[n2extrm]

Originally Posted by Gallium

You should simply read the law, since the 1st thing I clicked on (shotguns) is giving info that conflicts with the law. According to the law, even pump shotguns that can accept >7 rounds OR have a pistol grip, OR have a telescopic stock is an assault weapon. According to that FAQ it is not.

From that website:

I have read it the entire thing and I still find stuff hidden all over the contradicts the prior statement. I printed it and made notes. I really believe they made it this way on purpose.

My good friend and shooting buddy just realized his 10/22 is an assault weapon under this. Semi auto, check! Detachable magazine, Check! Thumb hole stock, Check!

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by Gallium

You should simply read the law, since the 1st thing I clicked on (shotguns) is giving info that conflicts with the law. According to the law, even pump shotguns that can accept >7 rounds OR have a pistol grip, OR have a telescopic stock is an assault weapon. According to that FAQ it is not.

From that website:

The law says rifles have to be semi-automatic and detachable mag, with 1 evil feature to be an assault weapon. Mag size is no part of it, other than there being a separate mag size law.

Shotguns just need 1 evil feature, or > 7-round mag, to be an assault weapon.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by Gallium

I am told that registration is mandatory by April 15th, 2013.
What is your source?

I was told that ammo restrictions are in place next year to allow the state a means of setting up the required background checks.

This is really horrible, and so blatant. It will be onerous, time consuming and counter productive to do background checks to purchase ammo.

Oh well, if I were an enterprising gray type citizen I would have no problem buying ammo in PA and selling it on the streets of NY to thugs for $50/box. After all, it would not be like I sold them a gun (or so the jaded amongst us will rationalize. I have zero intention of breaking any laws!)

In the law where it says you have to register "assault weapons", it specifically says 1 year to do it.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

[ICURN]

I am so happy to live in Texas.

[mixflip]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

I was thinking of relocating in the coming years anyway. A Free State is now a high priority requirement for my short list. So Hawaii is out :(

Also Hawaii folks are vulnerable to shipping companies. If something were to stop the ships...the islands would basically destroy themselves (socially).

Plus where do you bug out if you have to leave the cities? Boat? We have family in Hawaii begging us to move there but we refuse no matter how nice the deal is they keep offering us. (free house and cars)

[Desert Duck]

Just wrote your good NY Governor, told him these are draconian laws and congratulated him on achieving Orwellian Big Brother status.

How utterly sad for our brothers and sisters in New York State. I hope that they can resist, peaceably, and oppose this lunacy, voting out he insanity that are the new, NY gun laws....

Told governor coo-oh-mo that we'll skip off broadway and go elsewhere. What else can we do, without punishing too many working people, to send him a message?

I agree with Greg, the representative posted here previously on YouTube, that this is a power grab by a governator seeking the Presidency.... We pray for you, New York

[iDivideByZero]

is-new-york-citys-gun-law-unconstitutional/

This blog post is from a NYC Lawyer, and is a few years old. There are some updates in the comments. For the most part it does a great job of summing up the situation. Of course the situation just got a whole lot worse. It is by far a lot easier for politicians to pass unconstitutional law than it is to later repeal it.

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by iDivideByZero

is-new-york-citys-gun-law-unconstitutional/

This blog post is from a NYC Lawyer, and is a few years old. There are some updates in the comments. For the most part it does a great job of summing up the situation. Of course the situation just got a whole lot worse. It is by far a lot easier for politicians to pass unconstitutional law than it is to later repeal it.

That's a good and quick read of why the NYS approach of making all handguns illegal is unconstitutional, even when the state provides some narrow exceptions in the form of a permit.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

[ChiTownPicaro]

Originally Posted by voyager4520

I'd love to see firearm manufacturers refuse to sell to LE in the states that don't allow civilians to own their guns, like Barrett did.

Edit: I might add if you live in NY and you recently voted for a Democrat state legislator, you have only yourself to blame.

I do believe the state senate was 57% GOP. I would say they are more to blame as they controlled the majority of the seats.

[SCHADENFREUDE]

NY is heavily democrat. There is no 57% control of republicans anywhere to be seen.

Before the last election the repubs had I believe 2 more senate seats. Now they think they are still in control because they have a power sharing agreement with the commies.

But the voters of this state are saying now that they need a democrat that is pro gun. Not a republican but another democrat. This state is pathetic.

GOD PLEASE ALLOW ME TO LEAVE THIS PLACE SOON.

[ChiTownPicaro]

Originally Posted by SCHADENFREUDE

NY is heavily democrat. There is no 57% control of republicans anywhere to be seen.

Before the last election the repubs had I believe 2 more senate seats. Now they think they are still in control because they have a power sharing agreement with the commies.

But the voters of this state are saying now that they need a democrat that is pro gun. Not a republican but another democrat. This state is pathetic.

GOD PLEASE ALLOW ME TO LEAVE THIS PLACE SOON.

In the state senate it is 57% controlled by the GOP. I am sorry but this is a fact and not disputable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Senate

[PAGunner]

Originally Posted by ChiTownPicaro

I do believe the state senate was 57% GOP. I would say they are more to blame as they controlled the majority of the seats.

Rockaer Republicans... The republicans who would go vote on an AWB federally tend to come from NY, MA, NJ or CA.

[3.slow]

Originally Posted by n2extrm

Can't figure out what this does to me as a C&R holder? And where a M1 Garand fits in? Is a clip a feeding device? Is it an antique? Can I store M1 ammo in the clips like it came in the surplus cans we all bought over the years????? Just when you think its an "antique" and safe to say its exempt, 5 pages later there is something else that makes it illegal???

M1 grand falls into the antique category because it is greater than 50 years old according to http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

Because it accepts more than 7 rounds, you may have to register it as an assault weapon. . . .wtf

Also, dealers must cease selling "assault" weapons immediately in new york, they can only sell to other dealers or out of state. Only "assault" weapons paid for before january 15, 2013 can be given to the buyer. All grandfathered "assault" weapons must be registered by april 15, 2014, but high cap mags must be modified to accept only 7 rounds. Or you can buy a 7 round mag if one exists.

[scosgt]

Originally Posted by 3.slow

M1 grand falls into the antique category because it is greater than 50 years old according to http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

Because it accepts more than 7 rounds, you may have to register it as an assault weapon. . . .wtf

Also, dealers must cease selling "assault" weapons immediately in new york, they can only sell to other dealers or out of state. Only "assault" weapons paid for before january 15, 2013 can be given to the buyer. All grandfathered "assault" weapons must be registered by april 15, 2014, but high cap mags must be modified to accept only 7 rounds. Or you can buy a 7 round mag if one exists.

Garand is NOT fed by a detachable magazine. It is clip fed, and therefore NOT an assault weapon and does not have to be registered.

[n2extrm]

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, [manufactured after September thir-
teenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four,] that (A) has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition, OR (B) CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, OR (C) IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH AMENDED THIS SUBDIVISION AND HAS A
CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION; provided, however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition OR A
FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A CURIO OR RELIC. A FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A
CURIO OR RELIC IS DEFINED AS A DEVICE THAT (I) WAS MANUFACTURED AT LEAST
FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, (II) IS ONLY CAPABLE OF BEING
USED EXCLUSIVELY IN A FIREARM, RIFLE, OR SHOTGUN THAT WAS MANUFACTURED
AT LEAST FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, BUT NOT INCLUDING REPLI
CAS THEREOF, (III) IS POSSESSED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT PROHIBITED
BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM AND (IV) IS REGISTERED
WITH THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF
SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT SUCH FEEDING DEVICES TRANSFERRED
INTO THE STATE MAY BE REGISTERED AT ANY TIME, PROVIDED THEY ARE REGIS
TERED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THEIR TRANSFER INTO THE STATE. NOTWITH
STANDING PARAGRAPH (H) OF SUBDIVISION TWENTY-TWO OF THIS SECTION, SUCH
FEEDING DEVICES MAY BE TRANSFERRED PROVIDED THAT SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 400.03 OF THIS CHAPTER INCLUDING
THE CHECK REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SUCH


So here is the question if they define an ammunition feeding device like this what does this mean for the M1? I also wonder in the capacity is 7 rounds max, how do you load an M1? Going to be a witch to shove 7 rounds in a clip in to the action and avoid the whole M1 thumb thing.

The law states the feed devices had to be manufactured 50 years ago to be a antique, so does that mean no new production clips?

I think the funniest one is my freinds 10/22 with a thumb hole stock is an assault weapon now.

Whole thing is just stupid.

[scosgt]

I received a call back from the Trooper on the hotline in Albany.

Hear this and remember it:

A GARAND CLIP IS NOT A FEEDING DEVICE.
A feeding device is a magazine, machine gun belt, drum, or "feed strip" from a Jap WWII machine gun.
A garand clip, stripper clip etc is a MAGAZINE LOADING DEVICE, NOT A FEEDING DEVICE.

That info comes straight from the Governor who wants to be King legal counsel.

[iDivideByZero]

Originally Posted by scosgt

I received a call back from the Trooper on the hotline in Albany.

Hear this and remember it:

A GARAND CLIP IS NOT A FEEDING DEVICE.
A feeding device is a magazine, machine gun belt, drum, or "feed strip" from a Jap WWII machine gun.
A garand clip, stripper clip etc is a MAGAZINE LOADING DEVICE, NOT A FEEDING DEVICE.

That info comes straight from the Governor who wants to be King legal counsel.

So a clip is a magazine and a magazine is a feeder ... got it. ... glad it makes so much sense now.

[M&P Shooter]

Originally Posted by iDivideByZero

So a clip is a magazine and a magazine is a feeder ... got it. ... glad it makes so much sense now.

[n2extrm]

Originally Posted by iDivideByZero

So a clip is a magazine and a magazine is a feeder ... got it. ... glad it makes so much sense now.

Exactly my point. It is made this way to leave it open for a reason. It's still a crime to load more then 7 rounds in any thing. So how do you safely load a M1?


Hey I hope it's true that they are not considering the M1 an assault weapon, but I have trouble trusting it.

I went to the range last week and the RO was telling everyone the police were at another local range the day before confiscating any rifle or magazine that they saw as non compliant with the 1994 AWB that never sunset in NY. A lot of the items are being claimed as compliant. Now it could be rumor, but I doubt it based on the older gentleman who warned us about it. He basically said it was a bad idea to have anything even remotely questionable.

[jbailey8]

I would like to see firearms manufacturers take a hard stance against laws like this. They should stop all manufacturing in these states and refuse to seek contracts with them. Stop supplying police, military, homeland security etc and that sends a big message. Too bad they'll be accused of not being patriotic, when in fact it would be the pinnacle of patriotism.


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[n2extrm]

Originally Posted by jbailey8

I would like to see firearms manufacturers take a hard stance against laws like this. They should stop all manufacturing in these states and refuse to seek contracts with them. Stop supplying police, military, homeland security etc and that sends a big message. Too bad they'll be accused of not being patriotic, when in fact it would be the pinnacle of patriotism.


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

IIRC Barret did this with CA I believe some others did as well.