Governor Cuomo is apparently in talks with the GOP to pass the toughest gun ban in the nation:
“They’re arguing over nothing, little nuances,†that source said of the Republicans. “But the bottom line is the governor is going to get the toughest gun laws in the nation.â€The emerging proposal would expand the state’s existing assault weapons ban and limit ammunition magazines to a maximum of seven rounds, down from the current ten.
There would also be a new assault weapons ban that would presumably be a one-feature test that would outlaw the vast majority of modern firearms.Grandfathered firearms would not be transferrable, so their market value would largely be destroyed. It’s always hard to say whether a real sell out is in process, or the governor’s people are saying that in order to twist arms. It doesn’t hurt to write your reps if you live in New York.
Depending on the demographics of the last census, this could be happening if the down state repubs and upstate dems are voting with Cuomo. And I am loving the 7 round thing. That is brilliant. What a better way to illustrate the slippery slope better than that.
Yeah… I have a feeling we’re going to end up litigating on the assault weapon issue sooner rather than later.
Given the age of the court members, this may not be a bad thing.
This doesn’t highlight only the slippery slope, but also that “elections have consequences”.
When will someone interview Cuomo or Bloomburg and ask them if their police force will no longer carry “patrol rifles” or “high capacity ammunition”(sic)? If actions like AWBs and limits on capacity reduce crime, then there is no reason for the police to carry “bullet hoses”. (Yes, I know that no one in the MSM would ever ask that question)
“Elections have consequences” — so do candidates. As long as the Republican party has no soul and concentrates on sure-losers like Huckabee, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, and all those other poisonous candidates, they will continue to lose elections while standing on “principles” which have blown away with the wind — small government? fiscal responsibility?
The Republican party stands for nothing any more. The Dems stand for being your nanny, but at least they stand for something, and the fence-sitters will choose the known turd instead of the unknown one.
I’d have more respect for them if they went whole-hog and only allowed one-round magazines. Makes as much as the seven-round limit.
Idiots.
“Under the plan, if a mental health professional believes someone–gun owner or not–poses a threat, they will be able to report that to their county mental health office, which would then convey the warning to law enforcement.”
I don’t see this getting any further than it already has: mental health professionals, for ethical and pocketbook reasons (nice when those are aligned), do their best to avoid things that will cause people to avoid seeking their services. If a perception develops that going to them will get you put on a state list, well, a lot of them will have to find work elsewhere.
Erk, the above was supposed to be a new comment, not in this thread.
Well, never mind. My comment in this thread is that they agree with Patton that “In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised.” (although by that time he was almost certainly thinking the “VT” proximity fuze was that, but he couldn’t publicly talk about it), and of course it zaps everyone with a carefully designed to a 10 round limit gun. Heck, even M1911’s with Wilson’s standard 47D slightly trick 8 round magazines that I use.
Well, I suppose if this goes through we’ll be finding out if the Supreme Court is going to be of any real use to us.
Good luck with that mental health provision. The left in this country has spent the last 50 years ensuring a pile of court precedent that you have a right to medical privacy. They’ll lose in court in a heartbeat.
That’s all not to mention due process considerations that can be lumped in on top of the privacy issues.
If they want to push mental health, they’re going to have to start adjudicating people as mentally ill in the courts again and possibly locking them up in asylums.
That goes back to the age old question I’ve had about “ineligible people.” If there are people too dangerous to trust with a firearm, be it because of criminal record, mental illness or whatever, then why exactly are they allowed to roam the streets period. If they’re that dangerous they should be locked up.
Well, if they want to really push it, require a statement from a mental health professional that you’re not a danger. For obvious reasons, including just plain reality, they’re very hesitant to do that, at least with any vaguely affordable system of examinations (doing that correctly would be more like getting a background check for a security clearance, which I’ve helped as an interviewee for a couple of people I know).
I don’t even think they can do that. There’s a recent court precedent with respect to due process rights and property rights, that you can’t be required to waive one right in order to excercise another. That’s a little more tenous but I believe it would hold.
The courts are all too willing to find exceptions to those sorts of precedents, and certainly hold the RKBA as something different in kind than the rest of the rights found in the Constitution and its “penumbras” and “emanations”.
The “courts” yes, but where goes the one court that matters, namely the one at the top. Some people thought Heller and McDonald were a lost cause.
I’m just holding optimism that the system will work as intended in order to avoid the misery that is the alternative…
Some state was proposing single shot firearms actually, but I forget if which.
A legislator in Connecticut; it’s not at all clear he’s got any serious support.
I think it removes all doubt for any fence-sitters though, no gun is safe.
Errr, I think that would only happen if it makes some progress in the legislature. I should be no secret to any gun owner there are some people in power who want to take away every gun they own.
I wonder if Rohrbaugh, Remington and whoever’s left will finally get the hint and leave.
Grandfathered firearms would not be transferrable, so their market value would largely be destroyed.
Except out of state, right? I don’t see how New York could stop that, can’t you ship a gun to a FFL in another state? E.g. see Gunbroker.com’s web page Firearms Shipping Guide. I also don’t see how New York state could stop someone from physically taking their frozen or soon to be illegal guns to an FFL in another (sane) state and selling them to or through him, and I don’t think that would be any more illegal than shipping them. And this of course implicated the original meaning of the Commerce Clause.
Ah, no surprise, here’s a 1/4/2013 FAQ PLEASE READ: Support Response Delays.
They’d forbid FFLs from taking possession in New York.
And your point is???
Yes, but he’s talking about out of state FFL’s. NY state law holds no water in PA for example, the “illegal to transfer” in NY gun could be sold to a FFL in a saner state than NY.
So a seven round magazine ban? I wondered why Gov. Cuomo made that crack about “no one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”. I had thought the bumbler was just making the typical clumsy noises anti-gunners are so prone to (the shoulder thing which goes up!). Now I see it was just him trying to justify a harsher magazine ban.
Keep in mind that Mayor Bloomberg spluttered on Nightline that no hunter needed more than three shots! http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/nyc-mayor-michael-bloomberg-nra-18041670
NY Times says it’s a done deal: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/nyregion/new-york-legislators-hope-for-speedy-vote-on-gun-laws.html?hp&_r=0
Honestly, everyone, as a New Yorker, I am so depressed. With the new 7-round magazine limit, my Beretta (10 rounds), Sig (8 rounds) and S&W (8 rounds) will all become expensive paper weights. This is awful.