NYS Passes New Gun Legislation

The State of NY is poised to become the first state to initiate new gun legislation since the horrific elementary school shooting last month in Connecticut. Members from both parties in the Senate have voted “yea”, thereby passing the bill in that chamber by a vote of 43-18. A debate is now taking place in the Assembly – and there are many voicing wild opposition.

One Assemblyman has even said he will break this law if it passes. His exact words were: “This bill would turn me into a criminal because you can bet that before I leave to do the people’s work, there will be more than 7 bullets in the magazine of my wife’s firearm.” Another politicized this by blasting the governor, saying Governor Cuomo ‘hates the 2nd amendment’ and “wants only to beat Obama to the punch and be the first on the 6 o’clock news”.

Governor Cuomo's 7-Point Plan

  • “Enact the toughest assault weapons ban in the nation period”
  • “Close the private-sale loophole by requiring federal background checks”
  • “Ban high capacity magazines.”
  • “Enact tougher penalties for illegal gun use, guns on schools grounds and violent gangs.”
  • “Keep guns from people who are mentally ill.”
  • “Ban internet sales of ammunition in New York.”
  • “Create a state NICS check on all ammunition purchases."

Huffington Post explains:

The Huffington Post expanded on some of Governor Cuomo's points:

  • There will be a mandatory police registry of assault weapons that grandfathers in assault weapons already in private hands.
  • Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to background checks through a dealer.
  • Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.
  • Ammunition magazines would be restricted to 7 bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state.
  • Owners caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
  • Therapists who believe a mental health patient has made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report the incident to a mental health director who would have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services and the patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

Hot-Button Issue

While some legislators believe this legislation will help to save lives by removing extremely dangerous and unnecessary weapons and ammunition (‘of mass destruction’, as one assemblyman described them) from the public domain, others feel that it will make NY less safe by ‘disarming’ too many NYers whose weapons are used for self-defense within their own homes.

One recurring – and interesting - argument from the ‘nay’ side is that while the law will limit a law-abiding citizen’s weapon to 7 bullets, there is no limit to the amount of bullets a criminal might attempt to use against them.


What's Your Opinion?

Personally, I see no reason a person should own assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition. I cannot understand how any gun sales can be permitted without a thorough background check and I believe license renewals should be required yearly – like car inspections and registrations. I think weapons and ammunition should be traceable and I think, probably more than anything, we need help for the mentally ill and for the families who love and are responsible for them.

Well… in the time it took me to type this, they have voted – and the bill has passed – much to the chagrin of some New Yorkers, I am sure.

What are your opinions of this legislation? Is there a specific part of it you especially like or feel is wrong?

NYS's Newly Passed Gun Legislation

Do you think it goes too far or not far enough?

  • Too Far
  • Not Far Enough
  • About Right for Now
See results without voting

Comments 17 comments

movingout profile image

movingout 3 years ago from Georgia

Finally, someone with a Plan! An excellent one at that! Great hub! Voted up!


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 3 years ago Author

Thank you, movingout! Much appreciated. :-) It seemed to be a fair plan to me, as well. Maybe other states will adopt similar laws now that NY started with this. It doesn't seem like it will do too much to help to keep criminals from getting their hands on dangerous weapons, but, in my opinion, if it helps limit the ability of some - like the Aurora shooter and the Newtown shooter - from getting hold of them, then it's a win.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

This is a knee jerk do little law, that is not going to significantly reduce violent crime.

The real problem of violent crimes in the United States is attributed to the over 33,000 multinational gangs, and their over 1.4 million gang members.

I wrote a hub on it if you want the details.

NYC has had the Sullivan Act on weapons for over one hundred years, and that includes knives. How is that working out.

I don't believe that states should make constitutional decisions. The US Constitution is federal, and a state is not federal. The constitution should be consistent across the country.

You don't see any reason for assault guns ownership, but there are many things that fit that test. Why own a 220 mph car with an acceleration of 3 seconds to 60 mph, and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is no real legal way to use it on the streets. Yet, thousands of them are sold every month in the US.

If these cars are used on the streets exceeding their legal use, then they are breaking the law, but not simply for being an owner. The same should be true of gun ownership.


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 3 years ago Author

I hear you, ib radmasters. I do. BUT... I'm not sure this law was intended (or expected) to address the standard street crime as much as the massacres that have occurred because several unstable people have had access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines - or worse, the ability to purchase them themselves.

As for your reference to a car's ability to go 220mph - I fully agree. It makes no sense to have that option. But, I think, when people start driving into schools and movie theaters at 220mph, we might see some changes there as well. Just sayin'.

I will read your hub about violent crimes, thank you for mentioning it.

I'm torn between both sides on this. I am not at all pro gun, but neither am I for infringing on individual rights.

Thank you for coming by and commenting.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Lady Quill

Thanks for reading my hub, and commenting on my comment here.

My point is that this law will have little effect on crimes of random violence.

If you compare the crimes of random violence like the one in Colorado, and Ct you will not see the number of deaths that you will even from suicides.

The thing about the gangs is that the Customers are the real root cause. Take their drug selling, they sell drugs to children in our schools. This crime is doing much more damage to the children than those from the guns.

This law will do nothing to lessen the drug sales to children. And that should be the focus not the guns. Metal detectors in schools are not going to reduce drugs.

Anything that the government bans or controls become the product or service for the gangs.

Finally, to answer your statement on 220 mph cars. Why should we ban all of these car owners, for the acts of the few. Drunk or drivers under the influence kills thousand of innocent people a year with their cars, yet we don't ban car sales.

Thanks


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 3 years ago Author

Though your points are valid, I don't believe that not addressing anything is the answer. No matter where the government puts its focus, there will always be another place it could have gone, another problem on which it could have focused.

I think this is a start - and I don't think it's as dramatic or restrictive as many thought it would be. I would like to see a focus on drugs - street drugs, abused prescription drugs AND drugs specifically prescribed for certain mental illnesses. If anything, I personally believe that is the huge gaping hole in this legislation.

About banning car sales because of drunk drivers - the drunk driver doesn't get into the car with an intent to mow down a whole bunch of people. However, a person who puts on body armor and gathers assault weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition before heading out has one intention - and that is to kill.


movingout profile image

movingout 3 years ago from Georgia

It's a sad day in this country when people are more concerned over keeping their assault rifles and mega clips, then the innocent lives lost! And it's comical, so many think the POTUS is trying to take away "all their guns". No one is saying that! Why anyone, other then our military would need an assault rifle is beyond me!


Borsia profile image

Borsia 3 years ago from Currently, Philippines

NY has always had the toughest gun laws and among the highest rates of gun violence so we already know just how much good this will do.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Lady Quill

I am sorry but I have to disagree with your reasoning.

The law implies intent for the drunk driver.

The important thing is that in both cases it was the person and not the instrument that caused the deaths, and injuries. So why isn't it fair to apply the gun restrictions to the cars used by drunk drivers.

The number of people killed by the persons you described in full body armor and hundreds of rounds of ammo is miniscule compared to the deaths at the hands of drunk drivers.

There are more suicides than from these assault rifles.

You seem to miss the point that I have made that the gangs are not only committing murder, their business is built on criminal activity. So if you take out a gang or even a gang member you are solving multiple problems.

We don't know who is going to go postal next, but we do know a lot about the gangs and the gang members. So wouldn't it make more sense to deal with a problem where we have a better knowledge of who they are and where they are, and even what they are doing.

Gun control is a bandaid, and as I have also mentioned Mexico has a very restrictive gun control law, but that doesn't stop the Mexican Cartels from doing their illegal business and using assault weapons to protect their interests.

movingout

Read my comment to Lady Quill. We have many things that are being used for crimes but we can't ban them or restrict because of a few that will misuse them.

To do so would say that the item is the criminal. To apply the gun control to the vehicles used by drunk drivers would say that the driver doesn't kill, it is the car.

Why would anyone need a priceless painting?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Hi Lady Quill, this issue has everybody up in arms now. The political right is just paranoid and the proposals made by the Obama adm. is just common sense. New York is a progressive state and would take the lead in how these kinds of issues need to be addressed. Without being crass, please check out my article on the subject which is a balanced assessment

http://hubpages.com/politics/More-Notes-from-an-Un...

I have warned the righties that repeated massacres such as the ones in Colorado and Connecticut are going to force the public to demand that something be done. I dropped by the conservative hub areas and told them that if there were a Titanic scale disaster everyother weekend, we are all gonna want to ban ocean liners and the oceans they sail upon. This stuff is happening too often for it to be ignored any longer.

In view of what is at stake, the reaction from our leaders have been restrained and responsible, we should not allow the voices of reaction to distort the issue any further

Happy New Year


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Credence

These mass killings are few and far between and they don't add up to big totals. Suicides happen regularly and they total a large number.

Gangs have businesses that are illegal like selling illegal drug, even to children. Don't you think that is the bigger problem to fight.

Mexico has a very strict gun control law, yet the Mexican Cartel has not been stopped or even slowed down by it.

Common sense is not to get sucked in by the red herring of gun control.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Hello, IB, but the killings are still occuring too often as compared to say a generation or two ago, what is to keep them from occuring every other weekend? When it was far and few inbetween, people could accept a freak lightning strike and move on. But there cannot be devastating lightning strikes every weekend with large body counts, people will not just "move on". Such is human nature.

Mexico's problems is that the law enforcement is impotent. What remains there is simply out gunned and bribed to ineffectiveness. The situation is quite different.

These massacres of so many innocents at one place and one time are going to get much more attention, merited or not, even when statistically evaluated when not significant in relation to daily death toll from firearms nationwide.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Credence you will have to read my hubs on the gangs as the root cause of the problems.

You will be surprised..

BTW

Mexico's problems are our problems thanks to the shared border. Or Border Patrol is outgunned and out manned compared to the cartels.

More people use guns for suicide than you might think. That is hard to do with an assault rifle.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 3 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Thanks, IB, I will look into that...


Borsia profile image

Borsia 3 years ago from Currently, Philippines

When thinking about the numbers of children killed by criminals with guns one should keep in mind that around 27 children are killed every week by their parents or caregivers, rarely with guns.

Likewise if you take out criminal on criminal and suicides America actually has a fairly low homicide rate. If you then take out victims who knew their killer the rate is very low, in these killings guns are often used but if there were no guns they would choose another weapon.


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 3 years ago Author

Hi everyone - please forgive me. I have not been avoiding this hub. I've been traveling and was unable to log on to reply. I will come back after reading all of your comments. Thank you so much to all for taking the time to do so.


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 3 years ago Author

moving out... I couldn’t agree more. The POTUS is NOT trying to disarm the public by banning all their guns. That’s crazy – he couldn’t do it even if he wanted to. And that’s the problem with the fanatics – they will focus on the fear-tactics and pay little to no attention to the issues that matter.

Borsia, your point about NY's crime rates is true on some level, but we also have to note how gun crimes have dropped in NYC in the years since stricter gun laws have been put into place.And while it’s true that without guns, murderers would find other weapons, that children (and the elderly and animals…) would still be abused and/or murdered, etc.. the point is, these weapons ARE being used in mass murders. The point is, there is no logical use of assault weapons for the average citizen. Personal safety issues are valid, of course, but we don’t need assault weapons for personal safety. In a country where guns are owned by so many, so many more who might not otherwise want to own one, do so for balance. Bill Maher said it best, IMO – the only reason he owns a gun is because everyone else does. Sad state of affairs.

But, as I mentioned, I don’t think a discussion about gun control diverted attention from other issues – like child abuse, gang violence, the economy, etc.

ib radmasters – You and I are in full agreement regarding gangs. However, I do not agree that the only issue we need to look into is gang related. I see gun control, not as a bandaid, but as one step of many to rid – or rather reduce – the level of crime in our country.

I am home after traveling, though, and will be reading through your hubs. I have a feeling there will be a lot there for me to learn about gang violence. I'm actually feeling quite nervous now...

Hello Credence2! Happy New Year to you as well! I will head to your post as soon as I’ve replied to the messages here. I agree – I think the response has been restrained and responsible. I don’t believe it is the intention of any in the government – from either party – to destroy second amendment rights. I think focusing on the most obvious and dangerous weapons and ammunition, like Mayor Bloomberg of NY has tried to do – is the way to go.

It’s funny, you know? So many gun advocates see even the slightest restriction as the top of that proverbial slippery-slope where their rights are concerned. Yet, many of those same people, from that same party, don’t see the similarities regarding restriction of access to abortions. I know they’re separate issues, but I still find it amazing.

Thanks for coming by!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working