New York laws

[2Awarrior]

BC1 - The fact that the ordinance is old doesn't exempt it from being regarded as confiscation.
Admittedly, the SAFE act I hate so much got my attention right away, specifically for one of the less-known effects - the fact that it gave me the means to keep the Journal News from publishing my address. It's bittersweet - kind of like the way I had to face the fact that my son's treatment at Sloan-Kettering was covered by my insurance because of an Obamacare mandate.

So - with the judge overturning the 7 round limit - when can we legally fully load a ten round mag, do you know?
Not that it's enough to help my state of pessimism. Bluestringer expressed my state of mind best in another post -
"Like I said, I wish it wasn't so, but my days of living for wishful thinking to come to fruition are long gone. You and I are old enough that we'll never see what it is you're hoping for. I don't believe God is giving us that much time, but even if He were, He would have to touch the hearts of enough Patriots to instill the will and courage that is woefully lacking right now before a successful 2nd American Revolution could even be launched. Sorry, I just don't see it happening."
And...
" The Constitution is already dead. We, as humans, are not empowered to bring the dead back to life, even if the will of the masses was there, which it quite obviously ain't."

 

[BC1]

BC1 - The fact that the ordinance is old doesn't exempt it from being regarded as confiscation.
Admittedly, the SAFE act I hate so much got my attention right away, specifically for one of the less-known effects - the fact that it gave me the means to keep the Journal News from publishing my address. It's bittersweet - kind of like the way I had to face the fact that my son's treatment at Sloan-Kettering was covered by my insurance because of an Obamacare mandate.

So - with the judge overturning the 7 round limit - when can we legally fully load a ten round mag, do you know?
Not that it's enough to help my state of pessimism. Bluestringer expressed my state of mind best in another post -
"Like I said, I wish it wasn't so, but my days of living for wishful thinking to come to fruition are long gone. You and I are old enough that we'll never see what it is you're hoping for. I don't believe God is giving us that much time, but even if He were, He would have to touch the hearts of enough Patriots to instill the will and courage that is woefully lacking right now before a successful 2nd American Revolution could even be launched. Sorry, I just don't see it happening."
And...
" The Constitution is already dead. We, as humans, are not empowered to bring the dead back to life, even if the will of the masses was there, which it quite obviously ain't."

Everyone is wondering the same thing. Can we put the rounds back in the mag now?
.
Black's Law Dictionary defines confiscation as --- To appropriate property to the use of the state. To adjudge property to be forfeited to the public treasury; to seize and condemn private forfeited property to public use. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dull. 234, 1 L. Ed. 5GS; State v. Sargent, 12 Mo. App. 234. Webster's defines confiscation as --- To take something away from someone especially as punishment or to enforce the law or rules
.
To date there have been no incidents of confiscation under this law in NYC. But I expect the new mayor is much worse than Bloomy. He's a bleeding liberal. The people of NYC want liberal, gun-hating officials and want their fellow law-abiding residents disarmed. So if someone chooses to live or work in that city they do it knowing their rights will be violated. But no one will ever change the crazy mindset of that cesspool. Foreigners are now such a large population and are taking over entire areas (Chinese now buying Brooklyn) that gun rights are lost forever.
.
Will the last American leaving NYC please bring he flag.

 

[BC1]

Here's some disturbing information about the new NYC mayor from the NY Times (an uninformed liberal rag)...
.
"A Democrat, he begins his term as an emblem of resurgent liberalism, offering hope to progressive activists and officeholders across the country."
.
“We are called to put an end to economic and social inequalities that threaten to unravel the city we love. He shaped his campaign around the “tale of two cities” -- a succinct summation of the rising income inequality he vowed he would urgently address as the next mayor.”
.
THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD!!!!!

 

[nogods]

So - with the judge overturning the 7 round limit - when can we legally fully load a ten round mag, do you know?

You always could fully load a 10-round mag. If the law is unconstitutional then it was unconstitutional from the day it was enacted into law.

Of course that does not mean that a law enforcement officer can't still arrest you under the law, but they risk being exposed to a section 1983 liability now that the decision has been made.

On the other hand, if appealed and overturned, then such an arrest will be legal.

 

[UncleWilley]

There is no confiscation taking place in NYC. About 500 notices (out of 8 million people) were sent out requesting owners of certain weapons modify them or get rid of them. No one has confiscated anything. This is also an old city ordinance, nothing new here.
.
Regarding the safe act there are many provisions. It isn't just about mag capacity or assault rifles. It is about crime and mental illness.

NO Confiscation, YET, but that is certainly the goal of dems!!!

 

[2Awarrior]

On the topic of confiscation - when I mentioned that NYC was confiscating firearms, BC1 pointed out that it wasn't quite true by definition, and he was right.
Maybe the definition needs to be tweaked -
In NY, 30-round AR mags used to be legal even during the federal ban. They just had to be manufactured prior to 1994, and you could have a cabinet full if you so desired. They weren't legal because they were ignored by the law or because they were unregulated - they were legal because they were specifically mentioned in the existing laws as being legal.
Now they're not.
And we have to throw them away, turn them in, sell them out of state. We CANNOT keep them.
No, it's not confiscation by definition.
The definition needs to change. They are taking them by ordering us to get rid of them.
What's the difference?

 

[BC1]

NO Confiscation, YET, but that is certainly the goal of dems!!!

Yes, in every state, not just NY.

 

[BC1]

On the topic of confiscation - when I mentioned that NYC was confiscating firearms, BC1 pointed out that it wasn't quite true by definition, and he was right.
Maybe the definition needs to be tweaked -
In NY, 30-round AR mags used to be legal even during the federal ban. They just had to be manufactured prior to 1994, and you could have a cabinet full if you so desired. They weren't legal because they were ignored by the law or because they were unregulated - they were legal because they were specifically mentioned in the existing laws as being legal.
Now they're not.
And we have to throw them away, turn them in, sell them out of state. We CANNOT keep them.
No, it's not confiscation by definition.
The definition needs to change. They are taking them by ordering us to get rid of them.
What's the difference?

Difference is that you don't have to get rid of it. No one will know you have it. My neighbor comes out blasting with hi-cap mags every weekend. No one cares. No one calls anyone.
.
Personally? I have no use for an AR or 30-round mag. I prefer a riot control shotgun (Mossberg 590). But if you want one that decision should be respected by lawmakers. I think our lawmakers are bats. I believe one could cause more carnage with a 12 gauge pump holding 9 rounds. Yet this gun escapes scrutiny.

 

[2Awarrior]

Personally? I have no use for an AR or 30-round mag. I prefer a riot control shotgun (Mossberg 590). But if you want one that decision should be respected by lawmakers. I think our lawmakers are bats. I believe one could cause more carnage with a 12 gauge pump holding 9 rounds. Yet this gun escapes scrutiny.

Agree with the above 100%. And frankly the only reason I'm not sorry I ever SAW my first AR is that being an owner made me more acutely aware of just how "bats" our lawmakers are. (Did I mention I sold mine in a private sale back when private sales were legal and undocumented? Good thing, huh?)

Hey, I just heard from the NYSRPA that the 7-round ruling reversal only applies to Western NY state? The rest of us are still stuck with seven rounds? Hear anything on that?

 

[BC1]

Agree with the above 100%. And frankly the only reason I'm not sorry I ever SAW my first AR is that being an owner made me more acutely aware of just how "bats" our lawmakers are. (Did I mention I sold mine in a private sale back when private sales were legal and undocumented? Good thing, huh?)

Hey, I just heard from the NYSRPA that the 7-round ruling reversal only applies to Western NY state? The rest of us are still stuck with seven rounds? Hear anything on that?

Just spoke with my buddy. The decision affects the NYS Penal Law for the entire state not just the district where the ruling came from. Here's a link to the actual decision ---. Link Removed
.
FROM THE RULING...
.
3. Seven-round limit
The same cannot be said, however, about the seven-round limit. The SAFE Act adds New York Penal Law § 265.00(37), which makes it “unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition feeding device where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.” 15 Unlike the restrictions on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, the seven-round limit cannot survive intermediate scrutiny.
.
It stretches the bounds of this Court’s deference to the predictive judgments of the legislature to suppose that those intent on doing harm (whom, of course, the Act is aimed to stop) will load their weapon with only the permitted seven rounds. In this sense, the provision is not “substantially related” to the important government interest in public safety and crime prevention.
.
Indeed, Heller found that the Second Amendment right is at its zenith in the home; in particular, the Court highlighted the right of a citizen to arm him or herself for self defense. But this provision, much more so than with respect to the other provisions of the law, presents the possibility of a disturbing perverse effect, pitting the criminal with a fully loaded magazine against the law-abiding citizen limited to seven rounds.
.
Although Plaintiffs make this type of argument with respect to all aspects of the SAFE Act, the distinction here is plain. This Court has ruled that New York is entitled to regulate assault weapons and large-capacity magazines under the principal presumption that the law will reduce their prevalence and accessibility in New York State, and thus, inversely, increase public safety. (restrictions in Safe Act will “help prevent the spread of particularly dangerous weaponry”). The ban on the number of rounds a gun owner is permitted to load into his 10-round magazine, however, will obviously have no such effect because 10-round magazines remain legal. As described above, the seven-round limit thus carries a much stronger possibility of disproportionately affecting law abiding citizens.
.
Defendants contend, pointing to a study conducted by the NRA, that the average citizen using his or her weapon in self-defense expends only two bullets. Thus, New York argues, citizens do not truly need more than seven rounds, and the restriction minimizes the danger without hampering self-defense capabilities. But as an initial matter, New York fails to explain its decision to set the maximum at seven rounds, which appears to be a largely arbitrary number. And even if a person using a weapon in self-defense needs only a few rounds, and even if that is a rational reason for adopting the law, under intermediate scrutiny there must a “substantial relation” between the means and the end. The State’s justification for the law need not be perfect, but it must be “exceedingly persuasive.” This peripheral rationale, which is possibly meant to protect bystanders when a firearm is being discharged lawfully, or victims of impromptu acts of violence, is largely unsupported by evidence before this Court. It thus fails the more demanding test and must be struck down.

 

[AC Orange]

Hey, I just heard from the NYSRPA that the 7-round ruling reversal only applies to Western NY state? The rest of us are still stuck with seven rounds? Hear anything on that?

.


SAFE Act ammunition provision remains intact in CNY despite Federal judge’s ruling :

Link Removed

It would appear that the Onondaga DA has a point. However, Skretny's ruling is likely to be upheld by the 2nd Circuit and then the law becomes State wide. In the end, the 7 round rule is dead. Perhaps Federal District court wasn't the proper venue for the NYSRPA litigation. It would seem this matter should have been handled in State Supreme Court, then there wouldn't be this confusion.

.

 

[2Awarrior]

So what I'm getting from all this is I better keep it to seven until I hear otherwise.
I'm in Orange County, by the way.

 

[AC Orange]

So what I'm getting from all this is I better keep it to seven until I hear otherwise.
I'm in Orange County, by the way.

.

I would say be very careful with what you do or don't do. I would not assume anything until it is 100% clear. You would not want to open yourself up to powerful negative consequences.

You're right, you should probably keep seven in the magazines. Personally, I would do so until I know for sure that I will not and cannot be arrested, etc., because of some ambiguity in the law.

.

 

[nogods]

.


SAFE Act ammunition provision remains intact in CNY despite Federal judge’s ruling :

Link Removed

It would appear that the Onondaga DA has a point. However, Skretny's ruling is likely to be upheld by the 2nd Circuit and then the law becomes State wide. In the end, the 7 round rule is dead. Perhaps Federal District court wasn't the proper venue for the NYSRPA litigation. It would seem this matter should have been handled in State Supreme Court, then there wouldn't be this confusion.

.

the state supreme court is divided into 12 districts, and 4 appellate districts, so a state case would take longer to become state wide law.

First, it would only be applicable in the 8th judicial district (assuming it was still filed in Buffalo). Even if upheld on appeal, it would only be applicable in the 4th appellate district. And the NY Court of Appeals would not have to take the appeal, so a statewide decision might not happen for many years.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeal's decision will cover all of NY.

 

[AC Orange]

.

Thankfully the seven round business is dead in the water now. It was absolutely arbitrary and had no rational basis whatsoever. It is really outrageous that some are still bent on wanting to charge innocent people under what has now been declared an unconstitutional provision of the law.

.

 

[golocx4]

What aggravates me is the judge and even many gun owners repeat what the talking points were.
Keep your gun just register it. Sounds reasonable doesn't it.
It is just like Obama saying you can keep your plan. It is BS. You can keep it until you die. Then it must be either sold out of state or turned in.
Call it banning or elimination or confiscation by Attrition. One thing is for sure these progressives have patience.

Secondly- I don't think the Judge applied Heller correctly.

 

[2Awarrior]

NY sure APPLIED this ----ing law in a hurry. And now it may take YEARS to undo it? I was pretty happy when I heard the seven round limit got knocked down, but now even THAT'S bull$hit?!?
I'm not gonna have much choice other than stop thinking about it. I used to believe we had a voice, we could make a difference with our vote.
Where's the proof of THAT fantasy being true?

 

[nogods]

NY sure APPLIED this ----ing law in a hurry. And now it may take YEARS to undo it? I was pretty happy when I heard the seven round limit got knocked down, but now even THAT'S bull$hit?!?
I'm not gonna have much choice other than stop thinking about it. I used to believe we had a voice, we could make a difference with our vote.
Where's the proof of THAT fantasy being true?

First, if the SAFE act violates the constitution, then it is not a matter of voting, it is a matter of law. If the 7-round limit is unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional from the day of enactment. You can ignore it, but if it is constitutional then you risk being convicted for violating it. Your choice.

Second, to the extent any of the SAFE act is constitutional, then it is a matter of politics, but the fact that a majority of voters disagree with you doesn't mean that your vote didn't count - it just means that you are stuck with the political choices of a majority of people in your jurisdiction - that is how our system works.

Would you prefer that political decision me made by a minority of voters instead? How would that work? If a majority of voters vote for Candidate A then we declare B the winner?

The fact that a majority of voters don't agree with you does not mean your vote didn't count - it just means you couldn't get enough other voters to agree with you to have your way.

 

[nogods]

You can keep it until you die. Then it must be either sold out of state or turned in.

What would you need it for after you are dead?

 

[BC1]

What would you need it for after you are dead?

Hey, you never know. When going to hell be sure to take a bigger pitchfork than the devil.