I’m sure they’ll turn them right in
As a result, at least one Federal Firearms Licensee has refused to allow police officers who have purchased guns to have the magazines that come with them, because those factory standard magazines hold more than seven rounds. The FFL fears selling the guns he has with the magazines they came with would be breaking the law, even when the purchasers are cops, because there are no clear provisions in the bill allowing a police exception to the ban.
Hmm. Is there an exemption built in for the dealer to have them?
January 17th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
As the way it should be. No exemption for “special” classes of citizens.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:34 pm
That is a heart warming story.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:48 pm
f*&# ’em. If 7 is enough for me, 7 is enough for thee
January 17th, 2013 at 2:50 pm
The dealer has already purchased them I think, I guess he can’t purchase anymore guns that come with >7 magazines, there is definitely some need for clarification.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
I’m sure the Distributer can take them back if the Dealer wants to send them. It’s not like there’s a Glut of Magazines on the Market. But he better do it now before he’s Arrested for “Arms Smuggling.”
January 17th, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Right aerodawg !!
So he’s going by the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” applying the law equally to everyone. Someone should ask our alleged “Constitutional law expert” Prez about that. I guess he’s say such a question was “repugnant”
January 17th, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Previous law, not sure if the new one invalidates this section:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/P/265/265.20
Says in there only ones exempt:
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11,
265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
1. Possession of any of the weapons, instruments, appliances or
substances specified in sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05
and 270.05 by the following:
(a) Persons in the military service of the state of New York when duly
authorized by regulations issued by the adjutant general to possess the
same.
(b) Police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-four of section
1.20 of the criminal procedure law.
(c) Peace officers as defined by section 2.10 of the criminal
procedure law.
(d) Persons in the military or other service of the United States, in
pursuit of official duty or when duly authorized by federal law,
regulation or order to possess the same.
January 17th, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Because they’re licensed by the Federal Government to legally sell items, I would imagine that they can legally possess magazines that violate state laws, because federal law would trump local laws. Just a guess
January 17th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
For years there was a provision in Florida law RE: “buy with CWP, it’s cash and carry; no CWP, it’s a 3-day wait.” There was, for several years, no exclusion for LEOs. I know several cops who became upset when told they would have to come back in 3 days for their gun.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:03 pm
Some animals are more equal than other animals.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:07 pm
JD Rush, the magazine ban is in 265.36-37. The exceptions don’t cover that section, because Cuomo is an incompetent fool.
265.20 was modified as well, but only to ADD another paragraph. The exemptions weren’t extended to the new sections.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
(265.37 has similar language for current make magazines.)
January 17th, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Thanks Phelps, they really didn’t read this law and threw it all in. Not that they don’t have the votes to ram an amendment through. Maybe this is on purpose- any cop that refuses to enforce the law will be politely arrested for his gun magazines….. too much tinfoil?
January 17th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
I hoping to see dealers and manufacturers start taking a stand ala Barrett when it comes to sales and service for LEO and .gov requests. And maybe start packing up their equipment and moving to friendlier states that would support their success instead of trying to end it.
Utah, Texas & Idaho come to mind pretty quickly.
January 17th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
FFL’s are required to follow all state and local laws. The dealers will have the same year as everyone else to divest themselves of their banned magazines.
January 17th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
I was at a NY FFL last night. First off, he’s a great guy. A long-serving veteran cop, with ZERO “I’m a cop and you’re not attitude.” Great prices on both guns and ammo…
So I go to his shop and was told he can’t sell ammo until he gets some sort of “reauthorization” from NYS. The State Police hotline he called for details simply has a recording stating that, “no information is available at this time.”
As for firearms, he was sending his cop customers home with magless pistols. His attitude was, “hey, this sucks for all of us, I have to store the mags for you until something changes.”
January 17th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Doesn’t anyone recall the federal (so ruled by the supreme Court) prohibition against ex-post-facto laws?
Or is this another of “those laws” that don’t matter?
Do we get to pick & choose which laws do matter?
January 17th, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Massachussetts just went even more “full retard.” 1 year in jail for bringing a NERF gun to a school. And knowing that someone has violated one of Mass’ silly new laws, but not reporting it? That’s a jailin’, too…
January 17th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
CarlS, Ex Post Facto is now as full of holes as the Commerce Clause. Well, almost…
TS
January 18th, 2013 at 12:49 am
How about all those Henry rifles built in Brooklyn?
January 18th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Banning something that was previously legal IS NOT ex post facto.
Ex post facto would be , “Since we passed a law THIS year that makes possession of these magazines illegal. By teh way, you’re under arrest for possessing them last year, before we changed the law.”