What is the NY legal magazine limit for a semi auto rifle now?

[Mr VJP]

A friend out of state wants to bring his Ruger Mini-14 into NY to shoot with friends and is asking if he can only bring his 5 round mags with him.  He has 10 round mags for it he wants to test and as far as I can tell they are legal in NY.  He has heard about the 7 round limit in the law, but I told him I think that was shot down in court.

 

Anyway, since the law is very hard to understand, what is a semi auto rifle mag limit now?

 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Mr VJP

[jjb4900]

The SAFE Act was recently amended. The amendments include the following changes to the law:

 

 

• Suspending the requirement that only magazines that can contain 7 rounds or less can be purchased. Going forward, magazines can be purchased that can contain up to 10 rounds. Magazines may only contain up to 7 rounds regardless of their capacity, unless you are at an incorporated firing range or competition, in which case you may load your magazine to its full capacity.
• Clarifying that active law enforcement continues to be exempt from the prohibitions on the possession of high capacity magazines, assault weapons, and magazines containing more than 7 rounds, as well as the law prohibiting weapons on school grounds.
• Ensuring that local safe storage laws are not preempted by the SAFE Act.

 

http://programs.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/gun-reform#quicklinks

[Culvercreek hunt club]

A friend out of state wants to bring his Ruger Mini-14 into NY to shoot with friends and is asking if he can only bring his 5 round mags with him.  He has 10 round mags for it he wants to test and as far as I can tell they are legal in NY.  He has heard about the 7 round limit in the law, but I told him I think that was shot down in court.

 

Anyway, since the law is very hard to understand, what is a semi auto rifle mag limit now?

The other issue is does it meet the definition of an AW from the Safe Act. By now they should have all been registered in NY. (yeah, yeah, I know). Depending on how it is tricked out the Mag may not be his only concern.

[Mr VJP]

It's all factory stock, so there are no issues other than magazines.

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

It's all factory stock, so there are no issues other than magazines.

Good, the wooden furniture looks the best in my book. Muzzle brake? lug?

[ants]

10 rounders are fine you just can't load them all the way up with 10, if you plan to use that firearm to protect yourself or family with . That wouldn't be fair to the criminal on the other side of the door. You can only load 7 just like the criminal will.  LOL!!!

 

Cuomo ROCKS!!!

Edited February 2, 2015 by ants

[jrm]

The SAFE Act was recently amended. The amendments include the following changes to the law:

 

 

 

i'm really not trying to be a smart-alec. Its just that the NYSP are really pushing things a bit far by pre-empting the legislature and courts with their own wording and interpretations.

 

The safe act did the following:

Banned all magazines with >10 round capacity, including those previously grandfathered.

Grandfathered in 10 rd mags that were possessed at the time the law took effect.

Allowed for loading a max of 7 rds in a grandfathered 10 rd mag.

Ten rounds can be loaded under specific circumstances (e.g. at a range)

 

How that applies to items brought in from out of state, I don't know. How anyone can prove that a 10rd mag was/was not owned prior to 2013 I don't know. 

 

The Skretny decision ruled against the 7rd limit. My understanding is that NY falls under two different courts and due to that the Stretny decision only applies to part of the state. From a legal standpoint, the 7rd limit is still valid outside that jurisdiction. I think it technically still applies in the rest of the state, but most would agree that the Stretny decision makes it a non-issue. Then there's the overzealous cop/DA who could ruin your day.

 

On top of this, Cuomo has supposedly said the NYSP would not enforce the 7rd rule.n (I haven't heard him say it myself).

 

The LAW has not been amended by the legislature. although you could technically call the court ruling an amendment or sorts. What has been amended is the NYSP guide to enforcing this provision.

 

I am not picking on jjb4900. What was posted is directly from the NYS website.

 

I feel this distinction is very important.

 

The NYSP do NOT have the authority to write or amend laws. Neither does the governor. Only the legislature can do that, and the the change must be signed into law by the governor. Barring that, a court ruling (such as Skretny) can alter the interpretation or application of the law - or even strike it down..

 

The NYSP has been making up their own BS on safe since day 1. They can interpret, stretch or add to the law all they want - it doesn't make it fact. Yes - in practice they can arrest you for anything they want. That doesn't make it legal, not does it mean it will hold up in court.

 

Remember - the NYSP "guide" can change at any time. Cuomo wants to "crack down" or someone in Albany gets a cross hair up their backend and they could totally re-define what that guide says -  without approval from the other branches of government.  Just because some idiots in Albany decide "this is the law" doesn't make it the law.

 

We need REAL reform (or repeal) of the safe act. The 7rd limit - along with plenty of other sections - need to go. Cuomo deciding to "not enforce" certain sections isn't good enough. All the "has been amended" hype is just to get people to shut up. "See - we fixed the law. Nothing to worry about!" It hasn't been fixed and we need to keep the pressure up.

 

 

Answer to the original question - the limit is whatever they decide it to be. Either way, the empty 10rd mag should be fine under the law (with or without Skretny's ruling). To be extra sure, only load with 10 rds when at the range and you are 100% compliant with the text of the law.

 

IANAL - this is NOT legal advice.

[Mr VJP]

Good, the wooden furniture looks the best in my book. Muzzle brake? lug?

 

Neither of those

[Qthehunter]

When they refer to "active" law enforcement I am assuming that means "on duty"?

 

I have a friend in the NYPD that swears its legal for him to have an assault rifle with all the bells and whistles as well as a 20 rd clip.  I told him no, it's illegal but he swears it's not.

 

It's a travesty if off duty law enforcement are allowed to "break" the rules.  Are they allowed to shoot cocaine and smoke marijuana too?

Edited February 3, 2015 by Qthehunter

[Huntscreek]

Why Come from a Free State to NY and be ruled have your friends come to you. Sorry had to say it, The Answer is 7.  

Edited February 3, 2015 by Huntscreek

[Culvercreek hunt club]

When they refer to "active" law enforcement I am assuming that means "on duty"?

 

I have a friend in the NYPD that swears its legal for him to have an assault rifle with all the bells and whistles as well as a 20 rd clip.  I told him no, it's illegal but he swears it's not.

 

It's a travesty if off duty law enforcement are allowed to "break" the rules.  Are they allowed to shoot cocaine and smoke marijuana too?

It is legal. "active" means currently employed. They lose the exemption if their employment is terminated, they quit or retire.

[jjb4900]

It's a travesty if off duty law enforcement are allowed to "break" the rules.  Are they allowed to shoot cocaine and smoke marijuana too?

did you ask him if he's allowed?

[jjb4900]

Why Come from a Free State to NY and be ruled have your friends come to you. Sorry had to say it, The Answer is 7.  

what??

[Huntscreek]

A friend out of state wants to bring his Ruger Mini-14 into NY to shoot with friends and is asking if he can only bring his 5 round mags with him.  He has 10 round mags for it he wants to test and as far as I can tell they are legal in NY.  He has heard about the 7 round limit in the law, but I told him I think that was shot down in court.

 

Anyway, since the law is very hard to understand, what is a semi auto rifle mag limit now?

My answer was to this OP, why come to a Non free state invite your friends to feel Freedom. No counting ammo, none of this is my gun ok confusion BS. Safe Act the most Unconstitutional Law allowed to Pass by a corrupt bunch of Politian's in the dead of night, which only effects us honest NYS citizen's. Freedom outside of this state does exists. I hope I cleared that up, not being a Smart a$$ just giving an honest assessment of the current situation in NYS.

[Ford]

When they refer to "active" law enforcement I am assuming that means "on duty"?

 

I have a friend in the NYPD that swears its legal for him to have an assault rifle with all the bells and whistles as well as a 20 rd clip.  I told him no, it's illegal but he swears it's not.

 

It's a travesty if off duty law enforcement are allowed to "break" the rules.  Are they allowed to shoot cocaine and smoke marijuana too?

 

 

Cops are always "on duty."

 

So you can relax.

 

There is no "breaking of rules." Active LEO's are exempt for multiple reasons. One such example would be taking home their "Assault Rifle," like many must. Most are encouraged to practice as well.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Ford

[Ford]

As the Unsafe act stands now, 10 round magazines are good to go.

[Mr VJP]

Some people in other states, that are pretty free with their firearms laws, do not have many place where their citizens can shoot them.  Upstate NY has lots of places to shoot but the laws are horrible.  That's why we will still see people from other states wanting to shoot their rifles in NY state.

 

I have no problem with police being able to own semi auto black guns and taking them home, as long as they have a big problem with me not being able to do the same.

 

[Huntscreek]

^^^^I don't agree with 2 different Classes of people^^^^

Why should there be an Exempt for Law Enforcement, are there lives

more important, are their families more important. I know 1 2nd Amendment was for all of us and not for Andy Cuomo to decide who is exempt.I have the upmost respect for LEO's and the dangerous Job they do, not bashing. lets be Honest does the above post seem right to you if it does than read up and think about it, not except it. It's like saying only certain people are Free to speak, sounds shitty and unfair it is. Or is it Unconstitutional????????

Edited February 4, 2015 by Huntscreek

[Ford]

^^^^I don't agree with 2 different Classes of people^^^^

Why should there be an Exempt for Law Enforcement, are there lives

more important, are their families more important. I think 1 2nd Amendment was for all of us and not for Andy Cuomo to decide who is exempt.I have the upmost respect for LEO's and the dangerous Job they do, not bashing. lets be Honest does the above post seem right to you if it does than read up and think about it, not except it. It like saying only 1 class of people could speak, sounds shitty and unfair it is. Or is it Unconstitutional????????

 

I already explained it so I don't know what to tell you.

 

Yes, the UNsafe Act sucks. Is the Unsafe Act unconstitutional? I believe so.

 

LEO's must still do their job regardless of Unsafe.

[Mr VJP]

I also have a big problem with the death penalty for someone killing an LEO, but not for killing me or one of my family members.

 

As long as LEO's also have a problem with that, and are working to change it, I have no problem with those LEO's either.

 

[jjb4900]

I also have a big problem with the death penalty for someone killing an LEO, but not for killing me or one of my family members.

 

As long as LEO's also have a problem with that, and are working to change it, I have no problem with those LEO's either.

I bet LEO's, more than the general population wish there were more murderer's eliminated by putting the Death Penalty to good use on a regular basis........regardless of who the victim was.

[Mr VJP]

I believe that is true, but it leaves me wondering why they only lobbied for it's use when an LEO is killed.  The FOP, PBA and police unions never lobbied for it's general return for all murderers.  I know the cost to taxpayers is very high when the state seeks to use it, but I guess the state doesn't think regular people are worth the expense.

 

 

[Ford]

I also have a big problem with the death penalty for someone killing an LEO, but not for killing me or one of my family members.

 

As long as LEO's also have a problem with that, and are working to change it, I have no problem with those LEO's either.

 

 

Well, I am a proponent of the death penalty for egregious murders against anybody. 

 

I would prefer if there is a more of a penalty, or more righty stated, more focus on perps that kill LEO's. 

 

Why? Because when someone murders an LEO, they are aimed at killing society in general. The Police represent the enforcement side of what? Of the people. All people.  (there are bad in every walk of life, so not referring to them.) 

[Mr VJP]

Well, I am a proponent of the death penalty for egregious murders against anybody. 

 

I would prefer if there is a more of a penalty, or more righty stated, more focus on perps that kill LEO's. 

 

Why? Because when someone murders an LEO, they are aimed at killing society in general. The Police represent the enforcement side of what? Of the people. All people.  (there are bad in every walk of life, so not referring to them.) 

 

That's the argument usually made, but it's flawed.  In reality, LEO's represent the state.  When the general public sees laws that punish crimes against the state and it's enforcement arm, but not against the general public, it begins to believe it lives in a police state.

 

I have the utmost respect for all LEO's and think today's level of prejudice against them from some citizens is disgusting.  However I don't think the law enforcement community does itself any favors when it starts worrying about itself more than the general public it is sworn to serve.

 

The LEO community would be much better off demanding the death penalty be used equally for murder in the interest of equal justice for all.

 

Besides, how many murderers are released from prison eventually and become a threat to all LEO's when they are?  It would have been better to execute the child killer, kidnapper, rapist and pusher for killing someone, than to spend millions of tax dollars on him, only to put polite society in danger again in the future.

 

If we are going to use the death penalty at all, we need to use it for all.

 

But, that's an altogether different subject from the SAFE Act oppressions.

[Ford]

That's the argument usually made, but it's flawed.  In reality, LEO's represent the state.  When the general public sees laws that punish crimes against the state and it's enforcement arm, but not against the general public, it begins to believe it lives in a police state.

 

I have the utmost respect for all LEO's and think today's level of prejudice against them from some citizens is disgusting.  However I don't think the law enforcement community does itself any favors when it starts worrying about itself more than the general public it is sworn to serve.

 

The LEO community would be much better off demanding the death penalty be used equally for murder in the interest of equal justice for all.

 

Besides, how many murderers are released from prison eventually and become a threat to all LEO's when they are?  It would have been better to execute the child killer, kidnapper, rapist and pusher for killing someone, than to spend millions of tax dollars on him, only to put polite society in danger again in the future.

 

If we are going to use the death penalty at all, we need to use it for all.

 

But, that's an altogether different subject from the SAFE Act oppressions.

 

 

I don't think its flawed at all. Everyone has their own opinion.

 

As far as LEO's representing the state? Well a state is made up of people. LEO"s are an arm of that.

 

I agree with harsher penalties, this state is a dismal failure  in that.