Seeing as how its new york. I'm not the least but surprised. The land where 30 round magazines are banned because you can kill too many people with them. Because its not like you can kill the same amount of people with 3 10 round magazines . That and pre ban magazines are still legal, and you can replace every part of it, and still have it be legal which makes the law useless. Whats to stop a criminal from using a pre ban magazine? Although, at least NY isn't CA
Theory is reloading takes time.
not when your doing a tactical reload. Changing when theres still one in the chamber
still slower than not having to change mags
The penalty should have a minimum fine included with an 'and/or' for minimum sentence to allow for such cases. I'd say $20,000 would get the point across.
There is no excuse not to know the gun laws in NYC. First google result was quite clear on the matter.
FYI, these strict laws are for handguns. Riffles and shotguns still require a license and must be stored at home, and transported in a car or a case, but they can be owned by just about anybody in NYC without a criminal history. Not sure what the penalty is for discharging one on a home invader. Can't be worse than death.
Still doesn't stop a criminal from using an easily obtained pre ban mag.Theory is reloading takes time.
Still doesn't stop a criminal from using an easily obtained pre ban mag.
like the assault rifle laws. Security on cash trucks and such can only use semi automatic weapons or the public assault rifle versions where the automatic pin has been removed. So easy for the criminal element to pull a heist with stolen assault rifles these days
I'll never understand
He clearly violated the law and is thus a scumsucking good for nothing criminal waste who deserves to rot in jail.
still slower than not having to change mags
They would be right in terms of the current law, but when laws are wrong or unjust, people shouldn't just shrug their shoulders and say dura lex sed lex, but get it changed.
The "law" is nothing more than the latest version of a work eternally in progress as devised by the elected representatives of the people. It is not infallible and can in fact result in injustices. Which matters very little to people who emphasize the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
And technically, you're suggesting that they do wrong in the letter of the law by dropping charges, because, well, it IS the law, isn't it? That's why bad laws simply shouldn't be left to stand, or at least, bad aspects of the law, such as minimum sentencing requirements. One day a citizen who should have the charges dropped might fall on the desk of an ambitious prosecutor who wants to add to his conviction count. Another day they fall on the desk of someone with common sense, and where's the justice in that?
But WHO determines that it's a bad law? That should be left up to the citizens of the individual state...not to people in other states.
IMO, these kinds of laws should be voted on by the populace, NOT decided by our elected officials. Allowing the elected representatives to decide SOME laws is fine...rather than clog the election system for every little fucking thing...but important laws such as gun laws, some drug laws, rent control laws, major changes to criminal law, (three strikes, etc.) those should be left to the citizenry to decide...NOT the elected officials who, all too often, are in the pocket of one special interest group or another.
Pure democracy doesn't work...the rights of the many trample the rights of the few...and if the citizenry was required to vote on each and every new law, election day would have to be an entire month long. Having a representative democracy, a constitutional republic, such as we have here works for MOST things...but not everything.
Oh shits! Do the criminal elements just put the automatic pin back in there for their heists?!
Yep. Colin Ferguson, the LIRR shooter, was stopped when he went to reload.
No. They use stolen fire arms like AK 47s and ones that stolen from the army and police forces.
He did. They jumped on him when he went to reload.So I take it he had no extra mags?
Actually, I believe there is no legal requirement forcing states to recognize another's driver's license. All of the states do so anyway due to reciprocity; if California didn't recognize Oregon then Oregon would stop recognizing California and the residents would get mad. In fact, in some respects certain states already don't recognize other's licenses: when I moved to NV I was told that my CA DL was not deemed a valid form of picture ID since CA's requirement to issue a license was less stringent than NV's, in regards to proving one's identity.
There needs to be a nationwide open carry law.
Not really, if there are guns everywhere, you wouldn't get nervous about it. You'd just get used to their presence.truth. IL DL's are reguarded as pretty worthless in most states because we require a picture ID and a piece of MAIL with your name on it address to an IL address......
no thanks. too many idiots get nervous when they see open carry, Concealed carry FTW