New York laws - Page 4
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 66

Thread: New York laws

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by srbecker View Post
    As far as I understand, this SAFE act made my target .22 Illegal due to the simple fact it has a thumbhole stock! Really? A thumbhole stock.... I know who Im voting for next election, and its not Cuomo!
    Surely, you must understand how dangerous a gun with a thumb hole in the stock is!!!!!!!!!!!
    It's for the children, after all.
    Jim Page

    Cogito, ergo armatum sum

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by jrs View Post
    As was discussed recently by Max Tresmond, there is a conundrum created by the SAFE ACT regarding the registration requirements for "assault" weapons. The law requires that the affected weapons be registered....BUT... if you fail to register them, and I believe the ultimate "drop dead" date is April 15, 2013 (grace period?). Per the Haynes ruling, after that, it would be a violation of your 5th Amendment rights as registration would result in self-incrimination. He didn't advise (nor give legal advice on the radio) that you don't register under the SAFE ACT, but did state that if you didn't... Haynes would come into play.

    I agree.....Don't EVER vote Democrat again!!! Just look at the poorest cities in the US...Detriot, Buffalo... all under Democrat rule since the 50's and 60's... and both states are bleeding jobs!
    I am sure the drop dead date is April 15, 2014
    Jim Page

    Cogito, ergo armatum sum

  4. #33
    2Awarrior Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JimPage View Post
    Surely, you must understand how dangerous a gun with a thumb hole in the stock is!!!!!!!!!!!
    It's for the children, after all.
    HAH!!
    Yeah, I've never been able to get my head around how these lawmakers decide what's dangerous to "the kids" and what isn't.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by 2Awarrior View Post
    HAH!!
    Yeah, I've never been able to get my head around how these lawmakers decide what's dangerous to "the kids" and what isn't.
    It's easy for them.... They only need look into the mirror...


    Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

  6. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-round-limits/

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

  7. #36
    As far as NY laws go, a federal judge has just struck down the 7 round provision of the "safe act". Now we peons can load ten rounds in a magazine. Hi capacity mags are still banned however. Fortunately the other suit is scheduled for hearing in mid January. Happy New Year to all of you, inside Cuomostan or out.

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD13 View Post
    As far as NY laws go, a federal judge has just struck down the 7 round provision of the "safe act". Now we peons can load ten rounds in a magazine. Hi capacity mags are still banned however. Fortunately the other suit is scheduled for hearing in mid January. Happy New Year to all of you, inside Cuomostan or out.

    After reviewing the decision I think it could easily be overturned on appeal - and just as easily upheld on appeal - because most of the court's conclusions are based on speculative judgment calls about the profered effects of the provisions in question. A Second Circuit panel could agree as easily as it could disagree simply by substituting its speculative judgment for that of the lower court's opinion.


    The weakest portion of Skretny's decision is the determination that the phrase "muzzle break" is void for vagueness. The opinion first states that there is no such thing as a "muzzle break" because the proper term is "muzzle brake". It then concludes that the grammatical error causes the law to be vague.


    That seems a bit strained. If there is no such thing as a "muzzle break", then it seams no one would be confused by the grammatical error - they will either think "muzzle brake" is spelled "muzzle break" or the will know that "muzzle break" is a misspelling of "muzzle brake."


    In either case, they will all know that the law prohibits a "muzzle brake" regardless of how it is spelled.


    In reality, most people will never even read the law - the only way they'll know of its contents is through secondary sources. When they see "muzzle break" they won't know if the spelling error is that of the reporter or the actual law. And when they hear the term, they won't know if the speaker is saying "break" or "brake".


    But they will know what it means without any confusion.

  9. #38
    You are correct nogods, most people will not bother to read, and therefore not understand the decision. And I do not recall the 2nd Circuit deciding anything in any view other than very liberally. So, the magazine restrictions are slightly eased for now, and we'll will see what comes next. The fight isn't over yet.

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnD13 View Post
    You are correct nogods, most people will not bother to read, and therefore not understand the decision. And I do not recall the 2nd Circuit deciding anything in any view other than very liberally. So, the magazine restrictions are slightly eased for now, and we'll will see what comes next. The fight isn't over yet.

    Ah...but the most solid reasoning of Skretny's opinion was on the 7-round issue. He (or more accurately in all likelihood his clerk) concluded that there was a total disconnect between the law and the government's assertions about the public benefit derived therefrom.

    I think the opinion does a poor job of distinguishing its conclusion and reasoning about the 7-round provision from the its conclusions and reasoning about the assault weapons and magazine provisions.

    I think there is a good a chance a panel of Second Circuit judges would agree with the 7-round conclusion and then apply it to the other provisions as well.

    Either that or they will need to devise some other reasoning for the distinction because I just don't think 2 out of 3 law clerks on the Second Circuit will be willing to adopt Skretny's basis for the distinction.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by 2Awarrior View Post
    Good grief, my brother - I wish I had your optimism, and I mean that.
    Confiscation is already taking place in NYC, and it is not something we should rule out.
    If I really believed we could trust ANY government - Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, whoever - then I'd share your outlook. But just take ANYONE - tea partiers, Rush, anybody - and put them in a position of political power, and they become the same type of elitists we're dealing with now.
    I wouldn't trust anybody with my freedom but me.
    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.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast