In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
New gun law in New York?
wizbanger
Member Posts: 119 ✭✭
Is there a new New York gun law, the SAFE Act, that no longer allows an individual to ship a long gun to an ffl holder for transfer in that state? The firearm is an old Stevens 22-410, not an "assault weapon".
Comments
Best
There is the SAFE act, and all incoming firearms, [must] be from an outlying FFL, to the incoming FFL, from what I do under stand. I am a NY resident, and work parttime/hobby in the firearms industry.
If correct, that is something that is going to have to undergo a legal challenge. There are Federal firearm laws and interstate commerce issues which such a New York law would potentially be at odds with.
Not that a court challenge would likely be "firearm-rights friendly," but New York is over-stepping its authority with such a law.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
There is the SAFE act, and all incoming firearms, [must] be from an outlying FFL, to the incoming FFL, from what I do under stand. I am a NY resident, and work parttime/hobby in the firearms industry.
If correct, that is something that is going to have to undergo a legal challenge. There are Federal firearm laws and interstate commerce issues which such a New York law would potentially be at odds with.
Not that a court challenge would likely be "firearm-rights friendly," but New York is over-stepping its authority with such a law.
It is not so much that it cannot be successfully challenged, but for those of you, who DO NOT live in NY, you have NO conception of what we are up against, or what you, in the future could be up against(yes, these very same Hitleristic idiots, will be running, or at least strongly eying a run for the POTUS)...although the tides could be changing, with enough voice.
You see, the liberal governor, is being supported by a very wealthy mayor, and all while being encouraged by the POTUS, to be a test bed, to see what the AMERICAN public will tolerate.
The wealthy mayor, is none other than Michael Bloomberg, himself...$30-something billion rich. They promise frivolous lawsuits to all those who don't comply. The average, and even well above average person, can wash away any/every thing they ever worked for, trying to defend themselves...and its not going to get any better.
So, unless you live in NY, and know what you are talking about, and about whom, it is you are talking about, it would be wise to EDITand listen, and try to prevent this from happening to you. Once it happens, it is hell to get rid of...and we are trying.
Best
EDIT 1
quote:An abbrevaition for a profane word was used and was edited. Such langauge will not be allowed, especially if directed at another forum member.
It was in the context of URGENCY, not at another forum member, although I can see how it could be construed as such. It was specifically put there to avoid the profanity, but to stress, that these goons, are aiming for a nationwide campaign.
Here in NY, we have several challenges to the SAFE ACT, going on several different front's. What folks outside of NY need to realize, is that this campaign, is being supported by a ruthless billionaire, mayor, who even tried to limit the size of "sugary drinks", in his city. Anyone who opposed, would most likely end up in a lawsuit, who would expend their life long savings, trying to defend themselves...in otherwords, a frivilous law suit.
For those of you, whom that abbreviation, truly offended, I sincerely apologize. For those of you, who it ruffled your pamper, grow up...it's not all about you.
Best
EDIT 2
quote:quote:Originally posted by competentone
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
Here in NY, we have several challenges to the SAFE ACT, going on several different front's. What folks outside of NY need to realize, is that this campaign, is being supported by a ruthless billionaire, mayor, who even tried to limit the size of "sugary drinks", in his city. Anyone who opposed, would most likely end up in a lawsuit, who would expend their life long savings, trying to defend themselves...in otherwords, a frivilous law suit.
You've used that term "lawsuit" -- my understanding is that violation of most of the provisions of New York's "SAFE Act" is considered a crime. It's not the (soon-to-be-former-, but the new guy sounds worse) mayor's money being used to pursue such cases; it is taxpayer money they will be using to prosecute you -- and if you lose challenges to such laws, you go to jail.
People are already dealing with criminal charges relating to even the ridiculous "7-round" limit for magazines: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/three-arrests-illustrate-the-impact-of-n
That is not such the case if you are outside of NY state. You cannot send a corperation to jail, but you can cause it sever financial difficulty, by tossing a big suit its way, and making it defend itself...possibly, into bankruptcy, and closing the doors. This is the aim of Bloomberg, in part.
In order to the whole part, you have to view him as the puppetier that he is. He has all branches of government on strings. He is planning on sending his posterboy "Cuomo", on a bid for the Whitehouse in 2016...NY is just a test bed for them. The rest of the country will be next.
My suggestion would be, that while we could use help here in NY, to run them out of here, they would just land somewhere else. You folks are better left to defending, and hopefully putting up a good offensive line, on your own home front, to keep them out of your state. Possibly to run the wannabe's out of your state.
Any leftover help, we will willingly take.
Something else about the 7-round magazine limit...
It is not telling you now, that you can only posses magazines, no larger than 7 rounds. You may posses a 10 round magazine, and use it at competition shoots, where you need to...fully loaded with 10 rounds. However, elsewhere, you may only have the 10 round magazine loaded with 7 rounds. It doesnt say 7 rounds that are the right caliber for it either...meaning...
...that a not so outstanding officer could slip a 9mm round of theirs into a 10 round 40 S&W magazine, that is only loaded with 7 rounds...the "round count" is now 8 rounds...so they are giving you room, or rope to hang from...almost like enticement.
Thanks!
I have not been able to find anything in the law that says an individual can't ship to an ffl, only that the transfer must be done through an ffl.
Correct. In NY State, which it hadn't been done before, you now need to ship to NY from an FFL. Previously, it had only been handguns that that pertained to.
ADDED:
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
I never want to see the use of that abbreviation in this forum again.
Splain?
An abbrevaition for a profane word was used and was edited. Such langauge will not be allowed, especially if directed at another forum member.
Here in NY, we have several challenges to the SAFE ACT, going on several different front's. What folks outside of NY need to realize, is that this campaign, is being supported by a ruthless billionaire, mayor, who even tried to limit the size of "sugary drinks", in his city. Anyone who opposed, would most likely end up in a lawsuit, who would expend their life long savings, trying to defend themselves...in otherwords, a frivilous law suit.
You've used that term "lawsuit" -- my understanding is that violation of most of the provisions of New York's "SAFE Act" is considered a crime. It's not the (soon-to-be-former-, but the new guy sounds worse) mayor's money being used to pursue such cases; it is taxpayer money they will be using to prosecute you -- and if you lose challenges to such laws, you go to jail.
People are already dealing with criminal charges relating to even the ridiculous "7-round" limit for magazines: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/three-arrests-illustrate-the-impact-of-n
Neal
Is there a new New York gun law, the SAFE Act, that no longer allows an individual to ship a long gun to an ffl holder for transfer in that state? The firearm is an old Stevens 22-410, not an "assault weapon".
Not true. It's up to the receiving FFL but it isn't against the law nor a violation of the (un)SAFE Act.