NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre

[_Abyssinia]

New gun law has a lot of holes

Mass killers still have access to plenty of firepower under New York’s new assault-weapon ban.

These two Benelli MR1 rifles have equal killing power — yet the one at the top is illegal to buy because of its “military” grip while the other is perfectly fine under the gun law signed by Gov. Cuomo last night.

The law also bans magazines holding more than seven rounds, yet has no provision limiting the number of clips someone can buy.

So a Newtown- or Aurora-style mass-killer can simply bring dozens of legal-capacity clips, which could be swapped out in just a second or two during a shooting spree.

“A 30-round magazine is no more dangerous than two 15-round magazines, or more dangerous than three 10-round magazines, or more dangerous than six 5-round magazines,” said Jerold E. Levine, a Manhattan lawyer and gun-rights advocate.

“It takes only two seconds to change the magazine in a semiautomatic gun,” he said.

Benelli says its 37-inch-long MR1 Comfort-Tech Synthetic — with a suggested retail price of $1,469 — is “the best home defense available.”

With or without the now-illegal pistol grip, the MR1 uses Remington .223 bullets, which are about the size of AA batteries and are interchangeable with similar-sized NATO military cartridges.

“A real joy to shoot,” said a reviewer for Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement magazine.

“Reliable, accurate . . . . something undeniably different,” said a review in Guns and Ammo.

As he signed the bill, Cuomo scoffed at the idea that restricting magazine sizes won’t make the public any safer. He said curbing magazine size from the old limit of 10 bullets to the new limit of seven reduces “the capacity to kill lots of human beings in a short period of time.”

The new law includes several other restrictions on weapon design that gun-rights advocates were still digesting yesterday.

The law bars folding or telescoping rifle shoulder stocks. It also bars rifles with bayonet mounts and flash suppressors — which some gun enthusiasts consider no more than decoration anyhow.

Some gun-rights advocates were worried about the law’s ban on any rifle pistol grip “that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” — language that they worried could be broadly defined to include many common rifles.

---

Tom King, a board member of the deep-pocketed and politically powerful NRA, warned that the dozen downstate Republican senators who supported the plan could pay when they seek re-election next year.

Even some supporters of the New York law say it’ll do little to curb crime without new federal regulations.

“The illegal guns coming in from other states are definitely still a problem,” said Jackie Hilly, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.

“Eighty-five percent of crime guns in New York City are from sales in other states,” Hilly said. Statewide, about 60 percent of guns used in crime are from out of state, she said.

nypost.com/p/news/national/new_law_has_lot_of_holes_BORK25RPsC6r4jNwBUpdVK

 

[_Abyssinia]

Andrew’s empty gun win

…

The law focuses heavily on rifles, for example, never mind that rifles were used in all of five murders in New York state in 2011; fists killed 28.

As for handguns, New York’s laws are already among the nation’s strictest — but criminals simply ignore them; only Mayor Bloomberg’s aggressive stop-and-frisk program seems to be having any positive effect. When he’s gone, so will be stop-and-frisk, and then it’ll be Katie-bar-the-door once again.

nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/andrew_empty_gun_win_JAKxXIhSm8I7UuRh0VG2dN

 

[Kelfa28]

We should only feel shame for sins we commit. We also need to understand that our own opinions are not binding on the consciences of others, especially where there is a wide lattitude of acceptable moral opinion. For instance, you keep saying registration leads to confiscation. I hope you understand that this too is just an opinion and not binding on anyone to believe, even if you say it a hundred times.

It’s a fact that registration leads to confiscation. A historical fact.

Russia, Australia, Germany, Cuba, Bermuda, Great Britain all had mandatory Gun registration and ALL of them led to confiscation. It will happen here. There is not point to do a gun registration on law abiding citizens that purchase weapons legally except to use it for a gun ban later on.

Last month, 19 million weapons were bought in this country. People are scared of what is going to happen. They don’t want their rights taken away because they know what is heading down the pipeline. 250,000 people joined the NRA last month alone.

Texas and Wyoming have passed laws that say that a federal government cannot enforce any federal gun law in their state last month. Tennessee and Montana have similar laws.

This is big and the states and citizens know how big it can get. They also know that the second amendment specifically states that this right cannot be infringed upon.

 

[fbl9]

It’s a fact that registration leads to confiscation. A historical fact.

.

Or that the requirement to register your guns is scrapped later. Canada used to require one to register their long guns but not any more.But then again several “law abiding” citezens didn’t register their guns but did obtain possesion licenses.

 

[Kelfa28]

Or that the requirement to register your guns is scrapped later. Canada used to require one to register their long guns but not any more.But then again several “law abiding” citezens didn’t register their guns but did obtain possesion licenses.

Yet all of those other countries did use the registers for confiscation.

What is the point of registering weapons? All it does is effect the lawful gun owner. They do extensive background checks anyway and that weeds out anyone who has a criminal record or (in some states) a mental health background check.
All it will do is require lawful weapons owners to pay for insurance liabilities and it’s a record that can be obtained and published to the public. A NY paper already used the permit lists in NY to publish all the names, addresses and used a google map to locate all the permit owners. The difference there is not all of those permit owners actually have weapons.

What’s stopping papers from publishing lists of gun registrations anyway and have lawful citizens targeted for theft and robbery.

A registration has ZERO effect on weapons obtained illegally. Serial numbers get scratched off and it makes it impossible to tell who originally owned that weapon.

It is a list compiled and it’s been used by other countries for the government to go around and confiscate weapons.

States won’t comply with this list. They will pass laws that counter the registration. Why do this is if their is no fear that it will eventually lead to a gun confiscation.

Gun owners will be encouraged to not comply.

 

[SamH]

Justice Scalia, hardly a wild-eyed liberal disagrees with you.

nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

Where did he disagree?

 

[oldcelt]

It doesn’t matter what he thinks. Besides…he uses a blatantly subjective word: frightening.
That makes her opinion null and totally opinion based.

There is one little thing in the second amendment that everyone seems to ignore and that is: this right cannot be infringed upon.
Therefore you can’t make any laws that infringe the rights of owning a gun to protect yourself.

This is exactly what they are doing…especially the part of the law that requires owners to register their weapons.

Registration leads to confiscation.

The opinion of a conservative Supreme Court Justice doesn’t matter? I think you may find that it matters a great deal.
Justice Scalia understands that these amendments were not passed in a vacuum, and that they are not absolutist. All of the amendments were passed to address particular concerns…such as freedom of speech…also not an absolute.
Btw, I think that gun control is an exercise in futility, but many attempts have passed constitutional muster…that’s how our system works.

John

 

[SamH]

Or that the requirement to register your guns is scrapped later. Canada used to require one to register their long guns but not any more.But then again several “law abiding” citezens didn’t register their guns but did obtain possesion licenses.

California on the other hand did use registration for confiscation.

theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/californiademandsaksrifles.htm

 

[mary_bobo]

The speed at which the action occurs shows me it was nothing but politically expedience and grandstanding.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

 

[oldcelt]

Where did he disagree?

That’s pretty plain Sam…Scalia said that gun control can be taken on a case by case basis and that the right to bear arms is not, nor has it ever been an absolute. Kelfa said that the right cannot be infringed through any law:

This is big and the states and citizens know how big it can get. They also know that the second amendment specifically states that this right cannot be infringed upon.

John

 

[Kelfa28]

The opinion of a conservative Supreme Court Justice doesn’t matter? I think you may find that it matters a great deal.
Justice Scalia understands that these amendments were not passed in a vacuum, and that they are not absolutist. All of the amendments were passed to address particular concerns…such as freedom of speech…also not an absolute.
Btw, I think that gun control is an exercise in futility, but many attempts have passed constitutional muster…that’s how our system works.

John

I don’t give supreme court justices any credibility…seeing that they had found Roe V Wade constitutional. They’ve lost all form of credibility with the passing of that law.

He needs to stop using words like “frightening.” That’s a subjective opinion.

Besides…the second amendment is there to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. Think Lexington and Concord.

Which is exactly why we need to keep AR-15s legal. They are effective in defending ourselves the right to be free from a government that wants to control our lives.

 

[Kelfa28]

The constitution is not a living document.

If it was then anyone can make a claim and change the law based on what they think that constitution means and what it’s intent was.

 

[oldcelt]

I don’t give supreme court justices any credibility…seeing that they had found Roe V Wade constitutional. They’ve lost all form of credibility with the passing of that law.

He needs to stop using words like “frightening.” That’s a subjective opinion.

Besides…the second amendment is there to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. Think Lexington and Concord.

Which is exactly why we need to keep AR-15s legal. They are effective in defending ourselves the right to be free from a government that wants to control our lives.

Then I believe you are going to be very disappointed. While I don’t see an assault weapons ban coming, I do see restrictions on magazines and some other tweaks as a very real possibility.

John

 

[SamH]

That’s pretty plain Sam…Scalia said that gun control can be taken on a case by case basis and that the right to bear arms is not, nor has it ever been an absolute. Kelfa said that the right cannot be infringed through any law:

John

Acknowledging that lawyers will push cases to court is hardly what you claimed.

 

[Kelfa28]

It doesn’t matter…it’s unconstitutional.

The supreme court does not care about the constitution anyway…Forty years ago they made that quite plain by denying the most basic human right to human beings…the right to life.

I’m not surprised at what they are doing…but it’s quite plain to see it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[Kelfa28]

People also seem to be missing the reason why the constitution is NOT a living document is because those rights weren’t created by a bunch of old guys who thought it would be a good idea.

These rights come from God.

That in itself means the constitution is not a living document that can be changed based on popular opinion.

They are rights. They cannot be changed.

 

[oldcelt]

Acknowledging that lawyers will push cases to court is hardly what you claimed.

“It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said on Fox News Sunday.** But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted. **

Banned, local limitations, originalist…In my universe that is a justice stating quite plainly that gun control must stand on the merits of each case.

Some more:

Buried within the 21,000-word majority opinion was a paragraph that gave gun-control advocates reason for hope. Gun rights are “not unlimited,” Scalia wrote.

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” he said. Nor was the court questioning “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Scalia also said the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in “common use” and not those that are “dangerous and unusual.”

bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/gun-control-backers-see-no-high-court-hurdle-in-push-for-laws.html

 

[Tony2255]

Which is exactly why we need to keep AR-15s legal. They are effective in defending ourselves the right to be free from a government that wants to control our lives.

I’m guessing that you own an AR-15 or an assault rifle, is this correct? If it is, I’m curious has the assault rifle helped you stop the HHS Mandate or overturn abortion laws? Those are two freedoms currently being threatened by government control.

 

[SamH]

Banned, local limitations, originalist…In my universe that is a justice stating quite plainly that gun control must stand on the merits of each case.

bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/gun-control-backers-see-no-high-court-hurdle-in-push-for-laws.html

I was reading his quoted statement.

 

[Kelfa28]

I’m guessing that you own an AR-15 or an assault rifle, is this correct? If it is, I’m curious has the assault rifle helped you stop the HHS Mandate or overturn abortion laws? Those are two freedoms currently being threatened by government control.

   No I don't own an AR-15. They look scary but I think a shotgun is more effective for home defense. And a bolt action hunting rifle is more powerful than an AR-15 and better suited to hit anything beyond the range of a shotgun, but I digress.  Your right, AR-15s haven't stopped the HHS mandate, but they may come in useful when they start feeding Christians to the lions again.

I bet Christians in the middle east would hope to have some firepower the next time the village mob wants to burn down a christian neighborhood over some perceived offense.