow people to keep weapons that are now illegal if they owned them before the date the law was passed?
well thats left me completely dumbfounded and makes no sense to me at all

Retroactive laws are unconstitutional. If you apply the concept in other areas, you'll see how ridiculous it would be to have them.

Example; cigarettes are now made illegal. But they have a security video of you smoking from before the law took effect. You get charged because you broke the law before it was a law. This does mean that, say cigarettes were made illegal. All cigarettes that you own before the law goes into effect, you can legally own and use. This is because the law never prohibits use as a result of a ban; it only prohibits sale and manufacture.

wombat_of_war:
hang on.. you guys allow people to keep weapons that are now illegal if they owned them before the date the law was passed?
well thats left me completely dumbfounded and makes no sense to me at all

Ex post facto. The example given above explained it.

Also, there's the time, money, and massive manpower it takes to go door to door looking for the weapons.

GunsmithKitten:
Ex post facto. We don't, generally, believe in charging people with crimes like purchasing previously un-banned weapons because of a new law.

I think there's a big difference between impounding the guns in question and charging people with a crime of possessing it before the ban went into effect. So ex post facto doesn't really apply in wombat_of_war's question there. Also, it shouldn't just be about purchase, it should be about possession.

Now, if they hide the particular item and continue to hold on to it despite the ban, maybe even lie about their possession, I guess that would be an entirely different crime. But it would only be a crime from the time of the ban onwards. Their possession prior to the ban would obviously be without any sort of punishment or anything and you'd need a transitionary period for people to hand in the items in question. Optimally with some sort of reimbursement for the lost item.

Also, there's the time, money, and massive manpower it takes to go door to door looking for the weapons.

That's more applicable, yes.

Bwahahahahahahaha

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"

Seems Blablahb was right. All non - police officer firearms owners ARE criminals.

wombat_of_war:
hang on.. you guys allow people to keep weapons that are now illegal if they owned them before the date the law was passed?
well thats left me completely dumbfounded and makes no sense to me at all

Skeleon:

GunsmithKitten:
Ex post facto. We don't, generally, believe in charging people with crimes like purchasing previously un-banned weapons because of a new law.

I think there's a big difference between impounding the guns in question and charging people with a crime of possessing it before the ban went into effect. So ex post facto doesn't really apply in wombat_of_war's question there. Also, it shouldn't just be about purchase, it should be about possession.

Now, if they hide the particular item and continue to hold on to it despite the ban, maybe even lie about their possession, I guess that would be an entirely different crime. But it would only be a crime from the time of the ban onwards. Their possession prior to the ban would obviously be without any sort of punishment or anything and you'd need a transitionary period for people to hand in the items in question. Optimally with some sort of reimbursement for the lost item.

Also, there's the time, money, and massive manpower it takes to go door to door looking for the weapons.

That's more applicable, yes.

unlawful seizure of property. Since the people who bought the guns when they were legal committed no crime, you can not sieze them.

Government would have to pay for the property. Which would be...well...a lot of money that we dont have.

banning guns and then going door to door seizing any gun that is now illegal breaks all sorts of laws.

Fun Fact: The bill was rushed through incredibly quickly, to try and maximize the degree to which they could capitalize the peoples' fears in the wake of Sandy Hook. As a result, they forgot to add in a clause exempting police officers from the magazine size restriction.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/17/oh-by-the-way-new-york-forgot-to-exempt-cops-from-its-new-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked