41

New York State gun confiscation written into law (Update)

Of course, these bastards keep saying “we won’t take your guns away.” They pride themselves on that statement. But instead of physically taking them from you, they just write a law that makes law-abiding citizens who owned firearms into criminals if they don’t get rid of them.

So how do you describe this? Voluntary confiscation?

As an example, if you happen to own a SIG Sauer P229 in 9mm – which is only available with 10 round, or 13 round magazines – you become a criminal in the state of New York if you don’t either sell the firearm to someone out of state through a FFL, or sell the magazines you own to someone out-of-state … making the firearm a paperweight.

Correction: After review, it turns out you can own a 10 round magazine, but it can not be loaded with more than seven rounds. New York has capped your self-defense abilities at seven rounds. If you can not stop the threat within seven rounds, the all-knowing politicians think you’ve had your chance and your life is now in the hands of the attacker. Since we know even law enforcement hit rates are one in five, that gives you a total of 1.4 rounds to stop an attacker. I wonder how law enforcement would feel if they were limited?

As an additional point, if you do not own any 10-round or less magazines for your pistol now, you’re completely out of luck unless the manufacture elects to create seven round magazines for your pistol. You have to get rid of all of your magazines making your firearm unusable.

That’s government confiscation of a modern, every-day, nothing too special self defense firearms.

This law is totally full of stupid, not as stupid as Connecticut’s proposed legislation – but close.

Filed in: Featured, Government Tags: ,

Related Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

From the owners: This section is for comments from Radio Vice Online's registered readers. Never assume the owners of this site agree with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use - a must read if you wish to contribute here - may lose their posting privileges. Just because we've let a similar comment stand in the past does not mean we'll let it stand in the future.

Trackbacks

41 Responses to "New York State gun confiscation written into law (Update)"

  1. Dimsdale says:

    Sounds more like the codification of liberal stupidity.
     
    The screaming ninnies from Great Britain must have moved here…

  2. joe_m says:

    Time for mass lawlessness. We are all criminals now anyway.

    • PatRiot says:

      I will not let them define me.  Regardless of some fool’s label,  anyone who fights for individual rights and supports the best form of government the world has known is a patriot.

  3. Anne-EH says:

    The first state to delare that it is a BLUE STATE for real.

  4. SeeingRed says:

    So when, exactly, do the lawsuits start?  And not just in NY – what about a challenge to existing CT (and NJ and MA, etc.) ‘bans’ of firearms and magazines.  Begin by demanding an injunction until the case(s) is heard based on the fact that these restrictions are not tangental to the Second Amendment – they are a direct assault.

  5. kateinmaine says:

    another fun aspect (file under ‘unintended consequences’) of new ny ‘super tough’ gun law is the requirement for doctors to inform on patients who may be mentally questionable.  looks like that throws privilege out the window, which will easily be expanded to include lawyers as well.  act in haste, repent in leisure. . .

  6. JBS says:

    The gun-grabber’s dream of total confiscation just moved a lot closer to reality in New York.
    This is really sad . . .
     

  7. sammy22 says:

    This “law abiding citizens” monicker is pure obfuscation.

  8. ricbee says:

    The idiot Senator with the one(1) bullet idea was on the air & he didn’t sound as stupid as dirt. Jim was stuck dumb just by listening to him. I wanted to strangle the radio.

  9. JBS says:

    Meyer is a New Yorker. Probably out of the same mold as the “One World”, “Peace and Love”, “I want it to be 76-degrees with sun and no humidity,” “End Everything, NOW,” “Why can’t we all just get along?” utopians.  Moved to Connecticut to foist his progressive, socialist ideology on the bent-pinky-finger teacup clinkers.
    New York just cleared the way for better working conditions for criminals. In a year or so, we can expect crime to burgeon in NY. Home invasions, muggings, robberies and assaults of all kinds will proceed. As NY becomes more gun-free, criminals will work in packs to wantonly  rob, murder, rape and plunder entire neighborhoods. Will the gun-free neighborhoods put up signs proudly declaring to all their, er, stupidity?
    Cuomo is having the signs made to put up at the state line: “New York is Proudly Gun-Free: Vote for Cuomo for President! ”
    I guess that sammy2.2 is telling us he is not a law-abiding citizen.

  10. JollyRoger says:

    Voluntary Compliance, just like our tax code! 

  11. JBS says:

    There are so many things different that impacts the interchange between people. Beginning with the widespread ownership of automobiles, introduction of television, and the general acceptance of violence in films, videos and computer games has degraded the civility of society. Neighbors don’t know their neighbors; individuals are anonymous of each other; people dislike people they don’t even know based on, what?
    Morality is a foreign concept to many; the Me generation often prevails. Personal responsibility is almost an archaic concept. We are a nation of people, men and women, who need each other, whether that is acknowledged or not. But, there has to be guidelines. That working knowledge of how to behave in polite society is learned, usually from family. It requires discipline to negotiate in society. People are packed together too close; friction ignites confrontation. We are sadly witnessing the fruits of the family breakdown, lack of morality, the “anything goes” mentality. Now we have legislators pandering to a panicked constituency, passing laws to prove they can “so something,” resulting in bad laws that are further divisive and don’t do anything positive.
    And then, there’s the mental health…

  12. sammy22 says:

    I agreed w/ you until you got to : “Now we have….” If the constituency is panicked, one should at least recognize that the “panic” is  real for them.

    • kateinmaine says:

      actually, panic is a ‘mental health’ classification.  so, perhaps, legislators should be focused on those constituents–not pandering, mind you–but getting them the ‘help’ that they need.  crazy people should not be wagging the dog on any issue, least of all constitutional rights and the ability of rational, legal weapons owners to protect and defend whatever they deem necessary.

    • JBS says:

      Let me be clear, laws made in haste are simply wrong. They do not represent the views of “most Americans.”
      And, the constituents of the Democrat party (progs, socialists, low-info, et al) are always in a panic of over something. You know the type . . . the Chicken Littles of the world.

    • PatRiot says:

      Yes, indeed Sammy, the legislatorrs do not recognize those who are in a panic.  They are too caught up in power, both parties.  This is about power for them.  It is their time to lead America, but they are worried too much about lesser things.  They are fiscally irresponsible, and have squandered the good will of the American people abroad.  They have abrogated, no abandoned, their responsibilities and titles as Senators and Representatives and settled for being babysitters. 
      And that is not who you and I are, as Americans, and less than any of us should ever be.

  13. Vizionmusic says:

    Joe M.    THAT is HILARIOUS! It’s TRUE…. We are all criminals now anyways so might as well be/do mass lawlessness!

    • stinkfoot says:

      Well- there are no bounds to the cultural foolishness behind the constitutional erosion when a six year old gets suspended from school for using his finger as an imaginary gun during play.  Will the government confiscate children’s hands?  they’re sure working on their minds.

  14. PatRiot says:

    It should be very clear that for every American, this is about protecting their human right to protect themself and their family. And that for politicians, it is about gun control – for their purposes.
    The balance of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches was not just amongst those three branches, but that combined, they balanced with the power of the American people.  That changed even before Newtown occurred.  That they would capitalize on that tragedy is dispicable.  That some Americans are being duped into helping them is beyond unacceptable. 

  15. sammy22 says:

    Well JBS and kateinmaine, I’d say that the pro-guns crowd is also panicking as they empty stores of guns and ammo. Nobody has seriously been talking about eliminating gun ownership. And speaking about wagging the dog, re-read some of the postings here.

    • JBS says:

      Practicing obfuscation again! How expected.
      Perhaps you missed the title of this post. You can scroll up to remind yourself.
      As you have an affinity for quaint idioms, you keep proving the one about a duck. So, drop the mask and pretense. Tell us your real thoughts about guns, the Second Amendment, being a Liberal, the Constitution, Obama.  (My bet is you won’t.)
      Particularly, answer this: How do you respond to the Obama Administration’s war on gun owners and the Democrat’s desire to take guns away from law-abiding citizens?
       
       

  16. sammy22 says:

    OK, JBS. Though I said some of things before, I’ll do it again. I don’t like the 2nd Amendment and how it has been “interpreted”. Since it’s there I have to live with it. I have no intention or interest in taking away guns. I am against ownership of “assault” weapons by “ordinary” citizens (law abiding or not). My response to your last questions is that I do not believe that  either of your contentions is true.

    • If you have “no intention or interest in taking away guns” stand up with us. I have one acquaintance in New York who owns ONE older pistol they have for home defense. He does not have a carry permit. He legally owned a high-capacity magazine he must get rid of thanks to this new law. He does not own 10 round magazines for his pistols and it’s against the law for him to buy one now. Seven round magazines are not made for his firearm. How is this right? This is the definition of taking your guns away. Many others are in the same situation.

  17. JBS says:

     
    Quack, quack, quack.
    So, you don’t like guns. Then, leave them alone. They are not for you. But, do allow others to keep and practice with the arms of their choice in peace. Let them practice a RIGHT. Don’t hate what you don’t understand.
    Do you, at least, understand that the Left’s hatred of guns is pushing this agenda toward the ultimate confiscation of firearms. Can you not see that or you so blinded by liberal rhetoric? As you “have to live with [the Second Amendment]” shouldn’t you at least understand that we the people” are the basis of the present militia? (No, the National Guard is a paid military organization)
    How can you refuse to admit that it is the Liberal Democrats who are pushing federal and state laws limiting firearms! NJ, MA, CA, CT and NY (all Democrat states) have effectively banned (confiscated) certain semi-automatic rifles simply because of their looks. They are functionally NO DIFFERENT than hundreds of other firearms. Why the discrimination?
    You are familiar with the “camel’s nose” metaphor? It applies here. As does: “There are none so blind,…

  18. sammy22 says:

    Thanks, JBS. And what you wrote should make me want to come to “your side”? Sorry, Steve. I should stand up with “you”?

  19. sammy22 says:

    The incremental crap has come from your side of the issue. There is no mention of assault/semi-automatic rifles etc. in the 2nd Amendment. There is no chance at all that the 2nd Amendment will be abolished. Nobody has said it, as far as I know and neither have I. I believe that  there should be limitations to gun ownership, just as there are limitations to the 1st Amendment.

    • JBS says:

      The Bill of Rights states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” How would you characterize all of the laws made regarding firearms? I posit to you that they are “infringe[ments]” that are incremental in nature. You may not like the colonial era wording, yet there it is. This is in the Bill of Rights. Does that not make an impression on you? Incrementally, all firearms laws they have combined to infringe upon that Right.
      Reading that 2nd Amendment in context with the other founding documents, it is inescapable to not conclude that the documents were written with the necessity of an armed populace in mind.
      You may not like guns. But you do agree with the other Amendments to the Constitution; you do agree with the Constitution? Why do you wish to argue against the Constitution or the safeguards of the Bill of Rights. Those Rights are civil…

    • There are significant restrictions when it comes to firearm limitations. VERY significant. You want MORE. No friggin’ way will that solve anything. I can’t believe you’re one of those people who thinks “arms” is restricted to muskets of the time. That’s a pretty pathetic understanding of what the 2nd Amendment is about.

    • Dimsdale says:

      Admit it or not, sammy, the liberal Democrats are masters of the incremental demise of our nation.  Look at what they have done to the First Amendment with “political correctness” and turning the Fourth Estate into a Fifth column for the Democrats.  Look what they have done to our schools.  Look what they have done to make society ever more dependent on government instead of individuals.  Look what they have done to destroy capitalism.  Look what they have done to weaken the U.S. in the world.
       
      No matter how you slice it, the liberal Democrats have willfully acted to dismantle everything that has made this country great day by day, bit by bit, useless law by useless law.

  20. JBS says:

    . . . rights. I am sure you take protection in those Rights. If so, you cannot pick and choose the civil rights that you will support; this is not a Chinese restaurant menu situation. They exist for all. 
    The Framers of the Constitution wanted everyone to be able “to keep and bear arms,” without infringement, to “insure domestic Tranquility [and] provide for the common defense.” No mention of what type of firearm is necessary, just a prohibition against that Right being “infringed” upon. You can parse it all you want, but it is plainly there.
    How would you interpret the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all of the foundation documents?
     

  21. PatRiot says:

    Let’s see.  The vast majority of belief systems support defending life.  Based on the very simple choice, yet eternal struggle, of good and evil.  Hence, the human right to protect life.  And if good is to defeat evil, or at least keep it at bay, good must have every advantage.  I gotta have at least what the bad guy has, or I am guaranteed to lose.  All before we get to the 2nd Amendment.
     

    • PatRiot says:

      The human right to protect life has been compromised, yes incrementally, whether stated in the 2nd amendment or not.  While we can speak freely across the U.S.,  we can only protect ourselves from state to state.  The cost of carrying a permit for each state, or group of states, is astronomical.  There for the human right has been corrupted by state officials who swore not to do so.  In some states it is illegal to protect yourself outside of your own home.  Incremental loss of an individual right.  
      So, it becomes apparent that the permitted gun owner has drawn a lone in the sand.  Not just for themselves, but for those who choose not to exercise their right to protect themselves, and for future generations.  We must fight for that right because the need may arise to employ it as well as to keep an individual right in the hands of the individual.  For it is not a privilege fot the town, state and federal gov’t to give and take.

      • PatRiot says:

        Sammy 22 – How would you respond to this scenario:  Your daughter comes home from school crying.  She says the principal told her that she did not have the right to defend herself against a bully.  That it is the principal’s responsiblity to do that.  But she defended herself anyway because the principal wasn’t there to do it for her.  And now she is in trouble for doing the right thing.

  22. JBS says:

    . . . cue the crickets . . .

© 2008-2014 Radio Vice Online Inc. All rights reserved | FAQ | Terms of Use | Advertise
Implemented and managed by Spider Creations LLC.