Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York Passes Landmark Gun Law

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the i'm-sure-nobody-at-all-will-complain-about-this-ever dept.

Government 1591

New submitter mallyn points out that the state of New York has become the first state to pass a new gun control law since the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary last month. "Called the New York Safe Act, the law includes a tougher assault weapons ban that broadens the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, and limits the capacity of magazines to seven bullets, down from 10. The law also requires background checks of ammunition and gun buyers, even in private sales, imposes tougher penalties for illegal gun use, a one-state check on all firearms purchases, and programs to cut gun violence in high-crime neighborhoods. ... New York's law also aims to keep guns out of the hands of those will mental illness. The law gives judges the power to require those who pose a threat to themselves or others get outpatient care. The law also requires that when a mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm, the risk must be reported and the gun removed by law enforcement." Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is expected to propose a new federal assault weapons ban later today.

cancel ×

1591 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

We need gas control! (1, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#42601989)

Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.

Re:We need gas control! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602019)

NYC? This is NYS. Also I don't think your propane joke/troll is going to win you many arguments.

Re:We need gas control! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602031)

Or drive a truck into a crowd.

Re:We need gas control! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602097)

Ask slashdot: Dear slashdot, I have no friends and even my mother hates me. I want to kill as many people as I can to make some sort of statement that makes sense to my diseased mind. Surely you've all considered this many times before - how would you do it?

Re:We need gas control! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602207)

Become president of the USA, start arbitrary illegal wars and keep a personal kill list.

Re:We need gas control! (5, Insightful)

GenieGenieGenie (942725) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602041)

What you really need is an agenda that keeps to a minimum the number of people who wake up one morning and say - "Alright, this is it. Society has chewed me up, stepped on me, brought me to such rage that the only thing I can think of is blind rage. I want to die and take as many other people with me as I can". If someone gets to that point and is even mildly resourceful, he will find a way to get what he wants, guns or no guns.

Re:We need gas control! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602111)

If someone gets to that point and is even mildly resourceful, he will find a way to get what he wants, guns or no guns.

Exactly. Given the history of people blowing shit up in the US, and knife attacks that have left high numbers of bodies on the floor (in China, Japan, and yes, Europe), I'm going to be an ass.

The next time some horrible tragedy happens, I'm going to laugh my ass off.

Because this is so terribly American. Let's hand-wring, hand-wave, and ignore the real issue we need to deal with - because damn it, that's too hard. :(

Re:We need gas control! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602267)

If someone gets to that point and is even mildly resourceful, he will find a way to get what he wants, guns or no guns.

Exactly. Given the history of people blowing shit up in the US, and knife attacks that have left high numbers of bodies on the floor (in China, Japan, and yes, Europe), I'm going to be an ass.

The next time some horrible tragedy happens, I'm going to laugh my ass off.

Because this is so terribly American. Let's hand-wring, hand-wave, and ignore the real issue we need to deal with - because damn it, that's too hard. :(

The Chinese knife school massacre that happened at the same time Sandy Hook and have many people pointing to it like this -- yes there were many injured kids, but all of those are alive and back with their parents now. That makes all the difference in the world. Can you kill someone with a knife? Obviously! Is it quicker and easier and more distanced psychologically (less barrier for more people) to kill many people with a gun? Very much so.

Re:We need gas control! (5, Insightful)

smpoole7 (1467717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602311)

Or with a bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster [wikipedia.org]

To date, this remains the deadliest school killing. The guy had a gun, but chose explosives.

I'm not going to pitch in on this emotional debate, save to point out that if you outlaw guns, crazy people will still find ways to kill other people, and in mass numbers.

Re:We need gas control! (5, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602177)

The system will always fail some people. The question is - how deadly do you want the failures to be? Yes, weapons can always be found, but the time taken to construct and deploy a weapon is directly proportional to it not being used - the longer a person needs to be deadly, the more chance they will either cool off or be stopped.

no cool off (5, Insightful)

nten (709128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602333)

Actually, rampage killers typically create meticulous plans over time, they don't cool off, they build pressure.

Re:We need gas control! (4, Insightful)

Latentius (2557506) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602275)

While it's very true that mental health is a much more important issue to tackle, it's also exponentially more difficult. It takes far more time and money, neither of which we have much to spare. In the meantime, while it may not be the most efficient, why not put some common-sense restrictions in place with regards to weapons? Banning assault weapons might not be 100% effective, but at the same time, shouldn't we at least try to make it a little harder for mentally unstable people to get their hands on weapons designed specifically to create large numbers of people as quickly as possible?

Sure, there will be ways around it. There are always ways around it, and there are always alternatives. But the mere existence of these doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, if you look back at all these gun massacres, you'll find that in almost every case, the firearms were obtained completely legitimately, not from the black market. There is a point, of course, at which we have to say "Okay, we've done all we can reasonably do." Banning cars or propane tanks or whatnot would be ridiculous. Yes, they *could* be used for mass harm, but they generally aren't. Assault weapons are. It's only logical to put at least some restrictions on these things, since they have a history (not to mention purposeful design) of harming large numbers of people.

Re:We need gas control! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602071)

Yeah, awesome idea. Cars, alcohol, smoking, and all that is already illegal too, right? Oh, and those pesky kitchen knifes - they need to be regulated as well! After all they all kill more people than the types of guns affected by the NY ban...

Most States Do Control Gas (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602117)

Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.

But ... but there are regulations on gas, how you transport it, who can drive the truck that transports it, where you can park it, where you can store it, etc. What sort of ineffective troll are you?

Re:We need gas control! (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602123)

Yeah, right -- it is just the same as a gun, right? Like you can set one off and kill someone without risk to yourself. And are you talking about those 10-20kg ones? So you can carry one unnoticed? I think it is nothing like as dangerous as a gun.

Seems perfectly reasonable (0, Insightful)

flintmecha (1134937) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602005)

Sensible changes to how one legally acquires a gun and increased penalties for violence. Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS. See how easy that is?

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602093)

Seven rounds is not sensible in any way.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602107)

Actually, it does make a lot of popular guns illegal, and they are only cosmetically different from guns that remain legal. I'm sure that will fix everything.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602375)

"Actually, it does make a lot of popular guns illegal, and they are only cosmetically different from guns that remain legal. I'm sure that will fix everything."

You can't go berserk with a hunting- or sports rifle, it's uncool.

Not really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602127)

Except you have to destroy or sell to an out of state buyer (NY official recommendation) and high capacity magazine you have already purchased. Which completely goes against several federal grandfathering laws. Honestly if you have high cap magazines and want to be legal then your best bet is to just sell them on the black market to some inner city gangs or just drop them off in a school playground.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (3, Insightful)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602129)

Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS
Yet. This little gem. The law also requires that when a mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm, the risk must be reported and the gun removed by law enforcement."
Is ripe for abuse, and I will enjoy seeing this bitch slapped down by the federal judiciary faster than you can say Zen Fascism. After all no bad law has ever been passed in the emotional furor after a tragedy.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602131)

But the law itself is illegal. The Constitution says 'here's what the Feds can do. The rest is up to the states (and the people)." So either the Feds can regulate guns or they can't. If they can, the states can't. If the states can, the Feds can't. Which is it?

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602251)

The 14th amendment has been ruled as such that any restrictions in the bill of rights on the federal government also bind the states. If these laws would be unconstitutional for the federal government then they would be unconstitutional for the states.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602281)

This is a state law.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (2, Insightful)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602287)

The answer is that the Constitution, for all the protections it had given us, isn't worth a damn today with concerned parents and corrupt politicians. I'm not saying there weren't any back then, but there sure as hell are more of them now and want the Constitution to be "Living" document, being cut, torn up, sewn, stitched, and zombified to suit the needs of the people at that moment in time.

Nationalism? Nah, we're a police state that's a beacon to those Communist nations, bent on proving that we are God.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602143)

Sensible changes to how one legally acquires a gun and increased penalties for violence. Nobody's TERKIN YER GERNS. See how easy that is?

Really? Reducing already low magazine capacities by three (3) bullets and forcing Walmart to run a background check every time someone buys a box of rat shot? Making illegal criminal acts "more" illegal, that makes you feel safe and good about the whole thing?

I"m sure it'll make a huge difference in the number of shooting deaths in the ghettos. /s

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (4, Insightful)

mhajicek (1582795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602169)

Actually, they are. Detachable mag and one "military style" feature is now an evil "assault weapon". Owners have a brief period in which to sell them out of state. Seven round mags are simply not available, so just about all that's left are revolvers and old fashioned rifles.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602227)

Sounds reasonable to me. There is no reason for anyone to have such a weapon, other than to cause mass mayhem.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (5, Informative)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602303)

Considering murders from rifles (of any kind mind you) account for 5% of murders by firearms, apparently they don't cause this "mass mayhem." But, lets not allow facts to cloud your emotions.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602283)

Poor baby.

troll? (2)

nten (709128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602171)

I suspect this is a troll, but in case it isn't. The reason people are outraged at this, is the 7round restriction, not the new penalties, or background checks. No one makes 7 round magazines today, even for low capacity handguns. Various sports will have to change their rules, manufacturers will have to re-tool, and small business owners will go under as they are stuck with shelves of items they cannot legally sell, all so he can say he "did something". Bravo on the background checks, new penalties are redundant if we would sentence sanely to begin with.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (4, Insightful)

Binestar (28861) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602175)

There are some things that *ARE* being taken. M1 Garand has an internal magazine that holds 8. When you load it you load a clip of 8 and press it into the magazine. Because you have to load the gun with a full clip you are loading too many bullets into the gun when you load the gun (even if you then immediately remove one bullet from the gun, you are a criminal for having put 8 into it at once. Legally using this gun is very questionable in NYS right now. Does the gun count as a relic? It's greater than 50 years old on design, but there have been a large portion of these guns rebuilt in the last decade with new wood, etc. Does this affect the relic status?

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602199)

It isn't sensible as far as requiring outpatient treatment for people with mental illnesses. Who pays for it? Not New York State. So now they are forcing people to pay for treatment and if they can't pay then they have to face CRIMINAL penalties. They have essentially defined mental illness as a crime for the uninsured (which is extraordinarily common for people that have mental illnesses). If they would have FUNDED the mental healthcare then this law would be reasonable. But that costs money, so they might as well make more people with mental illness into criminals.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (1, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602323)

Hey, let's apply these same changes to your right to free speech, this should be easy.

You can only write up to 7 paragraphs in an article.
Any web form that allows you to put more than 10 paragraphs into an article has to be destroyed or sold out of state.
You have to have a background check before submitting your article to anyone but immediate family.
You can only buy your text editor from a licensed dealer.

Your okay with all of those restrictions, right? You should be because I can promise that you that speech and ideas have killed far more people than guns ever have.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602327)

Technical points that need further expounding:

-define "mental health professional"
-how does it handle "mental health professional" bias, either for or against gun control?
-what is the appeals process?
-what about just compensation for siezure of personal property worth thousands of dollars?

the magine thing is disappointing because its already been proven many of hundreds of times that magazine size has no effect, and changing magazines is not hard; its just like the "turn off your electronics on the plane" thing, its there for control purposes, not because it actually does what they claim (in this case, reduce violence)

the "assault weapons" portion is also disappointing because it is once again filled with vague ill-defined terms rather than words with actual concrete definitions, essential to actual legislation.

background checks for ammo is silly. for weapons themselves, logical, and frankly, i see it as a business opportunity. set up a booth at the swap meet, get the contract for it or whatever, rake in the cash. may not be much, and very likely will be set by state legislature to a fixed price, very much like the fixed price of a smog check service.

Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (5, Interesting)

johnlcallaway (165670) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602331)

Another comment from ignorant anti-gun cultists. Many semi-automatic guns have magazines that support more than 7 rounds. I have a Ruger rifle that FROM THE FACTORY comes with 10 round magazines. I have NEVER seen a 7 round magazine for it. It's a hunting rifle for me, it's great for taking squirrels and rabbits that move around a lot. If I lived in NY, this gun would become useless. Yet someone could still easily buy and use 4 or more holsters and walk into a school with revolvers and shoot 10, 20, or more people if they wanted to. The law accomplished nothing except make a bunch of legal gun owners potential criminals. I also own a few 30 round magazines so when I go target shooting I don't have to reload as often. I can load them at home where it's easier and more comfortable. People who claim large magazines serve no purpose except killing people are just ignorant and don't know what they are talking about. People who claim a semi-automatic rifle can fire 6 shots a second are also ignorant. Three, maybe four tops. But then I can clear all 6 rounds out of my revolver in under 3 seconds, and reload in 3 more. so what difference does it make???

Last time I checked, the taking of property without due process is illegal. I doubt this will stand in it's present form. It takes a judge's order today to get a restraining order, it will be found that the police will have to get one to remove a gun from someone mentally ill, they can't just do it because some therapist says so. The government can't order me to sell something today that was legal yesterday. That's why pre-embargo Cuban cigars are still legal, along with many other grandfathered items in various laws.

Requiring back ground checks for private sales simply won't work. First, the FBI isn't setup to take them from private citizens. Second, why would I bother getting permission to sell a non-registered gun to a friend. Criminals already get guns from other criminals, I doubt if they will change their ways. Instead, thousands of people that now go to gun shows to sell guns they don't want anymore will simply stop doing it, reducing the supply and driving up the costs. If they want to make a difference, require anyone that sells more than 20 guns a year get a license. If there is a problem with private sales, it's not Bob next door selling to his buddies, it's the guy who is buying and selling to make a profit.

I doubt if much of this will survive any Supreme Court challenges. Cuomo and the NY legislature have just proven they are a bunch of ignorant people willing to pass ineffective laws just to look like they did something (and Obama is about to fall into that category). NY is going to lose some air travel business as people with guns avoid even passing through their airspace. I already do because of many cases where people just passing through had to spend a night and got booked on gun charges simply because the laws in NY are moronic and do nothing to prevent gun violence already.

I live in Mesa Arizona in a state that allows concealed carry without a license, Mesa remains below the national average in all violent crimes for cities of more than 500,000 people. Maybe if Cuomo and Bloomberg would work on figuring out why people in his state want to kill each other and focus on criminals, they might actually accomplish something of value.

wontwork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602011)

yes, stiffen up laws banning guns in schools.... that will stop them, brilliant!

I feel safer already. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602013)

No criminal will dare violate the law now.

Re:I feel safer already. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602091)

You've convinced me! We should probably take laws against murder, and assault, and theft off the books, because criminals will break the law. We should strike every law that could potentially be broken. What's the point of having laws at all. Just have everyone shoot it out with each other. Isn't that the NRA's dream?

Re:I feel safer already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602291)

More importantly, all the whack-jobs are now sane.

Re:I feel safer already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602351)

No criminal will dare violate the law now.

Most rampage killers are common citizens until the day they do the unthinkable.

Guess what? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602025)

It won't matter a bit...

Until the underlying problem gets solved this is just political theater. (And hidden political theater since this was passed so quickly behind, for all intents and purposes, closed doors with no public discussion by the NY legislature.)

And why is this on /. he asks?

Re:Guess what? (1)

beamin (23709) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602145)

What do you think is "the underlying problem"?

Re:Guess what? (2)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602259)

Enough guns already in circulation is one thing.

a month later ... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602033)

Given the speed of beauracracy, I'm absolutely sure this is a well thought out piece of legislation, which balances freedom with security. Fortunately, mental health professionals are the appropriate people in our judicial system to deny personal liberties, and that stigmatizing gun owners will help bring together a society that is being split on ideological lines.

Re:a month later ... (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602277)

It took them a very short time to get this bill passed. I wonder how that was possible.

knee... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602043)

meet jerk

Limit the amount of people that you can kill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602047)

Thats a good starting point!

What about the existing guns? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602053)

Will they be grandfathered in? I have a feeling gun shops will hoard "assault weapons" and higher cap clips before the law goes into effect

Re:What about the existing guns? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602265)

I have a feeling gun shops will hoard "assault weapons" and higher cap clips before the law goes into effect

Guns shops can't hoard anything right now. Everything is flying off the shelves. Everywhere.

Chicken or Egg? (5, Interesting)

emmjayell (780191) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602055)

Since this is slashdot - let's talk about the new tech systems:

So will mental health professionals be required to do a check against gun owner databases? Will a mental illness database need to be created so that potential gun buyers can be screened at purchase time? How about house-holding - if someone in the same residence is a registered gun owner, will they be forced to surrender their weapons?

Re:Chicken or Egg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602159)

Yeah so basically if you think you have mental issues, then it's best to suppress those thoughts and not tell anybody, otherwise you'll be black listed and tracked by the govt like a criminal.

Re:Chicken or Egg? (5, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602187)

Lets say, you like firearms. But, lets say you are going through some troubling times personally and need to see a therapist.

We've seen the same thing in the military, people are afraid to ask for help, because they will be branded as having mental health problems and no longer be allowed to serve.

So, will the problem be made worse now?

Personally, I know this isn't a gun problem, it is a mental health problem. Mentally health people don't go mow down other human beings - only those with severe mental deficiencies do.

Re:Chicken or Egg? (5, Informative)

RPI Geek (640282) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602225)

How about house-holding - if someone in the same residence is a registered gun owner, will they be forced to surrender their weapons?

From the bill [nysenate.gov] :

Safe Storage

To prevent, among other things, unauthorized and unlicensed use of guns, section 47 of the bill adds a new Penal Law 265.45 establishing safe storage requirements for rifles, shotguns and firearms. Under this new section, a gun owner who lives with someone who the owner has reason to know is prohibited from possessing a gun because the prohibited person has been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, is subject to a court order of protection or has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence whose sentence has been completed in the last five years must, when the gun is out of the owner's immediate control, keep the gun secured in a safe storage depository (for example, a safe or similar secure container with a lock that can be opened only with a key or combination, or other locking mechanism) or render it incapable of being fired by putting a safety lock on the gun.

Re:Chicken or Egg? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602241)

I think you miss the point entirely. The purpose of the legislation is to make it easier for a criminal to perform a background check before he sells a gun to another criminal.

Re:Chicken or Egg? (1)

emilper (826945) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602345)

are the mental health professionals subjected to periodic and rigurous mental health checks ? are the results recorded in a database ?

Clearly, this will fix the problem. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602059)

So, let me start this out by saying that I'm a damn sight from being a Republican, much less a gun nut. And yes, there are gun nuts - we all know the type.

Having said that, I love how NY (and for that matter, everywhere else) doesn't give a hoot in hell whether or not any actual evidence backs them up when laws like this get passed, much less track the results of what they have passed. It's a platitude, but true: criminals and other assholes could give a toss less whether or not they are breaking gun laws when they shoot someone. Regular folks are the ones who care about the law and mostly try to follow it, out of fear if nothing else.

And yes, the second amendment doesn't mean a turkey in every pot and a Bofors anti-aircraft gun in every garage, but god damn - every time the government tries to take away something that anyone used to have I need to ask myself, "Do I trust the government?", the answer to which is almost always NO. I'd rather have a hillbilly with a M-16 and the stars and bars hanging in a window living next to me than have The Man start confiscating guns "for our own good", that's for sure.

Re:Clearly, this will fix the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602151)

Hear, hear! I agree completely, should be modded up.

Re:Clearly, this will fix the problem. (0)

Talderas (1212466) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602353)

Most people wouldn't be able to afford a bofors if they wanted one, let alone the ammunition for it.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602061)

Now the other states should follow suit.

Some good parts, but some rather absurd parts (4, Interesting)

heypete (60671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602063)

The law does contain a lot of really beneficial improvements that may well improve things, but the "one-feature" test for so-called "assault weapons" will apply to a rather large number of common sporting and competition guns, requires that they be registered within the year, and once registered these now-banned guns cannot be sold or transferred to another New Yorker -- they can only be transferred to a licensed gun dealer or to an out of state buyer -- even if the registered owner dies.

Not even legally-transferrable machine guns, what few there are, are so strictly regulated.

De-grandfathering pre-ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds is asinine (are people supposed to turn them in?), as is banning any newly-produced magazines with a capacity greater than 7 rounds. (You can keep your current 10-round magazines but you can't load more than 7 rounds into them.)

They could have kept such absurd provisions out of the law and people probably would think that it's a reasonable, if somewhat restrictive, law that may do some good stuff...but those extra provisions go way too far.

Re:Some good parts, but some rather absurd parts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602239)

Is there a summary of the law posted somewhere? I always wonder what will happen with existing owners and how that is broken down?

Re:Some good parts, but some rather absurd parts (2)

mhajicek (1582795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602249)

Do they expect murderers to refrain from loading those last three rounds?

Re:Some good parts, but some rather absurd parts (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602293)

The way I understood it, often you can put a little clip thing inside a normal magazine to not allow more than a certain number of bullets

Common sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602067)

I know that all the NRA fans will come up with all kinds of suggestions for why making killing easy is supposed to make the world safer, but from a very safe country where guns, even in the hands of law enforcement, are an extremely rare sight, I say: Hurray for sanity and common sense!

Re:Common sense (1)

RoboJ1M (992925) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602235)

Agreed.

Christ, once I was at Southampton Airport and the airport security were carrying assault rifles.
Assault Rifles!!
Who the hell were they expecting to attack??
The French Army?

I'd prefer them to have the sort of bullets that are designed NOT to go through the target AND the people behind the target.

Since when did they stop carrying MP5s?

Good. (0)

jamesoutlaw (87295) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602075)

It's far too easy for mentally unstable people to purchase guns and ammunition. Negligent gun-owners should also face harsher penalties when their weapons are used to commit crimes. I grew up with guns, and have no problem with responsible ownership. Unfortunately, there are far too many irresponsible gun owners in this country.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602217)

Negligent gun-owners should also face harsher penalties when their weapons are used to commit crimes.

.

Err? No. I'm not going to be responsible when someone else chooses to break the law. This is about as right as facing penalties because someone stole your car and used it for a hit and run.

news for nerds (0)

nten (709128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602077)

How is this news for nerds? Nerds seem to feel strongly one way or the other about gun control, but so does everyone else.
As long as we are here, is an 8 round revolver exempted as it does not have a magazine? It is almost like they knocked off the extra three rounds just to make manufacturers re-tool. Even "low-capacity" single stacks like 1911 handguns typically have 8 in a full size. This will probably streamline background checks since they have to do one for every ammo purchase, which seems like the only silver lining, but its a single-state check so not terribly useful.

Re:news for nerds (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602273)

Well, it does tie in nicely with the article about printing a 30 round mag. Will 3d printers be restricted in New York?

Re:news for nerds (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602339)

This is "stuff that matters".

Illinois tried last week. (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602079)

During the "lame duck" session of the IL 97th General Assembly, our Dear Leader Rahm and Governor Jello tried something similar, but even more far reaching banning all semi auto and pump firearms. We were lucky that that bill was so over the top even many non gun owners called to object. The gun groups were organized because of the "internets" and we filled the voice/email boxes of our reps and emptied their fax machines.

I'm sure "they" will try again, but now in the daylight instead of middle of the night back room deals.

Living in places like Illinois and New York we see first hand the difference of being ruled versus represented.

It's not over. Hopefully our 2nd amendment will protect us from unjust laws. This is whole push to disarm America is not really "safety for the children". It's about power of the elites. they don't like the slaves to be armed.

Re:Illinois tried last week. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602201)

Are you advocating armed overthrow of the government? That's what is implied in your post. That's sedition if not outright treason.

It's too bad that the IL attempt stalled. Hopefully, they will muster up some more courage and do the right thing again. It's hard to do the right thing when you have a lobbying group of nutjobs like the NRA that think that mass shootings every month are a positive development. But, we're due to have another mass shooting soon (we're getting them every couple of months now), so it's not like the issue is going away--an inevitable result of all the gun loosening laws the NRA got passed over the years. With the flood of firearms as a result, is it any wonder that we're getting mass shootings like clockwork. At some point, maybe common sense will prevail.

It's easier to get a tool of death to shoot someone than it is to register to vote in some states, or to get a drivers license. Does that make sense?

Re:Illinois tried last week. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602253)

During the "lame duck" session of the IL 97th General Assembly, our Dear Leader Rahm and Governor Jello tried something similar, but even more far reaching banning all semi auto and pump firearms. We were lucky that that bill was so over the top even many non gun owners called to object. The gun groups were organized because of the "internets" and we filled the voice/email boxes of our reps and emptied their fax machines.

I'm sure "they" will try again, but now in the daylight instead of middle of the night back room deals.

Living in places like Illinois and New York we see first hand the difference of being ruled versus represented.

It's not over. Hopefully our 2nd amendment will protect us from unjust laws. This is whole push to disarm America is not really "safety for the children". It's about power of the elites. they don't like the slaves to be armed.

What a load of bullcrap.
First, the second amendment doesn't protect you from unjust laws, it never has and it never will. And second, the elites have power because of stupid rednecks like you that keep on voting them. But somehow Americans believe that the country can be put on automatic cruise control while they go hunting, or stroke their preciousssss gun barrels, etc...
The day this country is disarmed (barring exceptions like hunters) is the day the US is one step closer to a civilised country.

And what does it solve exactly? (5, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602089)

Of the ~750 murders with firearms a year in NY, 5 were with rifles of any kind... So, banning "assault rifles" is nothing other than a feel good measure to make idiots feel like they accomplished something.

All of this is nothing more than a circle jerk. They don't care about preventing real violence. Like bureaucrats, they want to pretend they are solving the problem but are actually doing nothing.

Re:And what does it solve exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602173)

They should make rocket launchers, mortars and grenades illegal too!

Re:And what does it solve exactly? (3, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602213)

How about the background check requirements? Do you think those accomplish anything, or not? The reason I ask is that in recent polling, a majority of gun owners support increased use of background checks to allow law-abiding and sane citizens to obtain guns more easily than criminals or insane people. It's obviously far from perfect, but there's a chance it would help reduce the body count.

Also, how about the smaller magazine requirements? Do those do anything to reduce the number of murders (the idea being reduce the number of shots fired before a shooter has to reload or switch weapons)?

Re:And what does it solve exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602365)

Now people who already have guns will be afraid to seek help when they're feeling bad due to the chance they'll be labeled as having a mental illness. These people who would have fully recovered with some talk therapy will grow worse and worse until they're at risk of snapping and going on a shooting spree. When they do so, they aren't going to care about any bullet restrictions or take a moment to ponder any increased jail time.

This law makes things worse not better.

Ban Walmart (3, Interesting)

dissy (172727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602099)

This shows that everyone against the Walmart can easily have the store chain banned.
They sell everything needed for mass destruction, and guns aren't even needed!

Gasoline, Vaseline jelly, and Tupperware = napalm

Plastic jar, nails and screws, fertilizer, newspaper, and matches = shrapnel bomb

Bleach and ammonia = mustard gas

Any one of these (let alone all of them together) would bring as much destruction, pain, and misery as a gun.
With this, our government has shown it cares not about the actual cause of the destruction, only the device that caused it and the people/places that sell it.

Time to pressure them to ban the Walmart and arrest anyone who shops there!

Re:Ban Walmart (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602289)

These arguments tend to come up each time, but they are all wrong:

napalm: difficult to distribute

shrapnel bomb: difficult to set up

mustard gas: difficult to distribute

all above also need careful planning.

The BIG convenience of owning a gun and ammunition is that I can take my amphetami^D^D^D prescription meds, drink a shot of jack and then impulsively decide to unload said gun on anyone that is within range, immediately, with immediate effect and a very low risk of danger to self.

It shouldn't be so hard to understand, but since you're probably an American, I learned to cope with your kernal misconfiguration on this part.

Re:Ban Walmart (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602373)

You're right, anyone could build what they need to spread murder and mayhem.

Here's my counterargument: Why don't they then? I mean, we supposedly have a bunch of terrorists in our midst, we have drug dealers and pimps all trying to carve out territory, and we have just plain crazy people who would love to blow things up or dose everyone with mustard gas. Surely, some of them would be enterprising enough to build and use these weapons on a regular basis. But in fact, napalm attacks don't happen.

Some reasons I can think of:
- It's hard to make those kinds of things just on the spur of the moment. Someone who's trying to make a shrapnel bomb has to carefully plan ahead, think things through, etc. By contrast, many shootings are where somebody's snapped and not really capable of doing that kind of planning.

- There's significant risk of screwing up when building such weapons and injuring / killing yourself. Most mass murderers aren't the sort of people that have learned how to properly handle explosives or chemical munitions. Even bad guys who have reason to know what they're doing have problems - there are cases of terrorists having their bomb blow up as they're driving to the Israeli border, for example.

- These weapons are all less portable and concealable than,say, a 9mm.

- Building these weapons takes considerably more brains than firing a gun. I grant you, the brains required are something along the lines of "Google it and follow the instructions", but there are a lot of people who can't handle that but can handle "point gun at target, squeeze trigger".

So if the homicide rates don't drop... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602105)

... does that mean this legislation is a worthless waste of time?

No No No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602357)

... does that mean this legislation is a worthless waste of time?

A failure in decline of homicide rates would be a clear indicator of global warming.

How far is fair to go? (0)

Noctis-Kaban (2758815) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602113)

I understand there are bears and all sorts of other dangerous animals in usa requiring people to have rifles. But I still think they can go further, I would say 5rd clips is fair on rifles, make anything that can be considered a rifle single shot only. I.e. hand reloaded, bolt action whatever. 6rds for a pistol is pleanty too. Anything more than that should be police issue, firearms officers etc. All guns must only be accessible by licenced fire-arms owners.

I fully believe they (the US governments) shouldn’t be asking how far they should go, but how far is far enough.

when a gun is taken by law enforcement (4, Interesting)

Xenious (24845) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602133)

So when it is determined that a gun owner needs to be relieved of their firearm by law enforcement (because they are no longer defined as able to own it) is the state going to re-imburse the owner the value of the gun? Would the funds come from some fund from gun sales tax? Are they temporarily taking it with the intention of returning it when able? Where will they be safely stored?

Perfect Timing! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602137)

Because if there's ever a time to enact new legislation that has the potential to send previously law-abiding people to prison while being summarily ignored by the criminal element, it's while people are enduring emotional turmoil brought on by a significant tragedy. Look how well the PATRIOT act worked!

Re:Perfect Timing! (0)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602343)

Only if the previously law abiding people wilfully violate the new law. If so, my sympathy for them is very limited.

Shock Doctrine (1)

Cigarra (652458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602193)

Of course you never wanna let a crysis go to waste.

Re:Shock Doctrine (1)

Cigarra (652458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602209)

*crisis ;-) Much too gaming!

tubGirl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602211)

Dutym to be a big

Evil (-1, Troll)

zixxt (1547061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602223)

Gun/Arms control is fascism plain and simple. And the people who support gun control are nothing better than enablers of genocide.

Obama needs a bullet in his head just like Hitler.

Re:Evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602341)

Gun/Arms control is fascism plain and simple. And the people who support gun control are nothing better than enablers of genocide.

Obama needs a bullet in his head just like Hitler.

Welcome to the list :)

Re:Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602363)

Yea, becuase unregulated guns are working out so well in the Middle East!

Re:Evil (0)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602371)

So what is the procedure for reporting an assassination threat on slashdot anyway?

Magazine Capacity Limit of (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602233)

2^3 - 1 doesn't seem right. 2^3 is much better.

Militia (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602261)

I do not understand how any of these reduced clip laws, or assault rifle bans, get passed when it is supposed to be legal to operate and join a militia and to have the ability to fight your own government if they turn tyrannical enough.

It Won't do a thing. (2)

cgiannelli (2740647) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602285)

Most of these latest crazies, have spent a considerable time planning their path to fame. Aurora guy, he set up elaborate traps in his apartment. Planned for months. If guns were hard to impossible to acquire, he'd just as easily switch to Sarin nerve gas, (remember Japan subways?), or some other explosive device. I'm sure a smart guy like him could have fabricated a much more elaborate plan had guns not been available. The CT guy was a little bit of a loner. He too was brilliant, but lacked social skills and spent time in social isolation. His mother took him to the shooting ranges and hopped this time would help him adjust. He may very well have been inspired by the Aurora shootings and wanted to one up this guy. The gun he used was easily obtained, his mother quite possibly didn't lock them up. I know a lot of people in rural areas dont lock up their guns, most are sitting next to them, not to shoot people, but the occasional carnivore that wanders onto the yard.

Banning guns, it's a bandaid act to make the politicians feel achieved. It's a false way of feeling like they did a job. In the end It disrespects the constitution, and the 50+ million legal gun owners who haven't murdered anyone.

and no, the founders most likely never foresaw machine guns and rocket launchers. But they learned from thousands of years of history that standing armies, soldiers that are bored with no wars, will turn on the citizens. This can be noted in the small towns with bored police... This can be seen across the world as we know it now. when the citizens cannot defend themselves, the government get's arrogant and diminishes the freedoms of the people. this is what our founders saw, and fought against, and it is what they know will always be the case. So they built into our constitution a way for the people to control government. Even they saw, 20 years later, the government was already too big for their liking but flew out of their hands.

New York...Check. (0)

clonehappy (655530) | about a year and a half ago | (#42602295)

One more state I can cross off the list of ever visiting, living in, or spending a dime of my money in (if at all possible). I do not support states that violate the Constitution. If I have to get to the northeast, I'll drive through Canada.

The real problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42602349)

I think the real problem with this new law is that it was passed in 20 minutes after it’s unveiling during an emergency midnight session. The debate of the bill occurred the next day when it went for committee rubber stamping. The entire debate was streamed live and featured such amazing ignorance and antipathy that it was staggering. We also have quotes from the session like, "I know this won't solve the crime problem in New York but we have to do something now. The real laws can come later,” and senators talking about how MLK died for our gun control. The law allows ownership of 10 round magazines but makes it illegal to load more than 7 rounds in them. It doesn't even contain exemptions for police officers on the 7 round limits. Whatever your stance on guns is, this display was incredibly shameful and disingenuous.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?