NY Passes Gun Control

[Osama bin Bambi]

It needed to be done, for the sake of security and for the security of our children.

This is the same state that banned large soft drinks for "the safety of the children."

[Stormwarden]

Wykked- That only applies in NYC.

Niam: I tend to take issue with the "FOR THE CHYYLLDREN" thing. "We have to ban violent video games for the children." -> Wacky Jack Thompson springs to mind.

"We have to ban all these books from the libraries for the children." -> Usually related to books with vulgarity and some other such, but damned if they don't love them some Harlequin romance novels.

"We have to get this music off our radio for the children." -> 2LiveCrew, Tupac, and too many other musical acts to count.

"Rated G only in theatres, because it's for the children." -I've met people like this in person, who don't have it in their smooth brains that real life is not G or even PG.

"We need God back in our schools for the children." --> Come on, people, how many times have we mainpaged FSTDT quotes for things just like this?

"We have to stop abortion because it's for the children." -> See above.

Do you see the issue here, Niam?

And then there's the whole gun kerfuffle...*sighs* Thing is, for the most part, the whole "for the children" schtick tends to blow up in our faces. A lot.

As for the security issue, well, most people here know how I feel about that by now. Surrendering freedom in the name of security isn't exactly a good trade to make. Comprehensive firearm education and training on top of the licensing laws they have now would be a much smarter move. Of course, that means they actually have to do something other than an arbitrary, half-assed piece of legislation.

I give them credit for at least trying. A little more thought and planning, as well as a much better understanding of firearms, would have made this legislation a lot better.

[QueenofHearts]

Reading and summarizing provisions of the bill

• Bans all semi-automatic weapons with certain military features
• Previous semi-automatic weapons are grandfathered in, but can not be sold or given to someone within the state, other than an authorized arms dealer. They must further be registered within 1 year from now with the state.
• The magazine size is limited at 7. 10 Clip magazines are grandfathered in, do not need to be registered, but can't be loaded with more than 7 rounds. Exceptions on clip size for relics/antiques.
• Ammunition sold must be done so after the seller does a background check with NY state to ensure the buy doesn't have "disqualifiers;" felon, mentally ill, etc. Further, only sellers that can perform the background check can sell ammo. All ammo sales done to a person in the state of NY must culminate in a "face-to-face" meeting.
• Establishes a gun registry in the state. Further, judges can now as part of a sentence take away a guilty criminal's gun(s)
• Gun licensing must be re-certified every 5 years
• Gun shows & dealers must do background checks before selling guns. Private sellers must also keep records of their sales. Gun transactions between immediate family is exempt
• Gun owners living with a person who has a "disqualifier" can be criminally charged if the other person uses their gun in the commission of a crime.
• Psychological professionals can now report to the state if they feel someone is a risk to themselves or others via gun ownership. The bill states this is not a criminal/civil matter, but if evidence is given the state will review the owners right to own their gun.
• Extends Kendra's Law (out-patient treatment of mentally ill) from 6 month to one year
• Increased punishment for shooting at police/fire fighters, straw purchasers, gun use for gang violence, possessing a gun on school grounds, use of guns in drug trafficking, or unintentional damage to a child (negligence, not accident)
• Schools using metal detectors and other "safety devices" receive additional state funds

That's the jist of the law. I see nothing in it that wouldn't meet the requirements set forth in DC v. Heller. These would all meet those requirements as in the decision, Scalia listed many of these things as forms of gun control that would pass constitutional muster. The only thing the decision didn't list was a semi-automatic gun ban, effectively saying that SCOTUS would make that decision when a case such as this got to them.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

It needed to be done, for the sake of security and for the security of our children.

This is the same state that banned large soft drinks for "the safety of the children."

Well, it was one city and it was more about general health (and I disagreed with that law too). But I don't think comparing a ban on large sodas to gun control legislation is very effective for reasons that should be quite obvious.

[Damen]

It needed to be done, for the sake of security and for the security of our children.

This is the same state that banned large soft drinks for "the safety of the children."

This is the line of reasoning we usually get fed when a law maker wants to pass another bit of legislation that erodes our liberties just a little more: emotional appeals. "For the children" most prevalent among them. Why can't we see nudity on TV? Because of the children. Why can't we get a large soft drink? For the children. Why do we flip our shit if someone says "fuck" on the radio? Children. Why do they want to ban classic works of literature from the library? Because the children might see that Mark Twain wrote "nigger."

This law? The magazine limit? It doesn't protect the children. At all. All it does is fuck over legal firearm owners, outlaws a certain class of weapon (which is illegal) and, for the short term, renders nearly all semi-automatics incapable of being owned and fired legally. There is no reason to limit magazines to 7 rounds when 10 is at least somewhat of an understandable compromise. There is no reason to run a background check every time someone wants to buy ammo: all that will ensure is that bulk purchases become the new norm because people won't want to deal with the paper-work every time they want to pop off 50 rounds. It is completely superfluous when all they needed to do is take a page from Switzerland's book: show an I.D. and write down the info with the purchase and send a copy to the ATF and keep a copy on hand at the shop.

*edit* I went to hit "post" and saw Stormwarden beat me to the For The Children argument.

As for the security issue, well, most people here know how I feel about that by now. Surrendering freedom in the name of security isn't exactly a good trade to make.

You're paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin. That is one of my favorite quotes ever.

Comprehensive firearm education and training on top of the licensing laws they have now would be a much smarter move. Of course, that means they actually have to do something other than an arbitrary, half-assed piece of legislation.

I give them credit for at least trying. A little more thought and planning, as well as a much better understanding of firearms, would have made this legislation a lot better.

Agreed. The parts of the law I have pointed out and take issue with are because they're nothing more than feel-good laws. The earn brownie points with the gun-control voters and change nothing.

That's the jist of the law. I see nothing in it that wouldn't meet the requirements set forth in DC v. Heller. These would all meet those requirements as in the decision, Scalia listed many of these things as forms of gun control that would pass constitutional muster. The only thing the decision didn't list was a semi-automatic gun ban, effectively saying that SCOTUS would make that decision when a case such as this got to them.

Not by my reading. The qualifiers for an "assault weapon" are dropped to 1 or more "military" features, including a pistol grip. This singles out a specific class of weapons ("assault weapons") and essentially makes them illegal to own and does not pass the "not in common use" clause of the Heller decision because, as the court wrote, a class of weapons that is in common use can't be singled out. With over 3.3 million AR-15 type rifles in circulation, they qualify as in common use. And because most every semi-automatic rifle made these days has a pistol grip and detachable magazine, this effectively bans a whole subset of firearms.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Wykked- That only applies in NYC.

Niam: I tend to take issue with the "FOR THE CHYYLLDREN" thing. "We have to ban violent video games for the children." -> Wacky Jack Thompson springs to mind.

"We have to ban all these books from the libraries for the children." -> Usually related to books with vulgarity and some other such, but damned if they don't love them some Harlequin romance novels.

"We have to get this music off our radio for the children." -> 2LiveCrew, Tupac, and too many other musical acts to count.

"Rated G only in theatres, because it's for the children." -I've met people like this in person, who don't have it in their smooth brains that real life is not G or even PG.

"We need God back in our schools for the children." --> Come on, people, how many times have we mainpaged FSTDT quotes for things just like this?

"We have to stop abortion because it's for the children." -> See above.

Do you see the issue here, Niam?

And then there's the whole gun kerfuffle...*sighs* Thing is, for the most part, the whole "for the children" schtick tends to blow up in our faces. A lot.

As for the security issue, well, most people here know how I feel about that by now. Surrendering freedom in the name of security isn't exactly a good trade to make. Comprehensive firearm education and training on top of the licensing laws they have now would be a much smarter move. Of course, that means they actually have to do something other than an arbitrary, half-assed piece of legislation.

I give them credit for at least trying. A little more thought and planning, as well as a much better understanding of firearms, would have made this legislation a lot better.

I would say for all those comparisons that there is a tangible harm with guns that does not exist for video games or striking down as unconstitutional teach-led prayer in public schools. Children have actually been massacred in schools on numerous occasions. I don't want to turn into Mrs. Lovejoy any more than anyone else here does, but I find that safety of children--and everyone else for that matter--is a compelling reason for gun control.

My two cents.

[nickiknack]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo</a>

Sorry, had to be done.

[Damen]

-vid snip-

Sorry, had to be done.

A Fuck Yeah for you, good lady.

[Shane for Wax]

It needed to be done, for the sake of security and for the security of our children.

This is the same state that banned large soft drinks for "the safety of the children."

This is the line of reasoning we usually get fed when a law maker wants to pass another bit of legislation that erodes our liberties just a little more: emotional appeals. "For the children" most prevalent among them. Why can't we see nudity on TV? Because of the children. Why can't we get a large soft drink? For the children. Why do we flip our shit if someone says "fuck" on the radio? Children. Why do they want to ban classic works of literature from the library? Because the children might see that Mark Twain wrote "nigger."

This law? The magazine limit? It doesn't protect the children. At all. All it does is fuck over legal firearm owners, outlaws a certain class of weapon (which is illegal) and, for the short term, renders nearly all semi-automatics incapable of being owned and fired legally. There is no reason to limit magazines to 7 rounds when 10 is at least somewhat of an understandable compromise. There is no reason to run a background check every time someone wants to buy ammo: all that will ensure is that bulk purchases become the new norm because people won't want to deal with the paper-work every time they want to pop off 50 rounds. It is completely superfluous when all they needed to do is take a page from Switzerland's book: show an I.D. and write down the info with the purchase and send a copy to the ATF and keep a copy on hand at the shop.

*edit* I went to hit "post" and saw Stormwarden beat me to the For The Children argument.

As for the security issue, well, most people here know how I feel about that by now. Surrendering freedom in the name of security isn't exactly a good trade to make.

You're paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin. That is one of my favorite quotes ever.

Comprehensive firearm education and training on top of the licensing laws they have now would be a much smarter move. Of course, that means they actually have to do something other than an arbitrary, half-assed piece of legislation.

I give them credit for at least trying. A little more thought and planning, as well as a much better understanding of firearms, would have made this legislation a lot better.

Agreed. The parts of the law I have pointed out and take issue with are because they're nothing more than feel-good laws. The earn brownie points with the gun-control voters and change nothing.

That's the jist of the law. I see nothing in it that wouldn't meet the requirements set forth in DC v. Heller. These would all meet those requirements as in the decision, Scalia listed many of these things as forms of gun control that would pass constitutional muster. The only thing the decision didn't list was a semi-automatic gun ban, effectively saying that SCOTUS would make that decision when a case such as this got to them.

Not by my reading. The qualifiers for an "assault weapon" are dropped to 1 or more "military" features, including a pistol grip. This singles out a specific class of weapons ("assault weapons") and essentially makes them illegal to own and does not pass the "not in common use" clause of the Heller decision because, as the court wrote, a class of weapons that is in common use can't be singled out. With over 3.3 million AR-15 type rifles in circulation, they qualify as in common use. And because most every semi-automatic rifle made these days has a pistol grip and detachable magazine, this effectively bans a whole subset of firearms.

Once again, all of this.

As I mentioned, my guns are illegal in NY. This whole thing is a ridiculous feel good ploy and frankly if you believe otherwise you've got somethin' special wrong with you.

[niam2023]

I do not mean "security" in the same sense as those lunatics. I mean it in the sense of physical, "lets not have our kids be shot" sense.

And the Franklin quote, to me, it seems difficult to apply such a quote absolutely, and to automatically use it, without considering special circumstances and the current issues. There can be no absolutes in political discussion.

[QueenofHearts]

Not by my reading. The qualifiers for an "assault weapon" are dropped to 1 or more "military" features, including a pistol grip. This singles out a specific class of weapons ("assault weapons") and essentially makes them illegal to own and does not pass the "not in common use" clause of the Heller decision because, as the court wrote, a class of weapons that is in common use can't be singled out. With over 3.3 million AR-15 type rifles in circulation, they qualify as in common use. And because most every semi-automatic rifle made these days has a pistol grip and detachable magazine, this effectively bans a whole subset of firearms.

That is a rather narrow reading that ignores Scalia's contention that the government has a legitimate interest in banning especially dangerous and unusual weapons. Again, focusing on the phrase "common use" is no different than I focusing on "Dangerous and unusual" and it will be dealt with in what I'm sure will be an eventual SCOTUS case.

Further, I could also get technical and mention that NY could ban any and all guns at the moment and pass every previous Constitutional test. How you ask? D.C. V. Heller dealt with D.C.'s gun ban, D.C. is not a state and is therefore controlled by the federal government. The Supreme Court has never incorporated the 2nd amendment through the 14th to apply to the states. Even numerous early court cases (see Presser v. Illinois 1886, Miller v. Texas 1894, & US v. Cruikshank 1875) establish that the basis of the 2nd amendment was to protect against the federal government and not the state governments and so have left it unincorporated.

All this jargon means is that D.C. v. Heller doesn't apply to the states and that it isn't unlikely that SCOTUS would allow more lee-way to states in making their own gun control laws.

[Stormwarden]

*Bro-fists Commander Shepherd* My 9mm Ruger would be illegal, and so would my .22 rifle. Only my single-shot 20-gauge would be legal. Hell, even the M1911 I want to get for myself sometime would be illegal under it. It's the ammo provision and the assault weapons ban provision (cosmetic and does shit all in the grand scheme of things) that really ruin what could potentially have been a pretty good piece of legislation.

Guess who won't even consider going to NY now?

[Shane for Wax]

*Bro-fists Commander Shepherd* My 9mm Ruger would be illegal, and so would my .22 rifle. Only my single-shot 20-gauge would be legal. Hell, even the M1911 I want to get for myself sometime would be illegal under it. It's the ammo provision and the assault weapons ban provision (cosmetic and does shit all in the grand scheme of things) that really ruin what could potentially have been a pretty good piece of legislation.

Guess who won't even consider going to NY now?

*returns it* Yeah. Definitely. Not me. Same as me not visitin' Mother Russia cause of their own legislation they pushed through.

But yeah, essentially. I would've been for it otherwise. I'm not unreasonable.

[Sylvana]

Personally, the only thing I have an issue with is the magazine size part of the law. I understand where it is coming from, but it is stupidly restrictive uneducated and pointless. The thing is, the single most deciding factor in mass shootings has been magazine size, so I can see why they are trying to do this, but 7 is just too stupidly restrictive. I would have made it 15 at most, as that should accommodate most semi-automatic pistols.

The rest seems perfectly reasonable. (Although I admit I really don't like grandfather clauses.)
With regards to how quickly it was rammed through, I would say the primary reason behind that is how toxic gun control laws are treated in America. If it was allowed to follow the usual channels the usual mud-slinging backed by the NRA would result in nothing happening as usual. This is probably the only way to pass legislation on socially toxic concerns.

[Damen]

Not by my reading. The qualifiers for an "assault weapon" are dropped to 1 or more "military" features, including a pistol grip. This singles out a specific class of weapons ("assault weapons") and essentially makes them illegal to own and does not pass the "not in common use" clause of the Heller decision because, as the court wrote, a class of weapons that is in common use can't be singled out. With over 3.3 million AR-15 type rifles in circulation, they qualify as in common use. And because most every semi-automatic rifle made these days has a pistol grip and detachable magazine, this effectively bans a whole subset of firearms.

That is a rather narrow reading that ignores Scalia's contention that the government has a legitimate interest in banning especially dangerous and unusual weapons. Again, focusing on the phrase "common use" is no different than I focusing on "Dangerous and unusual" and it will be dealt with in what I'm sure will be an eventual SCOTUS case.

"Dangerous and unusual" would apply to Class 3 Destructive Devices, which are not in common circulation (unusual) and provide a very high amount of destructive power (dangerous). However, those are already heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act. And the AR-15 is neither excessively dangerous (firing one round per pull of the trigger) nor is it unusual (with 3.3 million legally owned in the USA.)

Further, I could also get technical and mention that NY could ban any and all guns at the moment and pass every previous Constitutional test. How you ask? D.C. V. Heller dealt with D.C.'s gun ban, D.C. is not a state and is therefore controlled by the federal government. The Supreme Court has never incorporated the 2nd amendment through the 14th to apply to the states. Even numerous early court cases (see Presser v. Illinois 1886, Miller v. Texas 1894, & US v. Cruikshank 1875) establish that the basis of the 2nd amendment was to protect against the federal government and not the state governments and so have left it unincorporated.

All this jargon means is that D.C. v. Heller doesn't apply to the states and that it isn't unlikely that SCOTUS would allow more lee-way to states in making their own gun control laws.

And you know what? You'd be right...but you're not. If you'd looked at my first post, you'd see I made specific mention of a second case after Heller; McDonald v. Chicago. This was a ruling that came on the heels of Heller v. D.C. in which the court decided on whether the Second Amendment applied to the states. From the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

And, skipping lower:

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case. Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"