Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

New York's New Gun Control Legislation

Tags:

New York State is on the verge of becoming the first state to pass new, and stricter, gun control legislation after last month’s massacre in Newtown, CT.  It looks likely to head to a vote either today or tomorrow, with Governor Andrew Cuomo waiving the usual three-day waiting period before legislation can be voted upon.  According to the details reported in The New York Times, the legislation will:

  1. Ban any magazine that contains more than 7 rounds (current limit is 10)
  2. Expand background checks to include most private sales and ammunition sales
  3. Establish statewide handgun license database
  4. Require mental health professionals to report any individual deemed dangerous and such persons firearms license could then be revoked
  5. Mandatory sentence of life without parole for anyone convicted of killing a first responder

Explaining his support for the legislation:

Senator Jeffrey D. Klein of the Bronx, the leader of an independent faction of Democrats that has allied with the Republicans to control the Senate, said: “I think when all is said and done, we’re going to pass a comprehensive gun bill today. And I think it’s important, and this is an issue that shows we can work together, Democrats and Republicans.”

“Republicans, it’s very clear, wanted harsher criminal penalties for illegal guns, which is something I agree with,” Mr. Klein added, “but on the other hand we’re also going to ban assault weapons and limit the number of rounds in a magazine. So I think putting those two things together makes it a better bill.”

Full text is here.

It is important to note that not only is this the first gun control legislation to actually be passed in the wake of Newtown shooting, but that it will pass with at least some Republican support.  I cannot say for certain how many Senate Republicans will vote for the legislation, however I would imagine that many of the downstate Republicans will.  Unlike those from Upstate they represent constituencies where gun control is very popular and where if they are seen as kowtowing to the NRA they could find themselves in electoral jeopardy.

This also comes as Vice President Biden is preparing to present his findings to President Obama and the Obama Administration is preparing to begin its second term by pushing Congress to pass federal gun control legislation for the first time in nearly 20 years.  This includes 19 potential actions that President Obama can take via executive order and therefore bypass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.  At least one House Republican has threatened impeachment should President Obama do so.  However, I don’t think such articles would face good prospects in the Senate, assuming, of course, that the entire House acted upon them in the first place.

As for my view on the New York legislation and, by extension, the potential federal legislation, I believe that it’s a good starting point.  Yes, there is a right established under the Second Amendment.  However, it specifically mentions a “well regulated militia.”  Additionally, I don’t believe the founders envisioned allowing people to arm themselves with weapons like M-16s or AK-47s or other weapons that are designed with only one purpose in mind:  to kill and injure human beings.

The fact remains that such weapons are nothing more than murderer’s tools.  Many states ban burglar’s tools because they only serve the purpose of committing criminal acts.  Those guns that only serve a similar purpose should be banned.  Murder is against the law.  It should be illegal to possess murderer’s tools.

Update:  After passing the Senate 43-18 last night, the bill passed the Assembly 104-43 this afternoon.  It will now head to Gov. Cuomo’s desk for his signature.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 231 Comments

231 comments

  1. Mets102

    will be the first to pass more stringent gun control and hope that it shows the way forward for other states and for the federal government.

  3. Chris Blask

    I really think the NRA is, on the national level, on the losing end of this. They didn’t have to be – they could have aligned themselves as a tough negotiator – but they have gone completely off the edge compared to public opinion.

    Rep Gifford’s husband on CNN tonight quoted a stat of 75% of NRA members being in favor of universal registration. That doesn’t surprise me, but apparently LaPierre would be shocked (if he cares what his membership things, which I doubt).

  8. plf515

    is that it’s easy to go to another state, buy guns and bring them back.

    Nevertheless, I think this is a good start, and will help. Even people who violate this law by importing guns will probably be more careful with them then they would have otherwise.  

  10. JanF

    I get a little nervous about reporting people with mental health issues because “dangerous” is a subjective judgment. Dangerous to themselves or others? Makes me itchy.

    I am going to guess that this one was inserted by the Republicans:

    Mandatory sentence of life without parole for anyone convicted of killing a first responder

    People who are murdering first responders are not going to be deterred by the possibility of a life sentence. Republicans have this thing about “deterrence” as evidenced by their support for the death penalty because it deters killings. Nonsense. Most murders are committed in the heat of anger and angry people don’t stop and think about the penalties. And mass murderers who value life so little that they would wipe it out in an instant don’t care about their own lives either.

    What do they think the court challenges will be, Mets102? I know that the Supreme Court has said that there can be some regulations on gun ownership and use but will these past muster?

  11. kirbybruno

    I agree that it is a good start, and hopefully more states will adopt some of these restrictions and policies.

    I just read an article at the Atlantic the other day that had a bunch of statistics comparing homicides, suicides, and overall deaths by gun in major metro areas that I thought was very interesting. http://www.theatlanticcities.c…

    One thing they found, no surprise,

    The rate of gun deaths is negatively correlated with states that ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage requirements for guns.

    I guess I just don’t understand why this is so complicated, when the answers seem so easy.

  12. onceasgt

    Glad to see my old home is working on the guns.

    My personal opinion tracks with Colin Powell and Stanley McChrystal.

    A .223 round fired at 3000 ft/sec from a semi-automatic is designed for one thing and one thing only-Inflicting the maximum amount of damage on the human body.

    I get it- I’ve fired a weapon on full automatic- it’s a rush when you’re shooting at a target. But there is no need for these weapons in the hands of the average citizen.

    That over under shotgun will protect your home from an invader in a rural area.No one needs an asualt weapon.

  14. JanF

    NRA: Cuomo Trying To ‘Steal The Thunder’ From Obama

    Cuomo seized the opportunity to exploit tragedy and put his own personal politics ahead of sound public policy.  New York, with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, is on the verge of enacting even more onerous laws on the backs of gun owners.  In fact, according to the Brady Campaign’s national ranking of state gun control laws, New York is the fourth “best” (most restrictive) in the nation BEFORE this legislation is enacted.  Instead of preventing crime and punishing criminals, S.2230 focuses only on law-abiding gun owners and will do nothing to address public safety or crime.

    I am going to guess this (not very well written) diatribe has more to do with the NRA’s perception that they will do better nationally in stopping any sort of meaningful action and how this changes the conversation than their “concern” over Gov. Cuomo stealing the White House’s thunder.

    Can anyone explain how one “enact[s] onerous laws on the backs of gun owners”?

  15. melvin

    in the NY law that couldn’t sail right through part three of the Heller decision unscathed. DC’s ban was held to be over the top. I don’t see that NY’s “conditions and qualifications” are.

  18. Motley Moose

    As most are aware, there has been some Moderation intervention in this thread. We feel it important to make a couple of things clear while the opportunity is fresh.

    Motley Moose does not abide by “HOS” for any user. Users are to be judged by their diary and comment history here on the Moose only. Trust Moderation to deal with all users accordingly and fairly.

    Additionally, threats of leaving and/or requests of self-banning/account deletion will do nothing to affect the judgment of Moderation. If someone wants to leave the Moose, at any time for any given reason, that is their prerogative and will have no bearing on how the Moose is managed.

    One is allowed to disagree with others on any topic here, but if one cannot do so civilly and act in good faith, s/he will not be doing it on The Moose.

    As a reminder to everyone, please read the Posting Guidelines. They are straightforward and clear. If, however, you have any unanswered questions about how to interact/behave in a particular situation, please email The Moose explaining the problem, and you will be answered in a timely fashion by Moderation.

    Thank you.

    – Motley Moose Moderation

  19. Chris Blask

    I napped through the excitement above, so let me toss my comment on it here.

    The gun debates I have been involved in are rarely smooth. The topic is highly emotional, and good folks get pie-flingy all the bloody time.

    While I missed all the conversation about moderation of the discussion I generally agree(ish) with the conclusions. Some folks got entirely out of hand, either in instigation or response. But, at the same time, anyone debating guns and expecting to avoid that completely isn’t being entirely realistic.

    Enough has been said about who flung poo at who (“whom”?), so I will leave that lay. For my part I trolled through the comments (see what I did, there? ;~) and rated a range of comments, so let my comments on comments be my, um, comment.

    I wrote this in a comment thread at some point and another admin chose to add it to the Posting Guidelines.

    I fierce most everything most of the time, just to mark that I’ve been there and encourage folks to talk. Meh is more recent, and usually humorous, but imo it has the real use for disagreement. Fail is forrealz use among Moose a bit of a nuclear option, but if the discussion has gotten that heated then a little bit of fail is probably appropriate (I’ve been failed by Moose I love, and that’s cool).

    The only thing that would really tip over the trashcan would be for someone to say [sic]”you hate (teh gays/poor people/men/women/dogs/fish) and want everyone to die!!!!! aaahhh!!!” – or words to that effect. Simply “I don’t mehgree with you” or “sorry, but you are being a complete jerkfail about this” isn’t more than we all risk for talking about tough stuff with friends.

    In this thread I have fierced some, meh’ed some, failed a few and left some unrated. Some, including other mods, may disagree with my ratings but that’s the way it’s meant to work: things average out.

    I don’t think getting a “Fail” rating should be cause to upset anyone intrinsically. As above, it can be an outright “you be breaking rules”, but it can also be “I really fucking disagree”: it isn’t the same as “you are a jerk”. If anyone was an actual jerk they wouldn’t be here at all (see the recent not-here-any-longer event in another thread).

    We all know gun debates are about as likely to get nasty as it is possible to be in a conversation. I never get into any of them if I am not in the mood to get a stick in the eye from someone. Even someplace like this where folks are going to tend to be on the same side, things are very likely to get, er, “rather warm inside”. Take part, avoid-like-plague, but don’t expect it to be just like other conversations.

    Overboard moments aside, I for one appreciate everyone’s fools-rush-in choice to spend some time on topic. We can expect to have a lot of these conversations as we work through the gun issue this year across the nation. Everyone involved here can be proud of at least speaking their piece, unlike some NRA presidents named LaPierre whose names I won’t mention… ;~)

  20. fcvaguy

    But, I’m still frustrated by language like this:

    Expand background checks to include most private sales and ammunition sales

    Most? Why not ALL? Background checks should be universal, not just for sales for all transfers of weapons.

Comments are closed.