NY Mario Cuomo 7 Round Magazine Ban is Unconstitutional

SmarterthanYou said:
I disagree. Considering that 95% of the currently owned and available guns out there do not allow 7 round mags due to manufacturing, the mag capacity law becomes a de-facto ban, thus unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Absolutely RIGHT, if we let Cuomo get away with this, then every other gun grabbing Lib Governor will try the same thing. Again, when someone asks me about why I am against ANY new gun laws, whatsoever, I say the following;.....Give me a sharp axe, a good axe sharpener, a tent and cot, some food and water, and I will chop down that huge California Sequoia, the General Sherman at about 36 feet in diameter at the base and 275 feet tall, which I have seen. I will get up every morning and chip away at it, take a break, and do some more chipping, every day. If it takes me 5 years, I will bring that giant tree down. This is what the gun grabbers have been doing, first by introducing laws that ruins hunting with too many rules/regulations, then laws that hamper gun manufacturers, and then one gun law after another, until there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books. The buck stops here, we need to challenge every new gun grabbing law. I hope you saw my posted 1973 Gun Digest article photo describing how The Senate was trying to ban handguns, so no one can tell me that they are not trying to take all the guns away, which has been their goals more than 40 years ago. Maybe they will allow US to have Cap-Lock/matchlock muzzle loading muskets or maybe not anything. I think that Obama will somehow try for a third term, somehow, someway?
 
NY has had a ban on the size of magazines since 1994. Why hasn't it been challenged before? It's not unconstitutional and it will not be ruled as such.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
Absolutely RIGHT, if we let Cuomo get away with this, then every other gun grabbing Lib Governor will try the same thing. Again, when someone asks me about why I am against ANY new gun laws, whatsoever, I say the following;.....Give me a sharp axe, a good axe sharpener, a tent and cot, some food and water, and I will chop down that huge California Sequoia, the General Sherman at about 36 feet in diameter at the base and 275 feet tall, which I have seen. I will get up every morning and chip away at it, take a break, and do some more chipping, every day. If it takes me 5 years, I will bring that giant tree down. This is what the gun grabbers have been doing, first by introducing laws that ruins hunting with too many rules/regulations, then laws that hamper gun manufacturers, and then one gun law after another, until there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books. The buck stops here, we need to challenge every new gun grabbing law. I hope you saw my posted 1973 Gun Digest article photo describing how The Senate was trying to ban handguns, so no one can tell me that they are not trying to take all the guns away, which has been their goals more than 40 years ago. Maybe they will allow US to have Cap-Lock/matchlock muzzle loading muskets or maybe not anything. I think that Obama will somehow try for a third term, somehow, someway?
Click to expand...

Yeah, 1973. And 40 years later they are not even close to that goal. In fact, they are probably further away from it than ever.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
NY has had a ban on the size of magazines since 1994. Why hasn't it been challenged before? It's not unconstitutional and it will not be ruled as such.
Click to expand...
Probably because we all think of New Yorkers as anti-gun Libs who could care less about guns, but although as minority, many of New York's pro-gun people are simply pushed into the corner and they just accepted the 10 round limit. The truth now is that a ten round max magazine does not ban all the handguns, but a 7 round limit does, because many handguns manufactuers are out of business now, therefore 7 round magazines are not not available. I could name a bunch of semi-auto handguns in that category where 7 round mags would not work and are not available. Again most Libs do not know what they are talking about, when it comes to guns, butt I do, in spades. I consider myself a firearms expert, both in shooting, the use of and their history.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
Probably because we all think of New Yorkers as anti-gun Libs who could care less about guns, but although as minority, many of New York's pro-gun people are simply pushed into the corner and they just accepted the 10 round limit. The truth now is that a ten round max magazine does not ban all the handguns, but a 7 round limit does, because many handguns manufactuers are out of business now, therefore 7 round magazines are not not available. I could name a bunch of semi-auto handguns in that category where 7 round mags would not work and are not available. Again most Libs do not know what they are talking about, when it comes to guns, butt I do, in spades. I consider myself a firearms expert, both in shooting, the use of and their history.
Click to expand...

10 round mags are permissable but you can only have seven rounds in it.

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

Statewide, New York enforces various firearm related prohibitions, many proscriptions similarly listed in the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Specified rifle magazines are banned: a) manufactured after 1994; and b) the magazine holds in excess of 10 rounds (handguns included). A 10 round magazine is permissible, but may only contain 7 rounds. Any rifle or shotgun with just one of these features are banned: 1) pistol grip; 2) bayonet lug; 3) Telescoping or folding stock; 4) flash suppressor; or 5) threaded barrel.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] On January 15, 2013, the state assault weapons ban was further strengthened by the New York Safe Act. All "assault" style rifles and shotguns purchased prior to January 15, 2013 are grandfathered, but must be registered within one year of the Safe Act passage. [SUP][7][/SUP]
 
SuperstringTheory said:
10 round mags are permissable but you can only have seven rounds in it.

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

Statewide, New York enforces various firearm related prohibitions, many proscriptions similarly listed in the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Specified rifle magazines are banned: a) manufactured after 1994; and b) the magazine holds in excess of 10 rounds (handguns included). A 10 round magazine is permissible, but may only contain 7 rounds. Any rifle or shotgun with just one of these features are banned: 1) pistol grip; 2) bayonet lug; 3) Telescoping or folding stock; 4) flash suppressor; or 5) threaded barrel.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] On January 15, 2013, the state assault weapons ban was further strengthened by the New York Safe Act. All "assault" style rifles and shotguns purchased prior to January 15, 2013 are grandfathered, but must be registered within one year of the Safe Act passage. [SUP][7][/SUP]
Click to expand...

that is one of the stupidest laws i've ever read...yeah...someone intent on a killing people is really going to stop loading the magazine after seven bullets
 
Sativa said:
that is one of the stupidest laws i've ever read...yeah...someone intent on a killing people is really going to stop loading the magazine after seven bullets
Click to expand...

I would agree it is rather silly that they went from ten to seven.

But if you are going to rant and rave about this you guys need to focus. Either the law is trivial and ineffective or a radical change that significantly limits your second amendment rights?

It's not a radical change. NY broke no new ground. The courts are not likely to object.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
I would agree it is rather silly that they went from ten to seven.

But if you are going to rant and rave about this you guys need to focus. Either the law is trivial and ineffective or a radical change that significantly limits your second amendment rights?

It's not a radical change. NY broke no new ground. The courts are not likely to object.
Click to expand...
whats to stop NY from then reducing the amount further, to say two bullets. would THAT be an infringement or would the courts approve?
 
SuperstringTheory said:
I would agree it is rather silly that they went from ten to seven.

But if you are going to rant and rave about this you guys need to focus. Either the law is trivial and ineffective or a radical change that significantly limits your second amendment rights?

It's not a radical change. NY broke no new ground. The courts are not likely to object.
Click to expand...

where have i ranted and raved? you need to stop being so emotive over this issue and realize that it is ok for people to not agree with your stance.

i never said it wouldn't pass constitutional muster, i merely commented on the stupidity of it. lighten up francis.
 
Obama Hates America said:
You are looking at this the wrong way. Per the Constitution, Congress shall make no law. There is nothing prohibiting New York from doing this and the founders would agree. I say let NYers live with the consequences of their actions
Click to expand...

While I personally think it is a good idea on there behalf you are right that it is there own legal right to do so, So why bother getting your panties in a twist when it affect's them, It's not like this guy can push that 7 bullet ban onto Texas?
 
von_noobie said:
While I personally think it is a good idea on there behalf you are right that it is there own legal right to do so, So why bother getting your panties in a twist when it affect's them, It's not like this guy can push that 7 bullet ban onto Texas?
Click to expand...

My panties aren't in a twist at all. I see this playing out only one way. Crime will go up in New York. The police state will ratchet up in New York. Why? Simple, the crooks will still have guns as they won't care about turning their shit in. The NY law states that people must turn in their "banned" weapons within the next year. So what if they don't? Does Commissar Cuomo let them keep them or does he "inspect" households for illegal contraband?
 
Obama Hates America said:
My panties aren't in a twist at all. I see this playing out only one way. Crime will go up in New York. The police state will ratchet up in New York. Why? Simple, the crooks will still have guns as they won't care about turning their shit in. The NY law states that people must turn in their "banned" weapons within the next year. So what if they don't? Does Commissar Cuomo let them keep them or does he "inspect" households for illegal contraband?
Click to expand...

Doof. Crime rates went down in NY after the last round of bans.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
whats to stop NY from then reducing the amount further, to say two bullets. would THAT be an infringement or would the courts approve?
Click to expand...

No. :)

I would guess that anything below six is likely to be suspect. At the same time, the courts are likely to show quite a bit of discretion to the will of the people. You know, all that talk about legislating from the bench and activist judges has an impact. Thank incoherent Republican rhetoric.

But tell me, why is ten a magical number? Also, if you argue that no limit is permissible then you are going to lose.
 
Sativa said:
where have i ranted and raved? you need to stop being so emotive over this issue and realize that it is ok for people to not agree with your stance.

i never said it wouldn't pass constitutional muster, i merely commented on the stupidity of it. lighten up francis.
Click to expand...

I meant right wingers in general. Quit being so emotive and defensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top