[Gun Talk] Gun control legislation signed in NYC, Info on MA GC bill

To those of you who live in New York I am so so sorry for you. I just hope that the class action lawsuit that is being put together becomes a win for the Pro-2A plaintiffs.

In no particular order quoting from another poster on the firearms forum I visit regularly, are the highlights of the bill that passed the NY state senate.

-All magazines of 8+ rounds are illegal (nearly all semi auto pistols are illegal now)

-Possesssion of a magazine of more than 10 round capacity (legally purchased pre-1994 mags) is illegal.

-Possession of a non-grandfathered 10 round mag is illegal. All existing 10 round mags are fine but cannot be loaded with more than 7 rounds.

-AR's and other "assault weapons" are restricted to one evil feature including having a pistol grip, making all AR's and many pistols "assault weapons," with grandfathered ones subjected to a one year registration deadline with the state police. Same goes for handguns I believe.

-NICS checks on all ammo sales

-Private firearm transfers illegal --> must go through FFL

-Online ordering of ammo or their components (brass, powder, etc.) is illegal

-Pistol permits are to be recertified every 5 years.

http://www.wgbhnews.org/post/david-l...trict-gun-laws

http://www.wickedlocal.com/marblehea...#axzz2IAlN4D68


*UPDATE* 2013 JAN 20

New information in regards to the proposed law in MA

•10 round magazines loaded with more than 7 rounds, punishable by more than two years in jail.

•Magazines containing more than 10 rounds, punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

•Potential confiscation of lawfully purchased long guns and high capacity magazines (greater than 10 round capacity).

•A complete ban on semi-automatic rifles with certain cosmetic features. (AR type rifles)

•Up to 2 ½ years in jail for receiving more than 1 gun or magazine in a 30-day period.

•Mandatory large capacity guns storage at gun clubs instead of in home.

•Lawful private sales recorded on FA-10 forms will no longer be allowed.

•Ban "high power" ammunition. (there's been no definition provided as to what that is)

•Expanding local licensing authorities discretion to deny or restrict licenses to all guns including FID cards.

•Mandatory insurance for all firearms owners.

•New proposed sales tax aimed at firearms/ammo purchase. (this has not been clarified)

•Mental and physical health waivers to be signed upon applying for a gun license

•Creating new crimes of assault with a firearm that requires no physical action by the lawful possessor

as much as I may agree with gun control sometimes...this is just fucking stupid.

Just don't listen to them.

I'll bite my tongue and refrain from commenting too much on this, less I go all political on all of your asses again.

However, I felt it is my obligation as a firearms owner to inform those who may not know of what's going on across the country in terms of some of the crazy crap that's being passed.

So far it appears, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut as well as several other states are also looking to implement something like the above, but nothing is concrete yet.

It's stuff like this as I have already stated that terrifies Pro-2A advocates, it's this amount of flagrant disregard to civil rights that many fear will occur if any kind of ground is given to the Anti-firearms party.

I'll keep posting stuff as more information becomes available. Don't even get me started on Obama's Executive Orders.

How can they legally do this?

This is why the best guns are the ones that were never registered at all.

it's very sad,they were already disarmed enough there.


I saw a picture of the dino meme the other day saying, "if gun control worked....shouldn't new york and chicago be the safest cities ever?"


on farther thought,shouldn't Mexico be the safest country? (Heard it actually has one of the worst murder rates >__> )

http://news.yahoo.com/yall-come-texas-state-official-tells-york-gun-223149333.html

Hmmm...

1. Everyone with guns moves to Texas.
2. Texas has all the guns.
3. Texas breaks from the US.
4. Texas attacks the US and overthrows its government.
5. All US citizens taken as slaves.
6. New country is formed.
7. Everyone is happy.
8. Amen.

Metalzoic wrote:Hmmm...

1. Everyone with guns moves to Texas.
2. Texas has all the guns.
3. Texas breaks from the US.
4. Texas attacks the US and overthrows its government.
5. All US citizens taken as slaves.
6. New country is formed.
7. Everyone is happy.
8. Amen.

Old America still has a metric fuckton of missiles, probably more than enough to blow Texas into one gigantic, smoking crater.

Let's not forget the resources we have at our disposal still.

Anyway, Australia is a good example of what gun control does. Granted their crimes involving firearms has gone down, violence committed with other instruments such as knives, blunt objects etc. has nearly doubled if not tripled if I recall.

Ultimately you would have to take away all objects in which could be utilized as a weapon, but seeing as we cannot ban everything let alone the use of our very limbs, this is an impossibility.

China is another good example that disarming the population doesn't necessarily mean that things will become safer.

There is much more to owning firearms than self defense, it's having the ability to, if necessary, to fight back against scum like the Governor of NY that is willing to go to any lengths to advance his agenda.

Funny thing is, he wants to run for president, if there is one thing gun owners have, is very very long memories. I don't think the governor of NYC has any idea the massive storm of feces that's about to hit the fan over this new law he signed.

If the SCOTUS supports and sides with the plaintiffs on this matter (Which I'm hoping they will) it'll be a significant blow the anti' cause.

I think emotions are dying down now since Sandy Hook, more and more people are able to think with greater clarity and take a more objective and critical look at what is being proposed. Hopefully this means that there will be more pressure up on capitol hill to not implement anything crazy if not better anything at all.

Only time will tell, I estimate we'll see something come along sometime in late spring to early summer.

Is it actually legal though? I don't see how they could get away with it.

That's just it Bla, there are some serious civil rights violations here, however, if the SCOTUS declares it's okay, we're screwed. I don't think that will be the case, but you never know.

People need to stand up for their rights. I hate people.

hold the fucking phone... POLICE are not exempt from the magazine rule?

i know a good way to help curb Gun Crime... take bullets away from the people who have to respond to incidents of Gun Crime!!! GENIUS!

might as well go back to revolvers lol

The list posted in the OP is asinine.

Updated first post with more information regarding what was leaked on the MA GC bill that's being considered.

the police not being exempted was an oversight which they will probably correct soon.

Other than that I don't really see the problem. More background checks and less capacity in magazines. I don't know why the magic number is 7 but whatever. not a big deal.

Duck wrote:the police not being exempted was an oversight which they will probably correct soon.

Other than that I don't really see the problem. More background checks and less capacity in magazines. I don't know why the magic number is 7 but whatever. not a big deal.

I agree....

The "magic" number is 7 is because there is virtually no firearm out there currently that has such a capacity. So in a way, Cuomo effectively banned every modern firearm out there through limiting magazine capacity.

Revolvers are still in question if I recall, as is rifles such as the M1 Garand among other "Historical" firearms.

This "law" flies in the face of the Heller v. Columbia rulings by the SCOTUS. Not to mention violates several other rights in the process.

I've already expressed my opinion on the limitation of magazine capacity so I won't bring that up again. I could go on, but I don't wish to incite another meaningless debate here. This is more for informational purposes.

i dont understand why, other than an inconvenience of time and infraction of the 2nd amendment, why do you have a problem with background checks and the state holding on to purchase records?

And is this banning magazines that hold more than 7 but less than 10? What's the point of that? Does that mean they can buy ones that hold more than 10? If not id expect to see a big demand for 7 round magazines to be produced lol.

Duck wrote:i dont understand why, other than an inconvenience of time and infraction of the 2nd amendment, why do you have a problem with background checks and the state holding on to purchase records?

And is this banning magazines that hold more than 7 but less than 10? What's the point of that? Does that mean they can buy ones that hold more than 10? If not id expect to see a big demand for 7 round magazines to be produced lol.

No, effectively, NY residents are to dispose of or sell off all of their magazines that can hold more than 7 rounds within a years time.

Until such time, you may keep your "High capacity" magazines but may ONLY load 7 rounds in it at any given time. If you are found in possession of a magazine that is able to hold more that 7 rounds after the 1 year grace period, you are committing a crime and subject to judicial punishment.

I've already stated my reasons for being against magazine bans, and how ineffective they are to begin with, so I won't go into details about that.

In regards to background checks and purchase history.

Essentially, it allows the LEO to have a database in which they can track and find who has what, pseudo gun registration. Cuomo has expressed his desire and considered the confiscation of firearms within the state of NY, however he abandoned the idea because he knew it would not fly.

Ultimately, the purchase records and registration of ammunition purchases makes it easier, if so desired, to find and locate individuals who own firearms and confiscate them if the powers that be wanted to. That's not even including the registration of "assault weapons". This is just a stepping stone for his ultimate goal of a complete ban (Which as I mentioned before, effectively has been passed through the banning of magazines higher than 7 rounds)

Running a background check for every time I want to buy some .22LR to go plink or hunt with accomplishes what exactly? The Current laws in place and so on already work, there are some issues regarding medical records and the sharing of data between physicians and LEO' but burdening the law abiding with MORE restrictions that do nothing but cost tax dollars and waste both the salesman' and the customers time is ridiculous IMO.

Why exactly is it that we have the highest gun murder rate in the world then?

Because, we are a naturally violent country. It's a social sickness, NOT a gun issue, you take away one tool, the nut jobs and criminals will simply go to some other tool.

Please read this article, it explains it better than I can at this point. Fighting a cold and fever doesn't really help with critical thinking ya know.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

I'll add this, if guns are the problem, and they are such horrible tools of mass murder that they need to be so heavily regulated. How is it that in states/cities with the most open rights and laws that allow citizens to arm themselves with said "assault pistols/rifles" have the lowest gun related crimes in the country, but states/cities like New York, Washington DC, Chicago, LA among others have some of the highest gun related crimes, murders and just violent crimes in general?

There has not been a single rational answer that I've found that can explain this from the anti gun party.

IMO, it's simple, an armed populace creates less targets, it puts a thought of pause into the criminals mind before they pick someone out to rob, murder rape etc. because maybe, just maybe, that person is packing some heat that can end their miserable lives faster than a NY minute.

Artimise Flare wrote:

Duck wrote:i dont understand why, other than an inconvenience of time and infraction of the 2nd amendment, why do you have a problem with background checks and the state holding on to purchase records?

And is this banning magazines that hold more than 7 but less than 10? What's the point of that? Does that mean they can buy ones that hold more than 10? If not id expect to see a big demand for 7 round magazines to be produced lol.

No, effectively, NY residents are to dispose of or sell off all of their magazines that can hold more than 7 rounds within a years time.

Until such time, you may keep your "High capacity" magazines but may ONLY load 7 rounds in it at any given time. If you are found in possession of a magazine that is able to hold more that 7 rounds after the 1 year grace period, you are committing a crime and subject to judicial punishment.

I've already stated my reasons for being against magazine bans, and how ineffective they are to begin with, so I won't go into details about that.

In regards to background checks and purchase history.

Essentially, it allows the LEO to have a database in which they can track and find who has what, pseudo gun registration. Cuomo has expressed his desire and considered the confiscation of firearms within the state of NY, however he abandoned the idea because he knew it would not fly.

Ultimately, the purchase records and registration of ammunition purchases makes it easier, if so desired, to find and locate individuals who own firearms and confiscate them if the powers that be wanted to. That's not even including the registration of "assault weapons". This is just a stepping stone for his ultimate goal of a complete ban (Which as I mentioned before, effectively has been passed through the banning of magazines higher than 7 rounds)

Running a background check for every time I want to buy some .22LR to go plink or hunt with accomplishes what exactly? The Current laws in place and so on already work, there are some issues regarding medical records and the sharing of data between physicians and LEO' but burdening the law abiding with MORE restrictions that do nothing but cost tax dollars and waste both the salesman' and the customers time is ridiculous IMO.

If the government wants to ban guns then there is nothing short of a civil war that can be done to stop it. There's no need for stepping stones.

And really, this new set of rules seems to be making sure that guns aren't sold to people who are already criminals or the mentally ill, which goes pretty far to avoid punishing "law abiding citizens" which has been the main focus of people against gun control.

And true, a magazine ban will do nothing to stop someone from killing someone else one on one (unless they're a really bad aim and miss 7 times in a row), it will lessen the effect of a mass shooting in at least some way if that magazine happens to the one used.

Duck wrote:

Artimise Flare wrote:

Duck wrote:i dont understand why, other than an inconvenience of time and infraction of the 2nd amendment, why do you have a problem with background checks and the state holding on to purchase records?

And is this banning magazines that hold more than 7 but less than 10? What's the point of that? Does that mean they can buy ones that hold more than 10? If not id expect to see a big demand for 7 round magazines to be produced lol.

No, effectively, NY residents are to dispose of or sell off all of their magazines that can hold more than 7 rounds within a years time.

Until such time, you may keep your "High capacity" magazines but may ONLY load 7 rounds in it at any given time. If you are found in possession of a magazine that is able to hold more that 7 rounds after the 1 year grace period, you are committing a crime and subject to judicial punishment.

I've already stated my reasons for being against magazine bans, and how ineffective they are to begin with, so I won't go into details about that.

In regards to background checks and purchase history.

Essentially, it allows the LEO to have a database in which they can track and find who has what, pseudo gun registration. Cuomo has expressed his desire and considered the confiscation of firearms within the state of NY, however he abandoned the idea because he knew it would not fly.

Ultimately, the purchase records and registration of ammunition purchases makes it easier, if so desired, to find and locate individuals who own firearms and confiscate them if the powers that be wanted to. That's not even including the registration of "assault weapons". This is just a stepping stone for his ultimate goal of a complete ban (Which as I mentioned before, effectively has been passed through the banning of magazines higher than 7 rounds)

Running a background check for every time I want to buy some .22LR to go plink or hunt with accomplishes what exactly? The Current laws in place and so on already work, there are some issues regarding medical records and the sharing of data between physicians and LEO' but burdening the law abiding with MORE restrictions that do nothing but cost tax dollars and waste both the salesman' and the customers time is ridiculous IMO.

If the government wants to ban guns then there is nothing short of a civil war that can be done to stop it. There's no need for stepping stones.

And really, this new set of rules seems to be making sure that guns aren't sold to people who are already criminals or the mentally ill, which goes pretty far to avoid punishing "law abiding citizens" which has been the main focus of people against gun control.

And true, a magazine ban will do nothing to stop someone from killing someone else one on one (unless they're a really bad aim and miss 7 times in a row), it will lessen the effect of a mass shooting in at least some way if that magazine happens to the one used.

Duck, history has already shown that it's incremental, it's compromise here, limit this, regulate that. The anti gun groups are patient, it wasn't until about a decade or so ago that the gun enthusiasts got fed up and said "Enough" that we finally started keeping/winning back our rights to own firearms.

The anti's are a patient bunch, they know anything too crazy will not fly, so the nickle and dime us, slowly but surely limiting what we "need" claiming it to be "common sense" or the "right thing to do" to "Save at least one life"

I question how is MORE background checks going to do anything to keep criminals from getting their hands on firearms if the current system already prevents them from doing just that? It's pointless, the only people that will submit to this in the first place is the law abiding. The criminals and mentally ill don't care, they'll never listen to these laws in the first place, so it is in fact, punishing and putting the burden on those who have no inclination to break the law in the first place.

The definition of insanity: "Repeating the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different outcome"

IIRC before you only needed to do a background check with licensed dealers. gun shows and online stuff or your buddy joe who wants to sell his gun didn't have to do anything of the sort. So as Biden put it, "It's like if you go to the airport and there's two security lines, one you have to take your shoes off and go through the x-ray and the other you can just walk right on to the plane. If you have something you're not supposed to , which line are you gonna pick"?

Not sure if this is what NY is doing or one of the federal ideas. But it seems like a good point. We should at the very least prevent criminals from LEGALLY purchasing murder weapons.

Gun laws are bs and whoever supports them should get stabbed multiple times.

many southern states and states all around have said they won't follow some new gun ban,and some like Tx even said they would arrest the feds if they came here lol.....now to just see if they really have the balls to do it

tbh right now I'm too poor for guns with bills and needing to fix my teeth,etc. but it's depressing to know one day when I have the money that I'd be really limited in what I could buy

Not entirely true, I believe what NY and Cuomo did has woken a lot of people up to what could happen. There is a crap storm that's coming in with hurricane like power that's about to hit the fan. Cuomo doesn't realize the amount of heat he's just stirred up, he's like the Japanese attacking pearl harbor, he's just woken up the tiger, and it's pissed.

@Duck: With all do respect, the part about purchasing a firearm online and not requiring a background check is absolute hogwash. Legally, you must go through an FFL dealer as the post office will not ship a firearm to you directly, this applies to the lower receiver of a firearm, what the BATFE considers to be the firearm as it contains the fire control mechanisms (Trigger, hammer etc) and is the only part that is serially tracked.

Now, in regards to face to face purchases, I'll give you that, if I were to go down to Jr' house for example, and make the sale of an AK that I own and sell it to him, then no, you don't need an FFL. The thing is, I have the power to choose whom I sell to, can this be abused? Of course it can, but the fact of the matter is, most law abiding citizens will sell or trade a firearm to another law abiding citizen, does poor judgement occur and do criminals sometimes go this route? Yes of course, but to my recollection, it's not very common for them to go through legal channels, it's easier to get a firearm from the black market or simply to steal them.

So forcing people to go through all these checks again is punishing the law abiding for what some scumbag has done.

As for the laws I've listed here, it's currently pertinent only to New York. However, it serves as a warning of what can happen, legislators not giving a rats ass about our civil rights, trampling on decisions passed legally within the SCOTUS and politicians in general just not giving a damn about the rules and over stepping their authority or abusing it to pass what they want because it fits their agenda or views.

Will the POTUS or Feinstein actually go through with an AWB? Probably not, but they will use stuff like the AWB as a bargaining chip to try and coerce the weak kneed politicians to "Compromise" with them, and as soon as we "Compromise" it's simply yet another small step for them to accomplish their ultimate goal of an absolute ban of firearms.

The reason there are more gun crimes in cities like NY and Chicago is simple, man.

Seriously it has nothing to do with the laws.....those cities are home to organized crime, and have massive gang problems. This is the simple reason for it.

I would argue it's not easier to make black market connections or break into someone's home rather than act like a normal person for a day in order to buy a gun face to face with someone. It's not like every potentially violent criminal is going to have a teardrop tattoo and a prison jumpsuit, and even if they were mentally unstable enough to do violent crime, you average joe would never be able to tell that because it's even very hard for psychiatrists to do that (which is why most psychologists and psychiatrists don't want the gun control debate to go over to mental health; it's nearly impossible to figure out who is going to do violent things, the mental health examiners are afraid of being liable for not being able to figure out who was going to start shooting, and once people know their mental health provider is reporting to the state they aren't going to keep coming).

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-obamas-home-state-offers-lesson-path-gun-191817411.html

Updated highlights of the NY gun control law to be a little more clear and clean.

Good news for NY' though is that Senator Marchione is trying to petition to get the law repealed, so far it looks like it's going well, with many out of state individuals donating to her cause as well if I understand correctly (They can't sign the petition since it'll only clutter it with signatures that really don't help with the fight as it doesn't affect out of state residents)

Maybe I should order several 19/20 round mags for my berretta now. Hmmm... now that I think about it I should probably order some hi-cap mags for handguns that I may buy down the road just in case.

And I really need to pick up a KSG while I still can.

That is if you can find them, my LG is sold out on a lot of things for at least another month or two.

AR15 magazines like the 30rnd PMAG' used to go for $20 or so, now I'm seeing them anywhere from $40-60+

the panic buying has been in full swing for well over a month now, and the suppliers are refusing to up their production for fear of what may happen legislative wise.

@Sym Okay, I'll give you that for organized crime, such as Gangs and such. Mind you in Arizona, we have to deal with the Cartels and such, but I digress, if gun control is the answer in keeping firearms out of criminal hands, and Chicago, New York, LA, New Jersey etc. all have some of the most strict gun control laws yet their violent crime rate is so astronomically high, what does that tell you about gun control?

It's not working clearly, so how is more gun control going to fix this?

It's a social problem, instead of enacting useless and costly laws, how about we focus on trying to create programs that get kids out of gangs, get the poor better education, put them to work so that they have an income and are able to pay their taxes. Such programs would actually go towards fixing the real issues with American society.

awhile back this one guy wanted to sell me this beretta 92 with about 20 mags,half regular 15 rounders,half of the 20 rounders.I just didn't have 650 for it at the time,it sounded like a good deal for that many mags though. I usually always heard the gun itself goes for that much

Well I've found several 18 rounders and some 30 rounders so far. If I don't find any 19/20 round ones I'll just order a few of these instead.

Best of luck to you Metal, I wish I had the income right now to fund all the projects I want to get going. Right now the only one I have on the table is my G1 FAL build

You weren't kidding, everyone is out of stock. The prices people are charging on Guns America are crazy. $75 to $200 per magazine is crazy!

I did find 4 30 round mags and 2 20 round mags in stock at a shop so I'll buy those. $100 total for all of them.

Yep, it's pretty crazy. Fortunately for me, parts and magazines for the FAL I'm building hasn't changed much, guess building a not so common rifle is a plus.

My next investment i think will to buy an AK receiver and register it as an SBR so that I can build it up later into an semi auto AKS-74u

Updated with some new information in regards to the proposed law in MA

Hahahahaha at the comic

Lol, that's awesome xD

Also, isn't the reason for more gun crime in those cities due to population density as well as, what Sym said, organized crime?

I really hate the argument that "other tools like screw drivers, knives, baseball bats and watering cans can also be used as weapons so ban those too!!!" That's a ridiculous argument and people sound bat shit crazy saying it, have you ever tried to screw in a light bulb with a gun? What about carving your turkey with a pistol? Ever played golf with an AR15?

Yea, didn't think so.

brb, gonna murk someone with a watering can...

Crombie wrote:Also, isn't the reason for more gun crime in those cities due to population density as well as, what Sym said, organized crime?

I really hate the argument that "other tools like screw drivers, knives, baseball bats and watering cans can also be used as weapons so ban those too!!!" That's a ridiculous argument and people sound bat shit crazy saying it, have you ever tried to screw in a light bulb with a gun? What about carving your turkey with a pistol? Ever played golf with an AR15?

Yea, didn't think so.

Or better yet, have you ever tried to shoot 5 people from 20 yards with a watering can?

Duck wrote:Or better yet, have you ever tried to shoot 5 people from 20 yards with a watering can?

A MAN CAN DREAM!