Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Gun Class Project

    Gun Class Project

    Embedded below is the text of the gun law just enacted in NY State. The underlined portions are new wording or sections.

    It’s complicated stuff. I’ll be reviewing it to try to figure out the answers to some popular questions — such as what happens to current pistols which are build to accomodate 10-bullet magazines.

    But I don’t claim to be a weapons expert, so I’d be interested in hearing from readers about any peculiarities or inconsistencies  based on their reading of this law, particularly the section 37(22) on “assault weapon” (starting at pg. 17) and section 23 on “Large capacity ammunition feeding device” (starting at pg. 20).

    NY Gun Law Text by Legal Insurrection

    Update:  Is there a “David Gregory Clause” in the New York Gun Law?


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    TomHynes | January 17, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    The statute effectively eliminated private party sales. It sets a maximum fee of $10 for an FFL (gun dealer) to do all the paperwork, but they don’t have to do them. Paperwork takes at least an hour, it takes a skilled employee, and if a mistake is made the FFL risks losing his license. Only an idiot would do that voluntarily for $10. In California, the fee is $20, FFLs are required by law to do it for $20, and they really don’t like to do it.

    What if you passed a law saying nobody could charge more than $10 for an abortion?

    For extra credit, compare and contrast Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, which limited attorney fees to $10 in veterans benefits cases.

    rboatright | January 21, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    There’s certainly a few things that jump out…

    I note that page 8 lines 36-38 do not allow transfers between siblings. I guess you could transfer to a parent and then back down to the other child, but if there’s no living parent, there’s no option to gift your brother or sister.

    As others have pointed out, the transfer rules require that all non-immediate-family transfers be mediated by an FFL, and the federal FFL rules prevent anonymous transfers, so “no questions asked” gun buyback programs are prohibited under the law.

    As reported by others, Page 10 – section 9.46 calls on Physicians, Psychologists, RN’s and LCSW’s to report to the director of community services when they think there’s a rick of harm to self-or-others. Then, that person (the director or his designee) can forward to criminal justice services the name and id of the person. — I have some problems with this, since a single professional, with no second opinion can strip your gun rights, and the director that the LCSW reports to is under no requirement to conduct their own investigation in any way.

    The hard stuff of course, begins on page 17, section 37.

    The definition of an “assault weapon” is as we all know, entirely cosmetic. The exact same gun with no pistol grip and a fixed wooden stock somehow magically isn’t an assault weapon. On the other hand, if I take a gun, and drop it into an adjustable stock with a pistol grip, it magically turned into an assault weapon. This is just weird.

    Another thing that’s weird is, apparently only detachable magazines are limited as to rounds, unless the weapon is a shotgun in which case there’s a five-round-limit.

    On page 19, starting at line 54, paragraph vi, am I reading this correctly that semi-auto rifles with external magazines with capacities over 10 rounds, but which were made prior to January 1963 are exempt from being called assault weapons?

    So, a C&R eligible 13 round CZ-82 or Browning Hi Power is legit????

    I note that on page 20, lines 31 and 32 says “or_a
    32 feeding_device_that_is_a_curio_or_relic” — so unless I mis-read this the magazines for the CZ-82 or a 13 round Browning Hi Power from pre-1962 are legit as well. This seems to be a somewhat giant loophole.

    Does the term “current date” continue to move forward, or is “current date” the date of passage of the bill? If it moves forward, then there are “rather a lot” of interesting hi-cap weapons that were produced in the early 1960’s…..

    Is page 24, section 265.36 in contradiction to the section above since it doesn’t mention those exceptions? Which rules?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend