NY passes new gun law

JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
edited January 2013 in A Moving Train
I swore I wouldn't participate in a gun debate, and I'm still not. But this news was too good to not post. All you maniacs can duel it out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... b=facebook

ALBANY, N.Y. — Jumping out ahead of Washington, New York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions Tuesday and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.

Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.

"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense."

Owners of an estimated 1 million previously legal semiautomatic rifles, such as the Bushmaster model used to kill 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., a month ago, will be allowed to keep their weapons but will have a year to register them with police. The sale of any more such weapons is prohibited.

"When there's a pileup of events, when the federal government does not do it, the state of New York has to lead the way," said state Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat and co-sponsor.

In addition to outlawing a broader array of military-style weapons, the measure restricts ammunition magazines to seven rounds, down from the current 10, creates a more comprehensive database of people barred from owning guns, and makes New York the first state to require background checks to buy bullets. The system will also help flag customers who buy large amounts of ammo.

In another provision, therapists, doctors and other mental health professionals will be required to tell state authorities if a patient threatens to use a gun illegally. The patient's weapon could then be taken away.

Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, said Cuomo clearly understood gun violence is a complex issue requiring broader solutions than simply banning a particular weapon. "I think that's an important message for the nation," he said.

In a statement, the National Rifle Association said: "These gun control schemes have failed in the past and will have no impact on public safety and crime."

"While lawmakers could have taken a step toward strengthening mental health reporting and focusing on criminals, they opted for trampling the rights of law-abiding gun owners in New York, and they did it under a veil of secrecy in the dark of night," the NRA said.

President Barack Obama will unveil his own proposals in response to the Newtown tragedy on Wednesday. He favors sweeping gun legislation, including a ban on assault weapons. But because of powerful opposition from the gun lobby, he is said to be weighing 19 steps he could take through executive action alone.

Those could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun-sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal database, and striking limits on federal research into gun use.

New York's law passed the state Senate, which is run by a Republican-dominated coalition, 43-18 Monday night. The Democrat-controlled Assembly approved it 104-43 Tuesday afternoon.

Republicans complained the measure was rammed through the Legislature and infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"A lot of people say, `Why do you need these guns?'" said Assemblyman James Tedisco, a Schenectady Republican. "It's part of the freedoms and liberties we have. ... It's for our public safety. It's to protect us from our own government."

He said the bill was dangerous because it would give people a "false sense of well-being."

"You are using innocent children killed by a madman for your own political agenda," he said. "You are actually making people less safe."

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, questioned whether other states or the federal government would follow New York's lead and said he expects the law to be challenged in court.

Previously, New York state law on assault weapons banned semiautomatics that have detachable magazines and at least two military-type features, such as a pistol grip, folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The new law outlaws weapons with just one of those features.

It also requires background checks for even private gun sales, except those among immediate family.


In addition, it says handgun owners must renew their licenses every five years, and it increases prison sentences for using guns in various crimes or taking them onto school grounds.

"By making this a priority, the governor has not only saved lives but will hopefully inspire leaders in Washington also to take swift action," said Dan Gross, president of the national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In a concession to the pro-gun side, local authorities will be allowed to withhold the identities of registered gun owners – an issue that erupted recently when a suburban New York City newspaper published the names and addresses of gun owners in its readership area.

The New York legislation sparked spirited discussion among customers at the Buffalo Gun Center in the suburb of Cheektowaga, where business was so brisk that people had to wait in line in freezing temperatures just to get in the door.

"It's ridiculous. It's absolutely – how to put it nicely – it's Prince Andrew Cuomo's bid for the White House," said Jim Hanley, who was waiting to buy another handgun. "I want to do it before the right is taken away. Andrew Cuomo and Barack Hussein Obama are two best gun salesmen in the history of the world."
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • mca47mca47 Posts: 13,291
    I sleep on a pile of ammo atop a bed made of shot guns!


    You never fn know when the king of England will be knocking on your door!
  • mca47 wrote:
    I sleep on a pile of ammo atop a bed made of shot guns!


    You never fn know when the king of England will be knocking on your door!
    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • Jeanwah wrote:
    I swore I wouldn't participate in a gun debate, and I'm still not. But this news was too good to not post. All you maniacs can duel it out.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... b=facebook

    "Common sense can win"

    :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • Jeanwah wrote:
    I swore I wouldn't participate in a gun debate, and I'm still not. But this news was too good to not post. All you maniacs can duel it out.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... b=facebook

    "Common sense can win"

    :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

    This comment resonated with me as well.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,087
    Bravo!
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
    Democracy Dies in Darkness- Washington Post













  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    good for new york.

    waiting patiently for the collective trashing of new york and cuomo by the resident pro gun people on here...

    surprised the thread has lasted this long :lol::lol:
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Newch91Newch91 Posts: 17,560
    Hats off to you, New York! :thumbup: :clap:
    Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
    "Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    mca47 wrote:
    I sleep on a pile of ammo atop a bed made of shot guns!


    You never fn know when the king of England will be knocking on your door!


    not any time soon thats for sure... afterall there needs to be a king of england first. :P
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • whgarrettwhgarrett Posts: 574
    Hook, Line, and Sinker...
  • good job new york, well done...just please don't spread to texas. speaking of texas, this made me chuckle.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7FDTpzGvo
    if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    A good start...
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    A couple of thoughts.

    I'd rather see the states tackle this than the Federal Government.

    The problem with these mass shootings is obviously bigger than just guns. What else is New York planning to do?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    The seven bullet limit on clip size seems unreasonable. I would not consider a ten bullet clip to be high-capacity.

    At least it went through the legislative process. Something I think Obama will bypass.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    know1 wrote:
    I'd rather see the states tackle this than the Federal Government.
    100% agree. I think states have a better pulse on their citizens then the federal government on this issue and most other issues.
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Anyone who thinks this makes any difference....well.... :lol::lol:
  • comebackgirlcomebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    know1 wrote:
    A couple of thoughts.

    I'd rather see the states tackle this than the Federal Government.

    The problem with these mass shootings is obviously bigger than just guns. What else is New York planning to do?
    Very good question
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • Jeanwah wrote:
    In another provision, therapists, doctors and other mental health professionals will be required to tell state authorities if a patient threatens to use a gun illegally. The patient's weapon could then be taken away.
    Quite frankly, this is the only provision that will have any impact, and it will really be heavily contingent on how individual providers handle it. While I'm sure many will be conscientious, I'm sure some will voice concern over privacy issues to protect their $$$$, errr. . I mean patients.

    7 bullets, 10 bullets - does that REALLY matter? I'm fine with what they did, but that's not going to effect anything.

    And I love the provision where family members can still sell to each other without checks. I know there would be no way to monitor that anyway. But, I'm guessing families are going to be getting a lot larger.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • comebackgirlcomebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    Jeanwah wrote:
    In another provision, therapists, doctors and other mental health professionals will be required to tell state authorities if a patient threatens to use a gun illegally. The patient's weapon could then be taken away.
    Quite frankly, this is the only provision that will have any impact, and it will really be heavily contingent on how individual providers handle it. While I'm sure many will be conscientious, I'm sure some will voice concern over privacy issues to protect their $$$$, errr. . I mean patients.

    7 bullets, 10 bullets - does that REALLY matter? I'm fine with what they did, but that's not going to effect anything.

    And I love the provision where family members can still sell to each other without checks. I know there would be no way to monitor that anyway. But, I'm guessing families are going to be getting a lot larger.
    We already have a duty to warn if a client makes a specific threat like this, whether or not the threat involves the use of a gun. This falls under the Tarasoff ruling; the clinician has to notify the police, the intended victim, and take any other steps possible to help protect the intended victim. If someone really intends to harm themselves or someone else, they don't usually tell anyone, including a health care professional.
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • Jeanwah wrote:
    In another provision, therapists, doctors and other mental health professionals will be required to tell state authorities if a patient threatens to use a gun illegally. The patient's weapon could then be taken away.
    Quite frankly, this is the only provision that will have any impact, and it will really be heavily contingent on how individual providers handle it. While I'm sure many will be conscientious, I'm sure some will voice concern over privacy issues to protect their $$$$, errr. . I mean patients.

    7 bullets, 10 bullets - does that REALLY matter? I'm fine with what they did, but that's not going to effect anything.

    And I love the provision where family members can still sell to each other without checks. I know there would be no way to monitor that anyway. But, I'm guessing families are going to be getting a lot larger.
    We already have a duty to warn if a client makes a specific threat like this, whether or not the threat involves the use of a gun. This falls under the Tarasoff ruling; the clinician has to notify the police, the intended victim, and take any other steps possible to help protect the intended victim. If someone really intends to harm themselves or someone else, they don't usually tell anyone, including a health care professional.

    Yep. And that's why this is all just noise. All those guns were legally owned. This doesn't change that. So, if as you clearly have background in saying, this will have little impact, I have to agree with DS. This law doesn't really change much as it pertains to the impetus for the law itself.

    If we don't address the underlying problems, all of this is just noise.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • comebackgirlcomebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    Quite frankly, this is the only provision that will have any impact, and it will really be heavily contingent on how individual providers handle it. While I'm sure many will be conscientious, I'm sure some will voice concern over privacy issues to protect their $$$$, errr. . I mean patients.

    7 bullets, 10 bullets - does that REALLY matter? I'm fine with what they did, but that's not going to effect anything.

    And I love the provision where family members can still sell to each other without checks. I know there would be no way to monitor that anyway. But, I'm guessing families are going to be getting a lot larger.
    We already have a duty to warn if a client makes a specific threat like this, whether or not the threat involves the use of a gun. This falls under the Tarasoff ruling; the clinician has to notify the police, the intended victim, and take any other steps possible to help protect the intended victim. If someone really intends to harm themselves or someone else, they don't usually tell anyone, including a health care professional.

    Yep. And that's why this is all just noise. All those guns were legally owned. This doesn't change that. So, if as you clearly have background in saying, this will have little impact, I have to agree with DS. This law doesn't really change much as it pertains to the impetus for the law itself.

    If we don't address the underlying problems, all of this is just noise.
    It's all reactionary...we all want to do something to make the shootings stop and we're focusing on things that seem to be quick fixes. Maybe we'll see some change, but I don't think we will see a big reduction to this kind of violence without addressing those underlying issues. It echoes what know1 asked - what else is NY (and the rest of us) going to do?
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    It's so easy to say "...What else is NY doing?" What is YOUR state doing??? What is Connecticut doing?
  • MoonpigMoonpig Posts: 659
    DS1119 wrote:
    Anyone who thinks this makes any difference....well.... :lol::lol:

    You're right, do nothing and see how that goes. This week is another fine example of what happens when a certain % of the population refuses to open their eyes.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,183
    mca47 wrote:
    I sleep on a pile of ammo atop a bed made of shot guns!


    You never fn know when the king of England will be knocking on your door!

    And a pillow made out of LIBERTY!
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • DS1119DS1119 Posts: 33,497
    Mark my words. Quote my post. Gun crime at this time in NY state will be the exact same next year as it is this year. I'm actually embarrassed as a NYS resident that trash like this can get passed and people applaud it. Way to posture governor cuomo in your "big stand". This was nothing more than the democratic run government of NY helping cuomo build his resume for a presidential run. He can now say he was the first governor to make a stance against gun control when if fact he did nothing. :lol: Paper legislation that does zippo to actually help with the issue. :fp:
  • know1 wrote:
    A couple of thoughts.

    I'd rather see the states tackle this than the Federal Government.

    In theory I agree, but that would basically cut it's effectiveness. I mean, I live in NY, if my neighbor can just drive a half hour to Vermont and buy a small arsenal and bring it home, than what effect does this law really have, as far as reducing these types of weapons in NY?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • MoonpigMoonpig Posts: 659
    DS1119 wrote:
    Mark my words. Quote my post. Gun crime at this time in NY state will be the exact same next year as it is this year. I'm actually embarrassed as a NYS resident that trash like this can get passed and people applaud it. Way to posture governor cuomo in your "big stand". This was nothing more than the democratic run government of NY helping cuomo build his resume for a presidential run. He can now say he was the first governor to make a stance against gun control when if fact he did nothing. :lol: Paper legislation that does zippo to actually help with the issue. :fp:

    Um no, I don't think I will, if previous stated beliefs and opinions are anything to go by.
  • DS1119 wrote:
    Mark my words. Quote my post. Gun crime at this time in NY state will be the exact same next year as it is this year. I'm actually embarrassed as a NYS resident that trash like this can get passed and people applaud it. Way to posture governor cuomo in your "big stand". This was nothing more than the democratic run government of NY helping cuomo build his resume for a presidential run. He can now say he was the first governor to make a stance against gun control when if fact he did nothing. :lol: Paper legislation that does zippo to actually help with the issue. :fp:

    Next year, you might be right... but what about the year after that and 5 years down the road? Unless we go door to door and remove guns (never going to happen), it's going to be a slow impact. But if it gets harder and harder every year to find these types of guns and magazines, maybe the next mass shooter goes in with a shotgun or a revolver and only kills 5 people instead of 25.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,840
    Didn't NYC just have an all time low in homocides and don't they also have pretty strict gun laws? Sure, that's not everything but to say nothing will or has changed is kind of bullshit because they city just saw it's best year in terms of murders.
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    DS1119 wrote:
    Mark my words. Quote my post. Gun crime at this time in NY state will be the exact same next year as it is this year. I'm actually embarrassed as a NYS resident that trash like this can get passed and people applaud it. Way to posture governor cuomo in your "big stand". This was nothing more than the democratic run government of NY helping cuomo build his resume for a presidential run. He can now say he was the first governor to make a stance against gun control when if fact he did nothing. :lol: Paper legislation that does zippo to actually help with the issue. :fp:

    I'd assume the gun crime in NY will be the same too. Maybe the point of this type of thing is to save one or two lives in a mass shooting. And there's probably no way to tell if new regulations were the reason for less people dying or not in a single shooting incident. If the guy that shot up the Arizona congresswoman gathering had magazines with fewer rounds, lives couldve been saved.

    The thing is, I assume you just have no optimism over the idea that a 7 round magazine might result in less death than a 30 round magazine. This is one of those things that we dont know if it will work, but even if there is another tragedy and 10 people are shot dead, if it is done by a perpetrator with a handgun who owns two clips that hold 7 rounds, we might realize that he could've killed 20 people with a single 30 round clip. But we may never know. To me, magazine limits are worth a try, and it hardly puts gun owners at an inconvenience.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • DS1119 wrote:
    Mark my words. Quote my post. Gun crime at this time in NY state will be the exact same next year as it is this year. I'm actually embarrassed as a NYS resident that trash like this can get passed and people applaud it. Way to posture governor cuomo in your "big stand". This was nothing more than the democratic run government of NY helping cuomo build his resume for a presidential run. He can now say he was the first governor to make a stance against gun control when if fact he did nothing. :lol: Paper legislation that does zippo to actually help with the issue. :fp:

    Next year, you might be right... but what about the year after that and 5 years down the road? Unless we go door to door and remove guns (never going to happen), it's going to be a slow impact. But if it gets harder and harder every year to find these types of guns and magazines, maybe the next mass shooter goes in with a shotgun or a revolver and only kills 5 people instead of 25.

    Yup. No band-aid solution for a problem this profound. It's going to take some time before the effects are realized, but you have put it in such a way that even the resistant should be able to understand.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
Sign In or Register to comment.