Jump to content

SAFE Act Mag Limit

gfdeputy2
 Share

Recommended Posts

gfdeputy2 Newbie

gfdeputy2

Posted
Posted

don't know if this was posted already or not

 

March 28, 2014

safeactno.jpg

On March 26th the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) announced that New York State Police had decided not to enforce “a capricious, ill-conceived and unconstitutional portion of the NY SAFE act”–the seven round magazine limit.

According to Guns.com, the decision follows a federal judge’s ruling in December which ruled the seven-round magazine limitation was “‘tenuous, straitened, and unsupported,’ and therefore unconstitutional.”

This puts New York State Police in line with the “sensible path taken by the New York Sheriffs’ Association and many local law enforcement agencies in not enforcing” the magazine capacity limit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Experienced

Doc

Posted
Posted

I can only hope it's true. I haven't seen any official announcements yet.

I haven't either, and I find it surprising that Cuomo's police force would be going against his wishes. After all he is their boss ....right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjb4900 Newbie

jjb4900

Posted
Posted

Hopefully they reinstate selling them. They would need to repeal parts of the safe act and I don't see that happening anytime soon unless we have a huge turnout in November Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think they ever banned selling 10 round mags.....just that you couldn't load more than 7 into them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpstateNomad90 Newbie

UpstateNomad90

Posted
Posted (edited)

Last week at the range I had a trooper show up out of no where and he was "just seeing" what we were up to. I saw his car pulling in so I dumped all my mags from 10 rounds in them before he got to me. At that point someone asked if we can have more than 7 he said load 10, there is too much confusion and we wont be harassing people over how many rounds they have up to 10. Then he looked over my Saiga to see if it was an evil weapon, then walked away. Never even asked to see my permit for my pistol as my X.D-40 was sitting right next to me.

Edited by UpstateNomad90
Link to comment
Share on other sites
philoshop Newbie

philoshop

Posted
Posted

I don't think they ever banned selling 10 round mags.....just that you couldn't load more than 7 into them.

 

Actually they tried to.

This was a big part of the sticking point which led to the current 'easement' of the SAFE act along those lines.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how to direct you precisely to whatever @#blahblah^$&, subsection #blah^&%blah #^^3, paragraph %*&^....but I have a paper copy of the SAFE act bill in front of me and it basically reads that a magazine ( or clip or feeding device...) which is capable of holding more than 7 rounds, and is obtained after the effective date of that chapter of the SAFE act, is illegal. Further translation; they tried to make it illegal to buy mags that would hold more than 7 rounds. Very few if any firearms manufacturers or independent aftermarket manufacturers even offer 7 rnd mags for semi-auto firearms. I know from my own research conducted in the fall of 2012 that such magazines are unavailable for any of my firearms. One of the reasons that factory 10 round 10/22 mags went from $15 to upwards of $50 for a while.

I have to give credit to the minds that were behind the crafting of the SAFE act. Combine the ammunition background stuff which will make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a lot of people to have anything to shoot, with the magazine limitations that were proposed, and you you have a defacto law against the possession of just about any semi-automatic firearm including most handguns. At least until somebody starts making 'low-capacity' mags which is not likely in today's marketplace.

Ingenious and insidious at the same time. And this is only at the State level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjb4900 Newbie

jjb4900

Posted
Posted (edited)

Actually they tried to.

This was a big part of the sticking point which led to the current 'easement' of the SAFE act along those lines.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how to direct you precisely to whatever @#blahblah^$&, subsection #blah^&%blah #^^3, paragraph %*&^....but I have a paper copy of the SAFE act bill in front of me and it basically reads that a magazine ( or clip or feeding device...) which is capable of holding more than 7 rounds, and is obtained after the effective date of that chapter of the SAFE act, is illegal. Further translation; they tried to make it illegal to buy mags that would hold more than 7 rounds. Very few if any firearms manufacturers or independent aftermarket manufacturers even offer 7 rnd mags for semi-auto firearms. I know from my own research conducted in the fall of 2012 that such magazines are unavailable for any of my firearms. One of the reasons that factory 10 round 10/22 mags went from $15 to upwards of $50 for a while.

I have to give credit to the minds that were behind the crafting of the SAFE act. Combine the ammunition background stuff which will make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a lot of people to have anything to shoot, with the magazine limitations that were proposed, and you you have a defacto law against the possession of just about any semi-automatic firearm including most handguns. At least until somebody starts making 'low-capacity' mags which is not likely in today's marketplace.

Ingenious and insidious at the same time. And this is only at the State level.

but, if I'm not mistaken (and I may be), that restriction was officially removed.....this latest statement is only saying they will not enforce it, it still is on the books as being law.

Edited by jjb4900
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjb4900 Newbie

jjb4900

Posted
Posted

saying they won't actively enforce it is a ways off from saying it can't be enforced if they decide to.........I would think that if someone carried out some type of gun related crime using multiple fully loaded 10 round magazines they may choose to do otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dbHunterNY Proficient

dbHunterNY

Posted
Posted

So if 7 rounds was unconstitutional why can we only have 10. It does not make sense. So it is 10 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber legal ?

 

come on.  those first two sentences are said with common sense.  that's not allowed here in NY.  also yes 10 in the mag and 1 in the chamber is legal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
philoshop Newbie

philoshop

Posted
Posted

The law said originally that if you had a magazine capable of holding no more than 10 rounds, you could keep it if you registered it with the authorities (the state police) and you didn't put more than 7 rounds in it. The other option was to permanently render the magazine incapable of holding more than 7 rounds.....

 

Sales of new magazines capable of holding more than 7 rounds, including guns that come from the factory with magazines capable of holding more than 7 rounds would be illegal.This would basically include all but the smallest 'pocket' handguns.

 

A federal judge in Buffalo (senior moment here, can't think of his name) deemed the 7 round limit 'arbitrary' and some law enforcement agencies across the state have agreed with that ruling. If the State Police get on board with the judge's ruling it's a huge step for gun-rights advocates.

 

Be nice to see that happen in an official statement.

 

And the round in the chamber has never been part of the equation. It's about the magazine capacities and the guns that some people think look scary and dangerous. Fear-mongering and capitalizing on isolated incidences are the tools used to further an agenda. The people who wrote the SAFE act don't know anything about guns or the people who own them and couldn't care less about anything but their political careers. Unfortunately they're better organized than we are. Or maybe not. We'll see.

End of rant.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zem18 Apprentice

Zem18

Posted
Posted

The law said originally that if you had a magazine capable of holding no more than 10 rounds, you could keep it if you registered it with the authorities (the state police) and you didn't put more than 7 rounds in it. The other option was to permanently render the magazine incapable of holding more than 7 rounds.....

Sales of new magazines capable of holding more than 7 rounds, including guns that come from the factory with magazines capable of holding more than 7 rounds would be illegal.This would basically include all but the smallest pocket pistol.

Ok so I am going to be looking at buying a pistol for the first time. I have looked on gun broker and all of the postings state to be sure of the laws in your state before bidding or purchasing. If I bid on a new gun that comes with two 10 round clips and have it shipped to an FFL in my area, would this be legal?

I also read that you could buy a pistol with a 10 plus round clip and once it reaches a NY FFL, they will trade out clips for a 10 round or less. I have read so many conflicting threads on other sites that I am so unsure. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HectorBuckBuster Newbie

HectorBuckBuster

Posted
Posted

Zemmer18, yes 10 round mag's are legal in NY now. I don't think you can ship a pistol with more then a 10 round magazine to NY unless you are LEO. Remember we are just average citizens as NY has created a special class of citizens that can own large cap mag's and guns with evil looking black guns with features.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...