Yorkieabroad

I couldn't legally drive a Formula 1 car down I-10....does that mean cars are banned?

robin1234

If only those two women had been armed & vigilant (after all, as adult US citizens, they are militia members,) they could have returned fire and properly defended themselves against the coercive agents of the so-called "police."

Steve_

But it's a ban. I don't suppose the fellow referenced by the OP would consider his gun being banned to be "regulation". It's a ban. If your personal property is proscribed, you're not going to be too happy about it, hence... no consensus.

And then the other argument is oh well, there will be a grandfather clause for people who already have them.

There was a grandfather clause in the Volstead Act - no-one argues nowadays that Prohibition worked. There was a grandfather clause in some of the prohibitions on narcotics as well.

Steve_

But you can legally possess a Formula 1 car and use it on a racetrack - so not banned.

Hunting regulations for example set the power limit, bullet type, etc. for taking certain game but that's not the same as saying you can't own a specific type of rifle.

Leslie

Nope.

Steve_

So what is your definition of "banned" then. If the law specifically uses the word "ban", how is not a ban?

gruffbrown

If you need more than 7 rounds in a magazine, wouldn't it be fair to say you're a pretty crap shot? Well unless you're attacked by 8 bears at the same time in New York naturally. There'll be a clause for that somewhere.

Leslie

I know what "banned" means. Do you know what "gun" means?

Steve_

Yep - but you don't seem to.

Steve_

Most pistols and probably most rifles have a magazine that holds more than seven rounds. Commonly used both for pest control and target shooting (and in America, personal protection).

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Ruger 10/22 was the most common rifle owned in the US for pest control, as the name implies, ten round magazine.

This is why they set the limit at ten rounds in the previous ban. (Sorry, "regulation" as not being able to legally buy something is apparently not a ban).

gruffbrown

So now it'll be a 7/22, and you change the magazine, must be a bummer.

Steve_

But it's pointless, and so clearly pointless that it's laughable - which is what happened with drugs and booze.

And easily proven as pointless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

So when people think bans are pointless they tend not to be followed, which is my point, no consensus.

If someone says to you, we're going to limit the number of TV channels you can watch or the number of cans of beer you can buy etc. and the reason for the limit seems tenuous, natural inclination is to ignore the law.

Gov. Cuomo might think he has an excellent argument for doing it, but it's obvious from the polls he hasn't convinced the majority of gun owners or even a sizable proportion of them. Whether he's convinced the majority of New Yorkers is academic because they don't own guns.

You've got to convince the people affected by the law or it won't work, which is what happened with Prohibition in the 1920s. The people in the temperance movement probably weren't drinkers for the most part to begin with (hard to know admittedly).

There was a rather good comment I was reading on a website earlier today that said basically, the people who are working the hardest against new Federal gun laws are the politicians in New York and California by passing Draconian new laws. By realizing the worst fears of gun owners they're making it harder to reach consensus on new Federal laws.

Exactly right. If it sounds bad, you won't like it, but if it sounds bad and you think it will lead to something worse, you're going to actively oppose it.

Bob

And being very unlike NY, you get a year to flog the old gear, out of state of course...

Was reading about a police buy back program that was buying guns back, but giving out gift vouchers as they couldn't give cash and a bunch of NRA gun dealer type folks set up across the street to buy the guns for cash for more money to keep the weapons in circulation. Went well until someone brought a rocket launcher along, sold it to the gun dealers and someone turned around, bought it back and gave it to the police :/

That's a bit of a simplification of the story, but it's the gist of it.

Pulaski

But it is going to do nothing to prevent mass shootings. Anyone who hates guns and would happily see them outlawed completely should not feel any safer as a result of this type of restriction.

Leslie

The Supreme Court says you don't know you're talking about ... but, hey ho, what do they know?