OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification

[Brooklyn718]

Just wanted to know if any of you guys knew what the ban would mean.

Does is mean all "future" purchases of assault weapons would be illegal?
or
All assault weapons will be illegal?

I just see a crap load of people lining up to buy them before a ban but would those people just be in possession of illegal weapons after the ban?

Do you have to carry a receipt with your weapon to prove when you bought it? Can you buy it off of someone 15 years from now and it still be legal since the receipt is from the store?

I don't get it

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gun-buyers-line-assault-weapons-ban-article-1.1240881

[E86]

Each gun has a serial number associated with it and that particular serial number will designate whether it's grandfathered in or not. Hope that makes sense.

[Deeeez Knicks]

I guess this means future purchases will be illegal, but not current or past ones.

The new law does not force Spence and other assault weapon owners to give up their weapons, but it does require them to register their firearms with the state - a fact that irritated several Zack’s customers.

The new gun laws signed Tuesday by Gov. Andrew Cuomo place a ban on semiautomatic weapons with at least one military-style feature and high-capacity magazines. The law also requires background checks for ammunition buyers.

[Brooklyn718]

oh ok. So it's not an actual ban.. A ban on weed would mean you can't stock up 200 pounds of weed before it being illegal because well...it's still illegal right?

[moocow007]

oh ok. So it's not an actual ban.. A ban on weed would mean you can't stock up 200 pounds of weed before it being illegal because well...it's still illegal right?

Not not an actual ban but rather makes it extremely uncomfortable to difficult to impossible for people to get them (depending on how poorly you fit the criteria deemed in the new Bill to own it).

As far as grandfathered assault rifles, what it means is that they can no longer can exist in obscurity legally. That means even if you have a pre-94 assault rifle you will:

a) now need to be registered with NY State (i.e. did not need to be registered previous to this Bill).
b) the owner of any assualt weapon in NY State could face criminal charges if you are found to have an unregistered assault rifle REGARDLESS of when it was manufactured (i.e. pre or post 1994).

The goal basically, from what I can tell, is to not not allow you to own an assault rifle (per se although with the new restrictions on what components are legal or not limits ownership) but rather to (theoretically) make sure NY State knows where every single existing assault rifle is and in who's hands they are in and what it can actually consist of.

I don't own a gun myself but just reading up on it, military style features includes scopes, night sights, flash suppressors, magazine clips with (now) more than 7 bullet capacity (part of the new law, down from 10 max, modified stocks, bayonets, grenade launchers, etc.).

So it's theoretically possible that depending on what assault rifle you own that you may need to remove add-on's and be tasked to find magazines that actually meet this new restriction.

What I find probably the most conspicious is the apparent need now to have background checks just to buy ammo. Most disconcerting isn't the Bill itself but how apparently Cuomo rushed it through for a vote without going through the normal process of disccusion, committees, hearings, etc. From what I'm reading, most congressmen were given only an hour to read through what reportedly was a huge bill before asked to vote on it. Some have said that they voted 'No' just because they didn't have a chance to review it (what you want your representatives to do I'd imagine) and not because they don't back stricter gun control.

[Starks1994]

Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.

[spiggy718]

Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.

the go-to response is that our second amendment rights are being violated and that if ever the need arises to form a militia the citizens will not be properly equipped to fight an army or something to that effect.

I think the new restrictions are perfectly reasonable. I also agree with you, in my mind there is no reason a civilian needs to own a military style assault rifle that can fire at a high volume. I do not have a problem with hand guns or hunting rifles because one is used for sport while the other for personal protection. i dont know why some people are so attached to their assault rifles.

[Knick4Real]

Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.

That's because there is no clear reason. Guns and gun violence are completely out of control and the powerful NRA doesn't want anything to change. But something has to be done. We should all be able to go to a movie or a shopping mall, or send our kids to school and know that we'll all come home alive. I'm just glad Gov. Cuomo and as of today, President Obama are tackling this issue head on.

[Starks1994]

It just sounds to me like more red state/blue state divisions. We aren't moving forward as a country

[Knick4Real]

It just sounds to me like more red state/blue state divisions. We aren't moving forward as a country

That's been going on since the beginning of time. Remember the Civil War? We will never all be on the same page at the same time.

[alphad0gz]

The goal basically, from what I can tell, is to not not allow you to own an assault rifle (per se although with the new restrictions on what components are legal or not limits ownership) but rather to (theoretically) make sure NY State knows where every single existing assault rifle is and in who's hands they are in and what it can actually consist of.

This is why gun people are pissed off: That doesn't do anything at all to curb the incidences that have people so up in arms. The gun in Rochester was illegal and the gun at Sandy Hook was legal, although I have read that handguns were actually the guns used, depending on what source you believe. This is a lot about nothing. Think about it.

A thinking person absolutely must ask what these laws would have changed had they been in effect a year or two ago. The answer is a nothing at all. Everything that happened would still have happened. The loony guy in Rochester would still have gotten his gun from his GF, who had it legally (even with the new law), and Sandy Hook still happens because the mother still has the guns legally (even with the new law). So what's the agenda?

[E86]

Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.

They don't. The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around without many people understanding it. Real assault rifles are banned, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon, period. An AR-15 bushmaker is a low caliber semi-automatic weapon, the only reason people say "assault rifle" is because of the ability to add certain accessories. But in the end, no one outside of the military or police own any real assault weapons.

[alphad0gz]

That's been going on since the beginning of time. Remember the Civil War? We will never all be on the same page at the same time.

You are certainly right. Having a multicultural society sounds great, and in theory, it is. However, there is no reliable example of that ever happening and remaining peaceful. IMO, there has to be a common culture for the country. A melting pot works only if the final result is a homogenous society with everyone pulling the same basic way. We don't have that and when you don't, you end up with Yugoslavia.

[E86]

That's been going on since the beginning of time. Remember the Civil War? We will never all be on the same page at the same time.

You are certainly right. Having a multicultural society sounds great, and in theory, it is. However, there is no reliable example of that ever happening and remaining peaceful. IMO, there has to be a common culture for the country. A melting pot works only if the final result is a homogenous society with everyone pulling the same basic way. We don't have that and when you don't, you end up with Yugoslavia.

It's not even that. It's just human nature. The U.K. has a gun ban but they lead Europe in violent crimes, and even rank in front of the United States. The gun issue is just a distraction, and politics as usual.

[yaboynyp]

That's been going on since the beginning of time. Remember the Civil War? We will never all be on the same page at the same time.

You are certainly right. Having a multicultural society sounds great, and in theory, it is. However, there is no reliable example of that ever happening and remaining peaceful. IMO, there has to be a common culture for the country. A melting pot works only if the final result is a homogenous society with everyone pulling the same basic way. We don't have that and when you don't, you end up with Yugoslavia.

It's not even that. It's just human nature. The U.K. has a gun ban but they lead Europe in violent crimes, and even rank in front of the United States. The gun issue is just a distraction, and politics as usual.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... Table_2.29

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available.
But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

New Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to make his first major speech on crime today
In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.
There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.
Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.
But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.
'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. That is why last year we published 'Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public. An Action Plan for Tackling Violence 2008-11'.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2IALfMU9a
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook