02 February 2009, 21:44
fla3006I'm sure there will be a nationwide attempt before long. And it will probably include all 50 calibers.
We can also expect attempts to ban all semiautos & magazines, handgun registration, gunowner registration, elimination of private sales of all firearms, possession limits on the number of guns and ammo, excessive taxation of guns & ammo, etc.
11 May 2009, 23:26
Collinsquote:
Originally posted by eurocentric:
Well the asembly passed the ban and now to the state senate for the final nail in the coffin. Should have gotten a second one when I had the chance. RIP USA
Read the bill... They are NOT grandfathered...
It doesn't matter How many you have, you won't have ANY after the ban
---For sale 13.75 acres upstate NY---
---WTB 50-100 acres on a lake that doesn't freeze---
One MORE THING... it says .50Cal. Nothing says BMG or further describes the weapon.
24 July 2009, 23:05
eurocentricFRANGIBLE Ammo, including Devastator and Armor Piercing. Here's the whole gory bill:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02881&sh=t2881
2009-2010 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
January 21, 2009
___________
Introduced by M. of A. KOON, JOHN, DESTITO, RAMOS, DINOWITZ, HOOPER,
EDDINGTON, ZEBROWSKI, PERRY, BOYLAND -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A.
BING, BRENNAN, COLTON, FARRELL, GOTTFRIED, HEASTIE, LAVINE, McENENY,
PERALTA, PHEFFER -- read once and referred to the Committee on Codes
AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to the possession of armor
piercing, frangible or devastator ammunition
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. Subdivision 18 of section 265.00 of the penal law, as added
2 by chapter 646 of the laws of 1986, is amended to read as follows:
3 18. "Armor piercing ammunition" means any ammunition [capable of being
4 used in pistols or revolvers] containing a projectile or projectile
5 core[, or a projectile or projectile core for use in such ammunition,
6 that is] constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other
7 substances) from one or a combination of any of the following: tungsten
8 alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, [or] uranium,
9 CERAMICS, OR POLYMER PLASTICS AND CAPABLE OF BEING USED IN PISTOLS AND
10 REVOLVERS.
11 S 2. Section 265.00 of the penal law is amended by adding two new
12 subdivisions 24 and 25 to read as follows:
13 24. "FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION" MEANS ANY AMMUNITION WITH A PROJECTILE OR
14 PROJECTILE CORE COMPOSED OF HYBRID MATERIALS, EITHER PRESSED TOGETHER AT
15 HIGH PRESSURE OR GLUED TOGETHER WITH ADHESIVES, WHICH IS CAPABLE OF
16 BEING USED IN PISTOLS OR REVOLVERS AND IS DESIGNED TO FRACTURE OR DISIN-
17 TEGRATE UPON IMPACT.
18 25. "DEVASTATOR AMMUNITION" MEANS ANY AMMUNITION WITH A PROJECTILE OR
19 PROJECTILE CORE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED IN PISTOLS OR REVOLVERS
20 AND DESIGNED TO EXPLODE OR DETONATE UPON IMPACT.
21 S 3. Subdivisions 7 and 8 of section 265.01 of the penal law, subdivi-
22 sion 7 as added by chapter 807 of the laws of 1981 and subdivision 8 as
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD02287-01-9
A. 2881 2
1 added by chapter 646 of the laws of 1986, are amended to read as
2 follows:
3 (7) He [knowingly] possesses [a bullet containing an explosive
4 substance designed to detonate upon impact] ANY DEVASTATOR AMMUNITION.
5 (8) He possesses any armor piercing ammunition [with intent to use the
6 same unlawfully against another] OR FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION.
7 S 4. Subdivision 8 of section 265.02 of the penal law, as amended by
8 chapter 764 of the laws of 2005, is amended and two new subdivisions 9
9 and 10 are added to read as follows:
10 (8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding
11 device[.]; OR
12 (9) SUCH PERSON KNOWINGLY POSSESSES ANY DEVASTATOR AMMUNITION WITH THE
13 INTENT TO USE THE SAME UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON OR HIS OR HER
14 PROPERTY; OR
15 (10) SUCH PERSON KNOWINGLY POSSESSES ANY ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION OR
16 FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION WITH INTENT TO USE THE SAME UNLAWFULLY AGAINST
17 ANOTHER.
18 S 5. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
19 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.
quote:
Originally posted by packrattusnongratus:
Sorry, but do you guys mean frangible or fragile ammo????? Packy
27 January 2010, 01:33
0X0quote:
I'm sure there will be a nationwide attempt before long. And it will probably include all 50 calibers.
This is why shooters need to support the NRA. "Keep and bear arms" means just that. The 50 cal. is an "arm"
When the Founders wrote the Constitution and guaranteed "freedom of speech, of the press" they didn't have WiFi and texting, but "free press / free speech" still applies.
50 cal. is an "arm." It's not vehicle borne, nor crew served. At less than 40 lbs, it's an arm you can "bear."
I remember when the Boy Scouts used to offer a merit badge in marksmanship and "Boy's Life" sold rifles.
09 February 2011, 01:46
KarlThis is a pretty good indication your anti's are winning. Not just the fact these things are trying to be pushed through.
But the reaction of gunowners.Replies along the lines of "Don't worry, we can still build a sub 50" or even more classic "Thank god my state doesn't do that"
Hiding and Divided you fall gents.
16 February 2011, 11:52
GSYour one step behind Kalifornia, but, we seem to be on a roll of defeating illegal laws.
Just stuffed 962,thanks to the Supreme Court of Kali, and, a judge in Fresno with cahones.
21 February 2011, 01:44
ranb40I wonder what the NY gun owners have done to stop this bill? I know from experience it takes direct action in the form of talking face to face with your legislators, attending legislative hearings and lots of phone calls and letters.
I pretty sure that bitching on internet forums never ever works. We get the laws we deserve because we elect those that represent us. Don't want to get involved? Then I guess they do not want freedom.
Ranb
03 March 2011, 08:43
duckboatranb40, You may willingly include yourself when you say "we" get the laws "we" deserve because "we" elect those that represent us. I am not so willing to lump myself and other voting conservatives into the same group.
As a California resident in one of the most liberal counties, I can tell you that I played no part in electing the most of people who represent me. In most of the elections in the last two decades, my vote has been for the losing candidate.
Being more engaged with my representative makes no difference, as hard core liberal politicians in my area don't change their stripes so easily. Anti-gun people in liberal districts in my area push for anti-gun policies regardless of what a pro-gun person says. This is a cold hard fact that no drum-banging can change.
Voting is the most effective way of getting involved in politics, unless one has the skill and money to run as a candidate. Your "guess" that pro-gun citizens who merely vote don't want freedom is incorrect and is a clear case of misplaced condescension. You may want to target your contempt more accurately.
