Really? Or just for internet-funny?Ex Post Facto laws are against the NYS constitution. This would easily crumble under state court scrutiny. I will happily be the guinea pig. I maintain a NYS driver's license and my folks live there. I will load up all my 10 round mags and stick them on the dash and get pulled for speeding and see what happens. I'll be soliciting for defense funds shortly thereafter.
The only problem is the law isn't ex post facto. It would be ex post facto if it made it a crime to own them a year ago.Really. Like, I already told my boss to expect my phone call about it.
As far as Morgan and his side are concerned they did address it. When he rattled off the litany of mass shootings perpetrated with an AR-15, as far they are concerned, that alone establishes the need. Having asserted that the AR-15 is the mass murderer's weapon of choice, and further asserting that they can envision no self-defense scenario where an honest citizen would need that kind of firepower provides them all the justification they think they need. Never mind that you and I CAN envision scenarios where an honest citizen would need that much firepower, they can't, and no one has articulated such a case to them. (The argument that citizens might need such weapons against a government grown tyrannical one day was met, as you saw, with contempt and derision.) So Morgan and his ilk can sit back and smugly claim to support the 2nd amendment and the right of self-defense, while simultaneously claiming the ban of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms as "reasonable" restrictions that don't infringe a person's right to self-defense or his ability to exercise it.This is about needs. It's about rights. The burden is on the government to demonstrate why they "need" to curtail our rights. They've have failed to provide any evidence that banning these weapons would make us safer, thus they have failed to establish a need.