Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 58 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
New bill A-10503/S-9458, Relates to the purchase or taking possession of a semiautomatic rifle; requires a license to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle; establishes the crimes of criminal purchase of a semiautomatic rifle and criminal sale of a semiautomatic rifle; requires recertification of licenses to purchase or take possession of a semiautomatic rifle every five years, introduced to Assembly and Senate Codes.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
771 Posts
Gary

I just tried to read the proposed amendment and it pretty convoluted. Does it say that you have to renew the permit to keep the semi automatic rifle every 5 years?

Also since this is a licensing requirement and not based on proper cause I don’t think NYSPRA b Bruen will stop it. Let me know if I am missing something.

Also I was recently in the Nassau County Pistol licensing division and asked if they have designed a process to apply to remove restrictions in the event that the Supreme Court gets rid of proper cause. They said no —
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,360 Posts
Gary

I just tried to read the proposed amendment and it pretty convoluted. Does it say that you have to renew the permit to keep the semi automatic rifle every 5 years?

Also since this is a licensing requirement and not based on proper cause I don’t think NYSPRA b Bruen will stop it. Let me know if I am missing something.

Also I was recently in the Nassau County Pistol licensing division and asked if they have designed a process to apply to remove restrictions in the event that the Supreme Court gets rid of proper cause. They said no —
The law will mirror the AW registration by simply re-certifying every 5 years.
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,260 Posts
Gary

I just tried to read the proposed amendment and it pretty convoluted. Does it say that you have to renew the permit to keep the semi automatic rifle every 5 years?

Also since this is a licensing requirement and not based on proper cause I don’t think NYSPRA b Bruen will stop it. Let me know if I am missing something.

Also I was recently in the Nassau County Pistol licensing division and asked if they have designed a process to apply to remove restrictions in the event that the Supreme Court gets rid of proper cause. They said no —
The law will mirror the AW registration by simply re-certifying every 5 years.
We'll know, for sure, in a few weeks, what SCOTUS has to say. Among the things I expect is an elimination of the mag capacity restriction and elimination of restrictions on "commonly owned" long guns, currently politicized as "assault weapons." Could I be wrong? It wouldn't be the first time but we'll all know, in a few weeks.
Gary
 

· Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
The semi auto proposal is a scary proposal. See how a previous post they mentioned they want to eliminate the grand father clause for regular mags that were legal under the safe act. One new rule and they want to eliminate it. They’d do the same with semi auto
 

· Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
The semi auto proposal is a scary proposal. See how a previous post they mentioned they want to eliminate the grand father clause for regular mags that were legal under the safe act. One new rule and they want to eliminate it. They’d do the same with semi auto
Does anyone know if they will also require registration of newly purchased semi auto rifles in addition to having the license?

I can easily see them not requiring a license for existing semi auto rifle owners now to ease passage, then later on claiming that they need to fix the 'loophole' whereby thousands of owners are not licensed and/or rifles not registered.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
771 Posts
We'll know, for sure, in a few weeks, what SCOTUS has to say. Among the things I expect is an elimination of the mag capacity restriction and elimination of restrictions on "commonly owned" long guns, currently politicized as "assault weapons." Could I be wrong? It wouldn't be the first time but we'll all know, in a few weeks.
Gary
One interesting thing is that if they require pre ban/grandfathered magazines to be turned in they are doing something similar to what NJ did. There is a current matter pending in front of SCOTUS arguing that the magazine ban in NJ was equivalent to an unlawful taking of property. One theory is that after the Bruen decision SCOTUS will address the NJ case.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
You guys have to much trust in SCOTUS

have you seen the Supreme Court record in defending the constitution in the past 200 years? …it’s not good

even the founding fathers bitched about them
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,360 Posts
We'll know, for sure, in a few weeks, what SCOTUS has to say. Among the things I expect is an elimination of the mag capacity restriction and elimination of restrictions on "commonly owned" long guns, currently politicized as "assault weapons." Could I be wrong? It wouldn't be the first time but we'll all know, in a few weeks.
Gary
Gary, the upcoming ruling will only remove the “Proper Cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license.
You may know about a few cases, one of them is from Maryland that will remove the AW and Magazines restrictions.
The case from New York at best will only allow any law abiding civilian to obtain a concealed carry license. I doubt the SCOTUS will force New York to change the application process in anyway.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
2,544 Posts
Nassau/Suffolk/NYC licensing are so backlogged with pistol license applications (2years?)just imagine if they had to now give licenses for 10s of millions of rifles. It will take them 50 years to catch up.
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,260 Posts
Gary, the upcoming ruling will only remove the “Proper Cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license.
You may know about a few cases, one of them is from Maryland that will remove the AW and Magazines restrictions.
The case from New York at best will only allow any law abiding civilian to obtain a concealed carry license. I doubt the SCOTUS will force New York to change the application process in anyway.
We'll all know, in a few weeks. I'm expecting at least part of the unSAFE act to be dismantled, if not in this case, then in the MD case.
Gary
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
The proposed legislation effectively creates a new class of "license". The provision appears in the same section of the Penal Law as the provisions for pistol licensing but it was placed ahead of and separate from those provisions. A straightforward reading shows that all of the specifics for application and issuance contained in the section apply to pistol licenses only. So, how will the process play out when local licensing officials have no guidance at all from the law that creates the new obligation in the first place? Unfortunately, when in the face of a disaster or catastrophe like Uvalde, politicians rush to cobble together something for public consumption without any consideration or appreciation of how the law will be implemented and how it will work.
 

· Sifting Through the Ruins
Joined
·
8,061 Posts
I expect that the pending SCOTUS will void the potential for this.
Gary
Probably not. The Heller decision left in place Washington DC's licensing scheme when ruling in favor of the civil right to a gun (one of the Heller plaintiff's wanted a license for a semiauto pistol). The Court has no problem with licenses. They hopefully have a problem with discretionary issuance of licenses, and ad hoc police-made up, non legislatively created rules.
 

· SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,260 Posts
Probably not. The Heller decision left in place Washington DC's licensing scheme when ruling in favor of the civil right to a gun (one of the Heller plaintiff's wanted a license for a semiauto pistol). The Court has no problem with licenses. They hopefully have a problem with discretionary issuance of licenses, and ad hoc police-made up, non legislatively created rules.
Yes, Heller did that but Heller was not about "proper cause" or governmental "prior approval." Once SCOTUS removes the requirement, for "proper cause," which is a guarantee, in the pending decision, that should, also, eliminate any government-based conditions, criteria and cost, for owning and carrying, other than being a citizen, without a felony conviction.

The more I think about it, the more I see a broader plain and the more I believe that this decision could, finally, equalize 2A, with the other parts of the Bill of Rights and be no different than voting, choice of religion/no religion, free speech, etc.

I'm expecting that getting government approval, via a license or any form of governmental prior-approval, waiting period or investigation, to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right, including training or proficiency demonstrations, will be voided.

This decision will be either very narrow or very broad and, if narrow, the MD suit, which is right behind it, will expand it, by killing the license or any other form of condition or prior approval.

We'll know, for sure, in a few weeks.
Gary
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top