AC Orange
New member
.
I was really wondering about this wording when I first read the SAFE Act. Not being a lawyer, I figured it was one of their "look at the smoke over in that corner, while the real fire is in the opposite corner". I was reading the lawsuit that NYSRPA filed and it points out that the law says you can't load more than seven rounds in a magazine that has a capacity of "more than seven, but less than ten".
The lawsuit goes on to point out, rightfully, that this means you can load more than seven rounds in a magazine that has a capacity of exactly ten. So if you have an eight or nine round magazine, you can only load seven, but if you have a ten round magazine, you can load...... ten.
They should have said "a capacity of more than seven but less than eleven" or "a capacity of more than seven but not more than ten." As written, the law totally exempts ten round magazines from the seven round load limitation. Finally found some small thing to LMAO with regard to that oxymoron titled "SAFE Act".
I was really wondering about this wording when I first read the SAFE Act. Not being a lawyer, I figured it was one of their "look at the smoke over in that corner, while the real fire is in the opposite corner". I was reading the lawsuit that NYSRPA filed and it points out that the law says you can't load more than seven rounds in a magazine that has a capacity of "more than seven, but less than ten".
The lawsuit goes on to point out, rightfully, that this means you can load more than seven rounds in a magazine that has a capacity of exactly ten. So if you have an eight or nine round magazine, you can only load seven, but if you have a ten round magazine, you can load...... ten.
They should have said "a capacity of more than seven but less than eleven" or "a capacity of more than seven but not more than ten." As written, the law totally exempts ten round magazines from the seven round load limitation. Finally found some small thing to LMAO with regard to that oxymoron titled "SAFE Act".