NRA 1911 Protectionism? NY supposedly will have 7rd mag limit

[longeyes]

This I agree with.  No company should sell a firearm or firearm component to any NYS agency that violates the law they just passed at it applies to us lesser citizens.  No new 30rd magazines for their existing patrol AR's, no new AR's, no Glock magazines, and etc.

How does this impact law enforcement in NY?

[red headed stranger]

I'm hoping more gun companies "go Barrett" on governments.  As in, refuse to sell to them.

I wish more companies had that level of integrity. But, I doubt Glock or Colt would do it. 

[Jamisjockey]

How does this impact law enforcement in NY?

If gun makers refused to sell them "Leo only" and instead only offered NY compliant stuff....

[RoadKingLarry]

How does this impact law enforcement in NY?

 
 

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html

7.

7.

7.

Hmm... what idolotrous cult firearm with high cost service liability and massive New England corporate interests has a native capacity of 7 rounds?  I just can't think of any.   

But the vast majority of full-size and mid-size 1911s today come with 8-round magazines, and the majority of after-market magazines are 8-rounders. Worse, the original, Browning-designed 7-rounders can easily be converted to 8-rounders just by replacing the follower and spring. Which means that, as the NY law is written, even a 7-round 1911 magazine isn't safe.

[Viking]

How does this impact law enforcement in NY?

No honest person needs more than 7 rounds of ammunition. And LEOs are honest, right?

[Blakenzy]

They never tell a lie...

[Jamisjockey]

No honest person needs more than 7 rounds of ammunition. And LEOs are honest, right?

This. 

Were I a legislator in such a state, and the writing was on the wall, I'd attach a rider to the bill banning all LEO's from having anything non-compliant as well.  And making federal possession a felony. 

[CNYCacher]

Was reading the actual bill and just learned that current 10-round magazines will be grandfathered in, but if you ever load more than 7 rounds in them at any time, you can be charged with a misdemeanor.
Greater than 10 round magazines will be still be banned and need to be turned in, sold out of state or destroyed.

[geronimotwo]

and all this time i've been writing my state reps to remove the previous ban. nuts.

[T.O.M.]

Was reading the actual bill and just learned that current 10-round magazines will be grandfathered in, but if you ever load more than 7 rounds in them at any time, you can be charged with a misdemeanor.
Greater than 10 round magazines will be still be banned and need to be turned in, sold out of state or destroyed.

So, if you've got Wilson 8 round 1911 mags, and you only load 7, you're good?  That makes about as much sense as the rest of the restrictions...

One thing I wonder...will people watch each other at the range and rat each other out for adding an extra round or two in the mag?

And, istn't it impossible to only load 7 rounds in a Garand clip?

[Ben]

So, if you've got Wilson 8 round 1911 mags, and you only load 7, you're good?  That makes about as much sense as the rest of the restrictions...

One thing I wonder...will people watch each other at the range and rat each other out for adding an extra round or two in the mag?

So if someone loads eight rounds into the magazine, inserts and racks the slide. Are they then in violation with 7+1, but if they load seven, insert and rack the slide, eject mag and load one more, then they're not in violation?

Sounds stupid and not that anyone would check, but if you ran into an overzealous LEO you never know. We've had cases in CA where a hunter by his truck was approached by a warden, and wanting to be courteous and not make any funny moves with his gun, unarmed himself by putting his gun on the tailgate, then was written up for "loaded firearm in a vehicle". Happened on more than one occasion.

[CNYCacher]

So, if you've got Wilson 8 round 1911 mags, and you only load 7, you're good?  That makes about as much sense as the rest of the restrictions...

Yeah.  It's right there in the bill.

Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law � 265.00(23) to ban all large
capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds
of ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under the
original assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines that
hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. Magazines that can hold
more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currently
possessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain seven rounds
of ammunition. Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines that
are curios or relics.

One thing I wonder...will people watch each other at the range and rat each other out for adding an extra round or two in the mag?

Who knows? We don't go running around checking manufacture dates on one another's 30-rounders.

[41magsnub]

Hannity said on the radio today that the law as written DOES apply to NT LEO agencies.  Anybody see anything that might be confirmation?  I think he is probably incorrect on this.

[CNYCacher]

Hannity said on the radio today that the law as written DOES apply to NT LEO agencies.  Anybody see anything that might be confirmation?  I think he is probably incorrect on this.

You may find nothing in the new bill mentioning exceptions for LEO's, but remember, it's written as a list of amendments to our original AWB, which had LEO exceptions built in.

Unless somebody screwed up and replaced whichever subsection grants the LEO exception, I doubt that this is true.

If it is true I will laugh so hard.

[41magsnub]

And, istn't it impossible to only load 7 rounds in a Garand clip?

Supposedly a Garand is exempt:  http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1422425_NY__Where_does_the_M1_Garand_Stand__.html

[Perd Hapley]

Hannity said on the radio today that the law as written DOES apply to NT LEO agencies.  Anybody see anything that might be confirmation?  I think he is probably incorrect on this.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116

[TechMan]

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116

Love this quote from the above link:

State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"

So he acknowledges that the criminals are not going to follow the law.   

[kgbsquirrel]

Love this quote from the above link:
So he acknowledges that the criminals are not going to follow the law.   

Either that, or he's referring to the law abiding citizens in terms depicting his true regard for them. 

[Blakenzy]

The whole,"we must get X items off our streets" falls flat on its face when the law does not apply to the police. Police walk the same streets other people do. They deal with the same criminals that citizens have to contend with, with the distinct advantage of being allowed to initiate aggression. If citizens can (supposedly) get by reactively defending their lives with no more than seven rounds, then police should too. If AR style rifles are nothing but "killing machines made to gun down large groups of people quickly", "only fit for the battlefield" well, why do police have them? Mow down OWS protestors?

The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President released a statement saying, "The PBA is actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers."

And that quote shows clearly how police try to carve out for themselves a superior citizen class as compared to the rest. While someone with a Statist mindset could attempt to argue (weakly IMHO) for exemptions regarding active duty police, what's the argument for it to apply to retired police as well?

People failing to see the hypocrisy is just depressing.

[longeyes]

Massad Ayoob made the compelling point that police have evolved as the society has devolved in terms of weapons choices. They realize that high-capacity semi-auto pistols and rifles are the most effective weapons on the streets as they are.  We don't live in a world where six-shot .38s and five-shot pump shotguns solve all violence problems any more.  What works for law enforcement works for us.

[Perd Hapley]

The whole,"we must get X items off our streets" falls flat on its face when the law does not apply to the police. Police walk the same streets other people do. They deal with the same criminals that citizens have to contend with, with the distinct advantage of being allowed to initiate aggression. If citizens can (supposedly) get by reactively defending their lives with no more than seven rounds, then police should too. If AR style rifles are nothing but "killing machines made to gun down large groups of people quickly", "only fit for the battlefield" well, why do police have them? Mow down OWS protestors?

And that quote shows clearly how police try to carve out for themselves a superior citizen class as compared to the rest. While someone with a Statist mindset could attempt to argue (weakly IMHO) for exemptions regarding active duty police, what's the argument for it to apply to retired police as well?

People failing to see the hypocrisy is just depressing.

The first paragraph is exactly what I keep thinking. The quotation that comes next is really jaw-dropping. Thanks for pointing that out.

[kgbsquirrel]

The whole,"we must get X items off our streets" falls flat on its face when the law does not apply to the police. Police walk the same streets other people do. They deal with the same criminals that citizens have to contend with, with the distinct advantage of being allowed to initiate aggression. If citizens can (supposedly) get by reactively defending their lives with no more than seven rounds, then police should too. If AR style rifles are nothing but "killing machines made to gun down large groups of people quickly", "only fit for the battlefield" well, why do police have them? Mow down OWS protestors?

And that quote shows clearly how police try to carve out for themselves a superior citizen class as compared to the rest. While someone with a Statist mindset could attempt to argue (weakly IMHO) for exemptions regarding active duty police, what's the argument for it to apply to retired police as well?

People failing to see the hypocrisy is just depressing.

Well said.

[T.O.M.]

Just a thought...they make an exception for current and former law enforcement officers.  The argument for retired law enforcement officers I've heard is that they've pissed off enough people in a career, so they need to be able to protect themselves.  Anyone ever heard a similar argument made for a witness who testifies in court, or for that matter, a judge who sentences the criminals?  God knows I've pissed off a lot of people this week, much less over my career on the bench, and as a prosecutor before that...

[SADShooter]

Just a thought...they make an exception for current and former law enforcement officers.  The argument for retired law enforcement officers I've heard is that they've pissed off enough people in a career, so they need to be able to protect themselves.  Anyone ever heard a similar argument made for a witness who testifies in court, or for that matter, a judge who sentences the criminals?  God knows I've pissed off a lot of people this week, much less over my career on the bench, and as a prosecutor before that...

Congratulations, ubermensch.