assault weapon Bills - NY

[mek42]

The following are two bills being considered by the NY State Assembly.

AW ban: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A07331&sh=t

50 ban: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02772&sh=t

The first expands the definition of assault weapons and the second regulates 50 caliber weapons.

I'd like to use this thread as a way to organize points and then draft a letter to be sent to NY State legislators in opposition to these bills.

Assault Weapon Bill Points

The bill states, "Most citizens, including most gun owners, believe that assault weapons should not be available for civilian use." I question whether most gun owners really agree with this and intend to counter this point by discussing the various service rifle competitions. I also intend to address the various handgun bullseye target shooting events, since the bill defines any semi-auto pistol capable of accepting a magazine holding more than 10 rounds to be an assault weapon. Furthermore, to even own a pistol at all in NY a rigorous background check is already required - it doesn't seem to make sense to place further limits on citizens proven by the State of NY to be of "good moral character."

The Bill also states that legal owners of such assault weapons prior to 01 Jan, 2008 will have the opportunity to register their legally owned assault weapons with the State Police, entailing essentially an additional NICS check. I would counter this by mentioning how costly this will be but am unsure if this would be wise - the lawmakers might decide that confiscation / destruction are the only options.

Lastly, in general, I would like to discuss how banning specific weapons do not seem to have the intended effect of reducing violent crimes, even violent crimes using those types of weapons. I am not well read in this matter and could use some firm material to support this point. I would offer as an alternative to make stiffer penalties for the use of these type weapons in violent criminal acts if needed to appease the voters rather than banning such weapons outright - after all, criminals will just steal the weapons, perhaps from the police themselves as done recently in North Carolina.

It is getting late for me - I will attempt to address points to use to protest the 50 caliber bill later when I am more fresh.

Any suggestions for improving these points will be appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[david_the_greek]

don't forget to include the fact that 98-99% of gun owners don't have assault rifles. we have semiautomatic sporting rifles that are cosmetically similar to assualt rifles. there was an excellent clip up somewhere on this board just a few days ago that shows a retired police officers describing the differences between assualt rifles and other rifles

 

[Winter Borne]

Hey Mek

I wish you the best as a former NYer, but the bills are now laws so all the letters in the world won't help your situation. I was very frustrated when living in NY as there seemed to be so many different handgun groups, hunter groups and target groups but no unifing group to help combat this type of ignorance.

mk

 

[mek42]

It doesn't look like they've been passed by the Senate yet. I'm quickly trying to make an emailable letter. The Senate version of the Bill is S05222.

 

[ricci316]

You could simply remind that that the Clinton Gun Ban did nothing to change the murder and death rate in this country. Since we all know criminals, not legal gun owners, do most of the killings and shootings that politicians always refer to.

 

[Oohrah]

My heart goes ot to you as I had to make the decision to stay
and fight, or move. Never regreted the move from the oppressive
gun laws of California. The fight of the firearms owners in the last
25 years in my chosen state does not seem to be as intensive.
Firearms purchased legally in California are now illegal there.:banghead:

 

[mek42]

From what I can tell, these bills are not even going to be read to the Senate Codes committee until next week at the earliest. In the hopes that this really is the case and not an artifact of the NY Senate web site not being updated in a timely fashion, I am posting a draft letter below for comments. Thanks!

Dear NY State Senator:

This letter is written with reference to NY Senate Bill S05222.

As you are well aware this Bill would significantly broaden the definition of “assault weapon” used by NY State Penal Code 265. This broadening will fail to reduce firearm violence for a variety of reasons. The proposed registration of existing firearms newly defined by the Bill will be very costly. This Bill will infringe upon the sporting activities of competitive target shooting.

The registration of the newly defined assault weapons legally owned prior to January 1, 2008 by the State Police will be very costly due to the great number of currently owned firearms that will become assault weapons under the new bill. Allocating more funding for the various law enforcement agencies in the state to investigate firearms used by violent criminals will be a better use of taxpayer funds to reduce firearm related violent crime then the costs involved in the administrative process proposed to register existing firearms newly defined as assault weapons.

There are several forms of competitive target shooting activities that will be profoundly impacted by this Bill. Examples include the service rifle competitions which are held on a national level. In addition, this bill will impact several forms of handgun competitions. Since a rigorous background check is already required to own any handgun, I am confused as to how the banning of a semi-automatic pistol for which someone, somewhere makes an after market magazine that can hold more than ten rounds has any bearing on the reduction of firearms related violent crime. Citizens who hold a NY State Pistol Permit are certified by the state as being of good moral character – such citizens will not be prone to committing violent crimes in general.

Thank you,

 

[hacksaw]

Good luck with beating these bills. Sooooo glad I got outta there 5 years ago. S.C. loves guns and i love S.C.!!!

 

[mek42]

The below is what I sent to my State Senator via the email option from his contact page.

This letter is written with reference to NY Senate Bill S05222.

As you are well aware this bill would significantly broaden the definition of “assault weapon” used by NY State Penal Code 265. This broadening will fail to reduce firearm violence for a variety of reasons. The proposed registration of existing firearms newly defined by the bill will be very costly. This bill will infringe upon the sporting activities of competitive target shooting. Lastly, violent criminals will continue to have access to the types of firearm addressed by this bill.

The registration of the newly defined assault weapons legally owned prior to January 1, 2008 by the State Police will be very costly due to the great number of currently owned firearms that will become assault weapons under the new bill. Allocating more funding for the various law enforcement agencies in the state to investigate firearms used by violent criminals will be a better use of taxpayer funds to reduce firearm related violent crime then the costs involved in the administrative process proposed to register existing firearms newly defined as assault weapons.

There are several forms of competitive target shooting activities that will be profoundly impacted by this bill. Examples include the service rifle competitions which are held on a national level. In addition, this bill will impact several forms of handgun competitions. Since a rigorous background check is already required to own any handgun, I am confused as to how the banning of a semi-automatic pistol for which someone, somewhere makes an after market magazine that can hold more than ten rounds has any bearing on the reduction of firearms related violent crime. Citizens who hold a NY State Pistol Permit are certified by the state as being of good moral character – such citizens are not prone to committing violent crimes and thus restricting such citizen’s freedom of choice by this proposed bill will serve no purpose toward the reduction of violence by firearm.

Dedicated violent criminals will find a way to obtain the weaponry that they desire regardless of whether or not specific firearms are not legally available in the state of New York. One source of entry for such firearms will include illegal interstate trafficking of arms. Another source of criminal acquisition of such firearms includes theft from law enforcement officers as happened recently in North Carolina, where three (3) fully automatic machineguns were stolen from local law enforcement officers.

If the true desire behind this bill is to reduce firearm related violent crime, a bill authorizing additional funding and manpower to existing law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute violent crimes and illegal arms trafficking will be much more effective than just adding more individual firearms to a banned list. All that the current bill will accomplish is to waste the already limited law enforcement resources through registration of such firearms newly defined as assault weapons and prosecution of non-violent otherwise law abiding citizens for essentially an administrative noncompliance issue.

Thank you.

 

[Meathook]

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE SHALL, BY RULES AND REGU-
45 LATIONS, DESIGNATE SPECIFIC SEMIAUTOMATIC CENTERFIRE OR RIMFIRE RIFLES
46 OR SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUNS, IDENTIFIED BY MAKE, MODEL AND MANUFACTURER`S
47 NAME, TO BE WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ASSAULT WEAPON, IF THE SUPERINTEN-
48 DENT OF STATE POLICE DETERMINES THAT SUCH WEAPONS ARE PARTICULARLY SUIT-
49 ABLE FOR MILITARY AND NOT SPORTING PURPOSES. A LIST OF ASSAULT WEAPONS,
50 AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE, SHALL BE MADE
51 AVAILABLE ON A REGULAR BASIS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

This is the part that bugs me. The way I read it is now at the whim of the State Police Superintendent they can add any gun to the list deemed not for "sporting purposes."

So now guns are ONLY for sporting purposes in NY. Self Defense or other reasons are no longer valid.

Honestly the whole thing is sickening. If you listened to any debate on the floor it is clear that neither side has much of a clue of what they are talking about with regard to firearms.

Has the NRA and other organizations just given up on NY? :banghead:

 

[mek42]

Welcome to The High Road (THR), Meathook. I think that your question might best be addressed in the Political and Legal forum (P & L). The mods are pretty strict about keeping the Activism forum here on-topic to avoid distracting discussions preventing people from actually acting. Feel free to start a thread with your question in P & L.

This is my first time doing the activism thing. The bills have already passed the assembly and have moved on to the senate where if passed they will become law. I have emailed the senator for my district. Is it appropriate for me to be emailing other senators? Perhaps the majority and minority leaders?

Thanks!

 

[benEzra]

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Per the FBI, the state of New York had 868 homicides in 2005. All rifles COMBINED accounted for only 10. That's less than 1.2%.

Shout that fact from the rooftops, and figure it prominently into any correspondence with legislators. Rifles are not a violence problem in this country and never have been.

 

[MilsurpShooter]

I've written and e-mailed to everyone and anyone. What good it will do however... Well I hope I can make a difference, I pray it will make a difference

 

[mek42]

benEzra: Thanks! I'll add that to the letter draft when I get a chance later tonight.

Does anyone know if there is a minimum time that a Bill must be open for public comment before being voted on in NY? It looks like the assault weapon bill was only written on 10 April. This seems kind of fast.

Again, thanks everyone!

 

[jpk1md]

Besides the letters and e-mails your presence at the hearing in Albany WILL make an impression on your Reps.

Those of you in Westchester County are only 90 mins from Albany.

300 people all wearing stickers against the bill make a big impression......

We did that this year for the Proposed AWB here in Annapolis Md.......

We outnumbered the Antis almost 30 to 1 and ALL of the Antis were paid lobbyists from Brady Bunch etc.

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for your Rep being able to look out into the audience and look at a SEA of Pro 2A Rights Citizens all prominently wearing stickers against the bill.....

 

[obxned]

See below:

 

[AJAX22]

Doesn't this effectivly ban all semi automatic pistols with a deachable magazine?

 

[Oohrah]

Yes, where is the NRA? Kalif. and NY seem to have the same missions.
We need to rid those lawmakers out of here at the Poles. I can not
understand why the same tired, and ineffective lawmaker are voted in
time after time. Even sheep are smarter than that! These lawmakers
should watch S&Ws representive shoot and reload a wheel gun faster
than semis. can be fired, multiple times. Behind the Enforcement is a
dippity doo without a clue of unintended results. Most likely don't care
as long as they control!

 

[mek42]

Doesn't this effectively ban all semi automatic pistols with a detachable magazine?

That's how I read it. Which is silly since a rigorous background check is required in NY just to own a pistol in the first place.

Just in case the mods decide we are wandering away from activism, here is a thread discussing this bill and others in Politics and Legal.

Maybe I'll try to see if I can stop by my Senator's office tomorrow. There probably won't be anyone there, being a Saturday, but worth a shot.

The Senate Bill (S05222 or S5222) text is not yet available online.

 

[GnL]

Quote:
Doesn't this effectively ban all semi automatic pistols with a detachable magazine?
That's how I read it. Which is silly since a rigorous background check is required in NY just to own a pistol in the first place.

I don't think so. If the semi-auto pistol can accept a detachable magazine, it must also include at least one of the following to be an "assault weapon":

(I) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE NON-TRIGGER HAND;
(II) A FOLDING, TELESCOPING OR THUMBHOLE STOCK;
(III) A SHROUD ATTACHED TO THE BARREL, OR THAT PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIRCLES THE BARREL, ALLOWING THE BEARER TO HOLD THE FIREARM WITH THE NON-TRIGGER HAND WITHOUT BEING BURNED, BUT EXCLUDING A SLIDE THAT ENCLOSES THE BARREL;
(IV) A MUZZLE BRAKE OR MUZZLE COMPENSATOR; OR
(V) THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AT ANY LOCATION OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;

Most semi-pistols wouldn't include one of these other features. Of course some would.

Edited to say: not trying to change the focus from activism, but thought it better to answer this in the same place as the original question.

 

[mek42]

GnL: I think the question referred to the single qualifier to be an assault weapon of being capable accepting of accepting more than 10 round magazines as quoted below. If a pistol has this quality, no other qualities need be had for said pistol to be considered an assault weapon. This section of the law is quoted below. If you can figure out whether or not it means that pistols must have fixed magazines or not you are wiser than I am.

(B) SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL, OR ANY SEMI-AUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE, THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION;

 

[GnL]

I read that to mean either a pistol or rifle that has a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rds.

Otherwise they could have just added the >10 round capability to the previous semi-auto pistol and semi-auto rifle sections. But then that would be logical, and we know there is no logic in these laws.


Edited to say: after reading it again, I'm not sure what they mean. Maybe they left out a comma between "rifle" and "with". The grammar in these things is terrible. I suspect they were trying to cover the case of pistols or rifles with fixed magazines, and because the other sections dealt with weapons with detachable magazines, they made a separate section. But I could be wrong. Is there such a thing as a pistol with a fixed magazine? Isn't that a revolver? (not that the existence of something would be a prerequisite for its becoming illegal)

 

[obxned]

Sounds a lot like the harassment by bad laws that occurred back when King George was in charge.