Tuesday, January 15, 2013

- Andrew Cuomo's New Assault Weapons

I thought it might be a useful exercise to put up a few photos of what the new New York gun restriction refers to when it says "Assault Weapon". Under the new law, it's a firearm that can take a magazine that will hold more than 7 rounds. This would be a VERY incomplete list:

Springfield XD(m) Any Caliber

Springfield XD: Any Caliber

Smith And Wesson M&P: any Caliber

Beretta 90 Series: any Caliber

Beretta PX4: Any Caliber

Sig Sauer P229: any Caliber

Glock - Any Full Sized Model: Any Caliber

Magnum Research "Target": any Caliber

Walther PK380

Sig Sauer P250

Ruger P Series: Any Caliber

Ruger SR Series: Any Caliber

FNS Pistol: Any Model, Any Caliber

Taurus Pistol: Any Full Sized Model, Any Caliber

Sig Sauer Target: 9mm

Mossberg 702 Plinkster: 22 cal.

Henry Survival rifle: 22 cal

Ruger 10/22 Rimfire: 22 cal

Marlin .22 Rimfire

If you already own one of the firearms listed above or one which is a different model but functions essentially the same way, then it must be modified and registered with the state or you will be committing a felony. Also, it will be illegal for you to sell it.

But at least all these "dangerous "assault weapons" will be off the streets - unless you're a criminal of course, then you have an automatic exemption.

Call yourselves thankful that they aren't confiscating them.


ikaika said...

"We're not taking away or limiting your ability to hunt or target shoot or even defend your home..."

When a government imposes a "limit" on the capacity of a firearm, they are limiting the ability to do all the above.

"how many rounds does it take to _____?" Then you must be a bad shot!" so says the smug liberal.

Imagine the situaiton where you have to say - "ok, the cops will be here in 20 minutes, but there are three armed men trying to enter my home.... good thing I have 7 shots before I have to reload."

Matt H said...

The way it's worded, "can accept a magazine capable of holding more than 7 rounds" means that almost anything would fall under the ban, even with special mags that only accept 7. How do you prevent someone from sticking a bigger mag in there?

Tom said...

I was explaining this to the MRS this morning. My understanding is that they leave the language vague and muddy because they can then use prosecutorial discretion to implement something just short of an all out ban. If you know that it's likely that you'll be charged and have to pay the cost of defending yourself, you'll probably self regulate. But if they spell it out clearly in the law, then the NRA will have a lawsuit up their butts in a heartbeat.

That's why NJ's concealed carry ban is so vague, but no one ever seems to get a carry permit.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

At this rate, soon NY residents will have to use a bow & arrow to defend themselves Punisher style.

ikaika said...

They won't need to defend themselves. The criminals will magically dissappear.
Everyone will hold-hands and gardens will be planted where shooting ranges once flourished.

Tom said...

And don't you believe for a second that bow and arrow regulation isn't right around the corner.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

Tom: The UK has gone as far as "Stab Proof" knives


frithguild said...

That Springfield XD(m) is one attractive looking weapon!

Bzod said...

Given the recent pres. election results, I don't share the confidence that Cuomo nuked his national viability with this gun-grab, nor do I think CChristie doesn't have it in him to "see the light" should AC get a popularity bump. Let's remember: BO won in an electoral landslide with horrible unemployment, massive debt, a freedom-stealing healthcare "accomplishment" and a measurable degradation in the US' standing globally. Yes, the 2A is a pillar of our country, but if the people have willingly let other pillars fall so easily, I don't see how rolling over for guns (even with NRA influence) isn't too far behind.

Tom said...

Cuomo rushed it through for a reason. He knew it had to be lightning fast or it would be fought tooth and nail. Tomorrow and over the next few weeks, there will be a bunch of NY gun owners who wake up and say "They banned What?!"

I wonder how much it cost Bloomberg.

Bzod said...

The toothless rubes upstate in NY, yes, but our betters on the UES (and their West Coast counterparts) who represent big donor $$$ (not to mention the MSM, which will frame it as heroically as possible) will be thrilled.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

Just heard Cuomo's speech.. he stated the new law now requires background checks be done for private sales / transfers. How on earth will that be enforced?

Anonymous said...

quick question: do you think there should be any limit on what kind of arms a person can bear? if as i've heard the 2nd amendment's drafters intended it to permit the use of military-style weapons (which were certainly widespread at the time of its passage), shouldn't a modern application of it allow citizens to buy any type of military aircraft, scud missiles, etc--that is, whichever tool of the modern military they want and can afford?

Anonymous said...

or am i just ignorant, and you can in fact fly fully loaded f16s as freely as you can fly a cessna...?

ikaika said...

if you have the cash, the licensing and the training - buy your F16.2
If John Travolta can own and pilot a 747 all the while believing that only he and tom Cruise can save the world from Xenu, then by all means - any sane person should be able to purchase whatever they want.

The issue at the core is : do the cosmetic features of a firearm make it more lethal? Even if you have a greater capacity for ammunition, semi automatic is not a machine gun and Bob Munden can shoot a single-action revolver faster than anyone with a semi auto rifle.

Military style weapons by definition is a penumbra.

The Lee Enfield jungle carbine is a military style weapon as is the Remington 700 bolt action rifle.
The benelli m1 is a military style weapon, but it is nothing more than a semi auto shotgun.

Thumbhole grips, folding stocks, flash hiders and bayonet lugs do nothing to enhance the lethality of a particular firearm.
It is no different than comparing a kitchen knife to a survival knife.

I'm curious to know whether more homicides and violent assaults with knife were committed with a kitchen knife.

I did work on two murder cases in NJ where both killers used kitchen knives.

Is that the legacy of Julia Child?

Anonymous said...

I understand the fact that there are a lot of features on arms that the gun control people say make weapons more lethal or 'assault' weapons or whatever but which are merely cosmetic. And that many really they don't necessarily contribute to the weapons' lethality at all (or not as much, say, as the wielder's skill contributes--i.e. if they're really after lethality mightn't they ban target practice, eyeglasses etc.?) And that other factors influence people's decisions and ability to commit violent acts.

But this is all a little beside the point I'm wondering about. As far as attributes go, there's no doubt some make a weapon more potentially lethal than others.

Are there any weapons whose lethality would justify limiting or disallowing the legal possession of them by people or the public--or regulating possession more strictly than less lethal ones.

I've read you can legally own hand grenades, machine guns, anti-tank guns, etc in some places, and perhaps even surface-to-air missiles. What about nuclear weaponry, fully equipped aircraft carriers and submarines with torpedoes? Or anything else you can think of.

Is there a theoretical or actual limit you think would be (or is) justifiable and on what rationale?

I think you may be onto something with Julia Child...

Tom said...

If you want to be a constitutional purist then there is a perfectly valid argument for ... no.... no limitations under the law. That doesn't mean they couldn't be imposed by the market.

Charge a trillion dollars for a nuclear weapon, only allow them to be stored in a US protected facility in New Mexico (the full cost of which is born by the owner of the weapon), and only allow it to be set off in an approved testing range when all the safety requirements and insurance provisions have been met. Then see how many get distributed.

But all that is nonsense. No one is seriously talking about owning an aircraft carrier.

As it stands now, the law abiding citizens of NY are less well armed than the criminals set on robbing them. Cuomo has made illegal, the most common class of firearm in the country, the standard magazine, full sized semi-auto pistol.

By any reasonable estimation it is an infringement on the rights of free citizens, and will do nothing to prevent crime or mass murder. In fact it will only make it more likely.

Mark said...

I'm perfectly in agreement on the perniciousness of the NY law and others like it. Of course the proposed laws won't do any good to stop violence or murder. I also understand that markets and regulations on externalities (like nuclear fallout) can disincentivise the building of weapons, cheap though "dirty bombs" could be to make.

So far we haven't encountered this problem, thankfully (let alone the aircraft carriers). So usually when i get in arguments on gun control with friends of mine, I say more or less exactly what you've written. Though I might sometimes add that given the unlikelihood and infrequency (or nonexistence) of such weapons acquisitions, I would rather live with the risk of them than curtail the rights of everybody. Why make the 'best' (just a fantasy, really) the enemy of the good? I'm still unsure this stands up strongly as it should for arms keeping-and-bearing rights in principle.

But if the main object is just to be better armed than criminals, there's all manner of regulations you could support while being fully consistent with this aim--and none of which you seem to support.

I guess in principle I'd just prefer the risk of a right even to highly potent weapons (a risk which is in general rather small, considering the size of the population and all) to the risk posed everybody by universal disarmament. I would trade the illusory security of the latter for the acknowledged risk and real security of the former.

Would that sound feasible to a gun control zealot?

Mark said...

i just noticed the slovenly inexactitude of "more or less exactly"...