Judge Upholds Key Provisions Of N.Y. Gun-Control Law - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/31/258698350/judge-upholds-key-provisions-of-ny-gun-control-law"]NPR Story[/URL] [quote]A federal judge has largely upheld New York's tough gun control law passed in the weeks after the Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge William Skretny in Buffalo rejected arguments from opponents that its ban on large-capacity magazines and the sale of semi-automatic rifles infringed on Second Amendment rights. He ruled that the provisions were constitutional because the state has an "important governmental interest" in public safety in a suit brought by the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association. However, the judge struck down one restriction that would have made it illegal to put more than seven rounds in a 10-round magazine.[/quote] [U]TL;DR for lazy douches[/U] New York passed a feel good gun control bill, it restricted the scary looking guns and limited magazine sizes to 5, and made it it illegal to have 10 rounds in a 10 round magazine. The illegality of the 10 rounds in a 10 round magazine was thrown out the window but the 5 round limit is upheld. Lets get this shit ball rolling.

Have they worked out laws to allow exceptions so police officers can carry more than seven rounds and respond to school shootings without being guilty of a felony, or are they still being hamstrung by this retarded mess of a law?

i'm confused, you can only have 5 rounds on an magazine, but 10 rounds is legal? :downs: i think i'm missing something obvious, but i can't quite point it.

And criminals will continue to obtain illegal firearms and not follow any of these awesome provisions. Gj ny

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;43380401]i'm confused, you can only have 5 rounds on an magazine, but 10 rounds is legal? :downs: i think i'm missing something obvious, but i can't quite point it.[/QUOTE] The obvious thing you're missing is that gun laws aren't usually designed to make sense.

Before the "safe act" it was okay to own 30 round magazines if they were manufactured before certain date.

[quote]He ruled that the provisions were constitutional because the state has an "important governmental interest" in public safety in a suit brought by the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association[/quote] Could one counter that argument by pointing out that the interest in public safety is irrelevant as the law in question provides no benefit to public safety? Seriously, this law is idiotic and needs to be repealed. It never should've been proposed, let alone passed.

still shit. the 7 rounds only thing was absurd (seriously it allowed 10rnd mags but made it a felony to have more than 7 in it, this apparenly stops criminals and school shootings) but the rest of the law bans certian guns [B]simply because they look scary[/B]

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;43380401]i'm confused, you can only have 5 rounds on an magazine, but 10 rounds is legal? :downs: i think i'm missing something obvious, but i can't quite point it.[/QUOTE] Pre-ban firearms and magazines are grandfathered in. Meaning if you had them before the bill became law, you're still good under a set of preconditions. [editline]2nd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ac/14;43387154]still shit. the 7 rounds only thing was absurd (seriously it allowed 10rnd mags but made it a felony to have more than 7 in it, this apparenly stops criminals and school shootings) but the rest of the law bans certian guns [B]simply because they look scary[/B][/QUOTE] welcome to democrat legislation on firearms.

A gun is a gun. A gun is meant to kill things. The 2nd Amendment exists not only to protect us from the possible tyranny of our own government(get cracking New Yorkers), but it exists so that I can use the same weapons used by the US Military, and in the times of war on the homefront, I can pick up a gun from a National Guard armory, and have the knowledge to use said gun proficiently. This is the entire purpose and meaning of a "well regulated militia"... The existence of such a militia in the times of war would require a civilian backbone to act with standing military forces, or behind the frontlines, acting as an insurgent. Without the ability to train with a weapon which is almost near identical to the ones used by the US Military, myself and many others would be a strain on logistics, therefore threatening the security and safety of the Republic and her people. In the Revolutionary War, men brought weapons they had which were near identical to the ones fielded by the British and Continental Armies. If this is to be taken by direct interpretation, that's the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Armed with the arms of your countries military. I understand that people don't want people running around with automatics and all that, but you can't simply remove the existing alternative, which is akin to the current weapons fielded by our military. We need that capability to train, learn, and become proficient.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43387447]A gun is a gun. A gun is meant to kill things. The 2nd Amendment exists not only to protect us from the possible tyranny of our own government(get cracking New Yorkers), but it exists so that I can use the same weapons used by the US Military, and in the times of war on the homefront, I can pick up a gun from a National Guard armory, and have the knowledge to use said gun proficiently. This is the entire purpose and meaning of a "well regulated militia"... The existence of such a militia in the times of war would require a civilian backbone to act with standing military forces, or behind the frontlines, acting as an insurgent. Without the ability to train with a weapon which is almost near identical to the ones used by the US Military, myself and many others would be a strain on logistics, therefore threatening the security and safety of the Republic and her people. In the Revolutionary War, men brought weapons they had which were near identical to the ones fielded by the British and Continental Armies. If this is to be taken by direct interpretation, that's the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Armed with the arms of your countries military. I understand that people don't want people running around with automatics and all that, but you can't simply remove the existing alternative, which is akin to the current weapons fielded by our military. We need that capability to train, learn, and become proficient.[/QUOTE] I don't think this is how warfare works in the modern world. Civilians don't fight wars, professional soldiers and robots do now. When you call on the citizenry to pick up their rifles and point at the enemy, shouting "fight", that is not a war. A "well regulated militia" consisting of various untrained and often divided peoples over a vast country (most people don't even own guns, it tends to be a certain ethnicity and gender that does) is no more an army than a pile of logs and rocks constitutes a house. Raising a militia is an act of desperation and last ditch effort which usually sees a lot of civilians killed or captured because they don't have any experience of warfare or knowledge of military theory.

That's what I was saying :v: If you allow citizens to train with weapons that are similar to the ones you field for your military, it removes the need to train them with said weapon before they see combat. From a logistical standpoint, it removes the requirement to train them to shoot, clean, and field repair their weapon. With that you can absorb them into the true National Guard as conscripts, and within two to three weeks of intensive physical training and military discipline, you'll have competent troops. The idea isn't to let them run wild Red Dawn style, but to have them train on their own free-will, and therefore be able to aid directly, or kill a few enemy soldiers, causing a war of attrition to occur behind the main front line.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43391639]That's what I was saying :v: If you allow citizens to train with weapons that are similar to the ones you field for your military, it removes the need to train them with said weapon before they see combat. From a logistical standpoint, it removes the requirement to train them to shoot, clean, and field repair their weapon. With that you can absorb them into the true National Guard as conscripts, and within two to three weeks of intensive physical training and military discipline, you'll have competent troops. The idea isn't to let them run wild Red Dawn style, but to have them train on their own free-will, and therefore be able to aid directly, or kill a few enemy soldiers, causing a war of attrition to occur behind the main front line.[/QUOTE] Except very few civilians will actually do this. Most Americans have little interest in fighting or shooting firearms. There's loads of other things they want to do instead. Legalizing automatics (face it, never happening) wouldn't make a great deal of people suddenly decide to go train with them. There isn't even a threat of invasion and America at present is a democratic and stable regime which is largely peaceful and economically well off. Hardly anybody is going to willingly join the army.

Can I just point out that the US army doesn't have automatic assault rifles anymore I believe, or they're trained to rely on semi-auto for most situations.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43391457]I don't think this is how warfare works in the modern world. Civilians don't fight wars, professional soldiers and robots do now. When you call on the citizenry to pick up their rifles and point at the enemy, shouting "fight", that is not a war. A "well regulated militia" consisting of various untrained and often divided peoples over a vast country (most people don't even own guns, it tends to be a certain ethnicity and gender that does) is no more an army than a pile of logs and rocks constitutes a house. Raising a militia is an act of desperation and last ditch effort which usually sees a lot of civilians killed or captured because they don't have any experience of warfare or knowledge of military theory.[/QUOTE] So then by your logic, Syria isn't at war right now and the Libyan revolution wasn't a war either.

Civilians become militia soldiers when they band together to fight for a common cause with nil to mediocre training.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43391846]Civilians become militia soldiers when they band together to fight for a common cause with nil to mediocre training.[/QUOTE] civilians with ARs would get mopped up by real trained soldiers with flintlocks, the military spends thousands of dollars and man-hours training soldiers to be thinking tactical killing machines, a bunch of guys with a shitload of guns don't have nearly the same level of training and can never have

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43391807]So then by your logic, Syria isn't at war right now and the Libyan revolution wasn't a war either.[/QUOTE] It's more of an all-out internal power struggle. Those conflicts were horribly brutal on civilian populations, and even in Libya the militias have caused so many problems that after the revolution the government immediately went to work disbanding them. I don't see how either of those conflicts constitutes a success for militias.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43391639]That's what I was saying :v: If you allow citizens to train with weapons that are similar to the ones you field for your military, it removes the need to train them with said weapon before they see combat. From a logistical standpoint, it removes the requirement to train them to shoot, clean, and field repair their weapon. With that you can absorb them into the true National Guard as conscripts, and within two to three weeks of intensive physical training and military discipline, you'll have competent troops. The idea isn't to let them run wild Red Dawn style, but to have them train on their own free-will, and therefore be able to aid directly, or kill a few enemy soldiers, causing a war of attrition to occur behind the main front line.[/QUOTE] "hi i'd like to buy a tank" lets face it, warfare technology is at the point where it's not like you can go to the general store and pick up a gun and be ready to go kill some commies

[QUOTE=Sableye;43392552]civilians with ARs would get mopped up by real trained soldiers with flintlocks, the military spends thousands of dollars and man-hours training soldiers to be thinking tactical killing machines, a bunch of guys with a shitload of guns don't have nearly the same level of training and can never have[/QUOTE] When it comes to war, a good leader leading a well trained and disciplined army with poor hardware is usually seen as better than a shit leader leading a mob of people of questionable loyalties with good hardware.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43392777]A bunch of guys with a shitload of guns could indeed lay a proper ambush, and assault a superior force, with very minimal training, and could safely escape with very little casualties.[/QUOTE] The problem here is that military theory goes further than that. If you have insurgents like that, you gotta cover a whole lot of shit. How do you keep morale among them? How do you prevent them defecting? How do you procure supplies (munitions, food, bedding, shelter, etc) for them? How do you travel? How do you maintain the integrity of the unit? How is the unit organized? Is there a general staff or something else to coordinate efforts? (Despite what one may think, having a bunch of people randomly attack patrols is not a way to win, it must be used to achieve long term goals). Who supports you? Where can you get more recruits and where can you build power bases? Can you set up a headquarters? Can you get foreign assistance? How do you manage telecommunications? If America decided to go full madcap and started dumping people in FEMA camps, the militias would most likely be hunted down by drones.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43391457]I don't think this is how warfare works in the modern world. Civilians don't fight wars, professional soldiers and robots do now. When you call on the citizenry to pick up their rifles and point at the enemy, shouting "fight", that is not a war. A "well regulated militia" consisting of various untrained and often divided peoples over a vast country (most people don't even own guns, it tends to be a certain ethnicity and gender that does) is no more an army than a pile of logs and rocks constitutes a house. Raising a militia is an act of desperation and last ditch effort which usually sees a lot of civilians killed or captured because they don't have any experience of warfare or knowledge of military theory.[/QUOTE] you [I]clearly[/I] have never watched Red Dawn

[QUOTE=Swilly;43391784]Can I just point out that the US army doesn't have automatic assault rifles anymore I believe, or they're trained to rely on semi-auto for most situations.[/QUOTE] Standard issue M16A4 is semi and 3-round burst. They are trained with both, but rely on semi to conserve ammo. M4s are still standard issue for many units as well, and they are semi and full-auto. Without making a gigantic list of firearms used by the armed forces, lets just say that full-auto is still widely used by them.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43392876]Drones aren't all that great though. In my own personal experience the slightest breeze fucked up their targeting systems, dust storms/bad weather/anything beyond optimal conditions, led them to be pretty unreliable in terms of "we'll call in a drone strike". In all reality the vast majority of "clean up" would be done by teams on the ground. I remember my patrols calling in drone strikes at least 25 times, and we got.. 1.. the rest of the time they were ruled "unworkable" "due to weather conditions".[/QUOTE] I'd largely see them being used more against militia leaders. They've been quite successful so far against various high profile targets: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Armed_attacks[/url] So I guess that in the case of America they would probably still be used a lot, and probably end up being effective, at least in making these militia groups afraid and having their leaders sleep under trees or something.

I really hate the concept of "if we make it illegal it will disappear." It's not a partisan problem, either. Republicans? Drugs don't exist if they're illegal. Democrats? Guns aren't a problem if they're illegal. It's completely incorrect but it keeps on happening.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43392840]The problem here is that military theory goes further than that. If you have insurgents like that, you gotta cover a whole lot of shit. How do you keep morale among them? How do you prevent them defecting? How do you procure supplies (munitions, food, bedding, shelter, etc) for them? How do you travel? How do you maintain the integrity of the unit? How is the unit organized? Is there a general staff or something else to coordinate efforts? (Despite what one may think, having a bunch of people randomly attack patrols is not a way to win, it must be used to achieve long term goals). Who supports you? Where can you get more recruits and where can you build power bases? Can you set up a headquarters? Can you get foreign assistance? How do you manage telecommunications?[/QUOTE] Turns out managing an insurgency is kind of difficult. Who knew? That doesn't invalidate the concept of insurgency in any way. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;43392840]If America decided to go full madcap and started dumping people in FEMA camps, the militias would most likely be hunted down by drones.[/QUOTE] If America decided to start dumping people in FEMA camps, a few rifles would go a long way. Drones can't patrol city blocks, tanks can't search buildings. Eventually it comes down to boots on the ground, and if you can fight on even terms in that regard you can capture and steal your way up. Just look at Libya, Syria, and Egypt. The rebels didn't start the wars with anti-aircraft guns and RPGs lying in their backyards, they were captured and put to use. If you do a bit of research into weapons designed for insurgents, like the Liberator pistol, they were expressly intended to be used to kill a soldier and then allow the user to steal the soldier's weapon. If you already have a comparable weapon, you can skip a step. Ultimately, the second amendment serves two purposes. In the event of some political upheaval that starts oppressing the populace, it gives the people [i]some[/i] chance to fight back, especially if the military isn't entirely on the side of the new regime. Secondly, it allows for the people to provide for the common defense in the event of invasion, even if it's nothing more than insurgency like the French Resistance in WW2. Even in the days when the Bill of Rights was written, a musket was not enough to make a citizen equivalent to a trained soldier with access to cavalry and artillery support. That wasn't the intent.

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;43392740]"hi i'd like to buy a tank" lets face it, warfare technology is at the point where it's not like you can go to the general store and pick up a gun and be ready to go kill some commies[/QUOTE] It's entirely legal to buy a tank in almost all of the western world (including the UK), and in the US the gun can be fully functional. Shells cost a shitload, plus a $300 tax stamp per shell if they're loaded with explosives and not chalk (for practice), but you can get shells for them too. Civilians can also own attack helicopters and fighter jets, and the guns and ammo for them too. Automatic firearms manufactured and registered prior to 1986 are still legal to own and sell in the US, this includes 8 known miniguns, though the most common autos for sale in the US are submachine guns, which can be had for as little as $5000.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43387447]A gun is a gun. A gun is meant to kill things. The 2nd Amendment exists not only to protect us from the possible tyranny of our own government(get cracking New Yorkers), but it exists so that I can use the same weapons used by the US Military, and in the times of war on the homefront, I can pick up a gun from a National Guard armory, and have the knowledge to use said gun proficiently. This is the entire purpose and meaning of a "well regulated militia"... The existence of such a militia in the times of war would require a civilian backbone to act with standing military forces, or behind the frontlines, acting as an insurgent. Without the ability to train with a weapon which is almost near identical to the ones used by the US Military, myself and many others would be a strain on logistics, therefore threatening the security and safety of the Republic and her people. In the Revolutionary War, men brought weapons they had which were near identical to the ones fielded by the British and Continental Armies. If this is to be taken by direct interpretation, that's the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Armed with the arms of your countries military. I understand that people don't want people running around with automatics and all that, but you can't simply remove the existing alternative, which is akin to the current weapons fielded by our military. We need that capability to train, learn, and become proficient.[/QUOTE] we now exist in a society where the rules and regulations of war are imperative in what is considered legal and illegal conflict the introduction of civilians into such a war would serve to muddle everything and would be severely detrimental to the conclusion of a war. it would not make a war be won more swiftly. it would make it bloodier, and would result in significantly more war crimes. you are not a soldier you do not understand war do not pretend to.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43393053]Turns out managing an insurgency is kind of difficult. Who knew? That doesn't invalidate the concept of insurgency in any way.[/quote] Insurgencies never succeed unless the regime in power has severe structural defects or you get a lot of foreign support. Otherwise they are just an annoyance to the state. You need something bigger and heavier to actually do something (In the Peninsular war in Spain for instance, the French largely lost because their resources were stretched thin and they had practically no allies left. The guerrillas won there because they had extensive British support with which to reconquer the country). The American war of independence itself only succeeded because of timely intervention by the European powers. [quote]If America decided to start dumping people in FEMA camps, a few rifles would go a long way.[/quote] Munitions? Food? Water? Shelter? Communications? Rifles are a tiny fraction of why countries win wars. [quote]Drones can't patrol city blocks, tanks can't search buildings. Eventually it comes down to boots on the ground, and if you can fight on even terms in that regard you can capture and steal your way up. Just look at Libya, Syria, and Egypt. The rebels didn't start the wars with anti-aircraft guns and RPGs lying in their backyards, they were captured and put to use. If you do a bit of research into weapons designed for insurgents, like the Liberator pistol, they were expressly intended to be used to kill a soldier and then allow the user to steal the soldier's weapon. If you already have a comparable weapon, you can skip a step.[/quote] Again this is all highly dependent on the organization and support of the rebels. The large reason behind things went better for them is because of foreign intervention. In fact if you look at Syria, everybody has been quietly intervening there. You'd be a fool to say that all of the sides there don't get a few things from friends abroad. [quote]Ultimately, the second amendment serves two purposes. In the event of some political upheaval that starts oppressing the populace, it gives the people [i]some[/i] chance to fight back, especially if the military isn't entirely on the side of the new regime. Secondly, it allows for the people to provide for the common defense in the event of invasion, even if it's nothing more than insurgency like the French Resistance in WW2.[/quote] Americans these days hardly use firearms and have little interest in doing so. Gun ownership is largely concentrated to a diminishing group of people. America isn't getting invaded. This is more or less a fact. Nobody is willing to do so, nobody is capable of doing so. As for a revolution, if people really allowed the situation to decline to the stage where they had to use firearms to overthrow the government, wouldn't the oppressive totalitarian dictatorship have found out a way to have gotten around this by that stage? Really, it's written into the constitution and lots of people shout about it. I think if a dictator had at least a functioning brain and wasn't completely inept, he would have figured out this thing by that stage and made plans for this. The people meanwhile, if they simply waited for the dictatorship to form before taking up arms, well, I think they would deserve that government anyways. [quote]Even in the days when the Bill of Rights was written, a musket was not enough to make a citizen equivalent to a trained soldier with access to cavalry and artillery support. That wasn't the intent.[/QUOTE] The intent was to create a primitive policing and military force that could put down smaller attacks/raids and slow down foreign armies. In practice, this largely meant Amerindians and slave uprisings. [editline]2nd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;43393531]It's entirely legal to buy a tank in almost all of the western world (including the UK), and in the US the gun can be fully functional. Shells cost a shitload, plus a $300 tax stamp per shell if they're loaded with explosives and not chalk (for practice), but you can get shells for them too. Civilians can also own attack helicopters and fighter jets, and the guns and ammo for them too. Automatic firearms manufactured and registered prior to 1986 are still legal to own and sell in the US, this includes 8 known miniguns, though the most common autos for sale in the US are submachine guns, which can be had for as little as $5000.[/QUOTE] As yes. When the revolution comes, there is no worry at all. I can simply go to my helicopter I have in the backyard (which nobody has noticed) and fly away to Cascadia, (without being shot down or running out of fuel).

[QUOTE=Sableye;43392552]a bunch of guys with a shitload of guns don't have nearly the same level of training and can never have[/QUOTE] This is why cops are more likely to miss when shooting and more likely to kill innocent bystanders than civilians (At least in America)?