notso556
Well-Known Member
In 1994 the federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) went into effect. In part, it banned the sale of ARs, AKs, and other guns defined as "assault weapons" - semi automatic rifles that accepted detachable magazines and had two or more of the following features: folding or telescoping stock, bayonet lug, flash hider, grenade launcher, and pistol grip. (Sticking to just rifles here, pistols and shotguns were affected, too.)
It also banned the sale of "large capacity" magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Manufacturers immediately started producing and selling rifles that had only one of the listed features - the pistol grip. And they came "standard" with 10 round magazines.
The law provided that "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines possessed prior to the effective date of the law ("pre-ban") would be grandfathered in, still legal to possess and/or transfer.
The law had a 10 year "sunset" clause and was allowed to expire in 2004. But for 10 years it was not possible to purchase a newly manufactured "full featured" AR-AK-whatever or a new magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
All this is commonly known. What might be less commonly known is also in 1994 New York State passed a law that was an exact copy of the federal law with one distinction - the law would never expire.
So people in NY lived with a state version of the federal AWB from 1994 until 2012.
In 2012 the Sandy Hook shooting occurred and NY Governor Cuomo immediately proposed a new law - the NY SAFE ACT. What this law did, in part, was change the definition of "assault weapon" to a semi automatic that accepted a detachable magazine that had one or more of the prohibited features. In essence, the pistol grip was now prohibited, too.
And the new law required previously owned guns with 1 or more features to be registered with the state police, to be sold to a FFL for sale out of state, or to be sold out of state privately through a FFL. Those that were registered and kept could not be transferred, not even to a family member.
How did this happen? Well, the details of the law were kept pretty much under wraps during deliberations. There were enough leaks that people realized that bad shit was coming down the pike, even if they didn't know all the details. There was a lot of opposition and protests in the state capitol.
At the time, the NYS Assembly was controlled by Democrats (and that's where the actual bill originated) and the governor was a Democrat. But the NYS Senate was (barely) controlled by Republicans with the leader of the Senate being one Dean Skelos from Long Island.
In the lead up to the vote, there was much speculation (hope) that Skelos either would lead the Senate to vote against the Senate version of the bill or refuse to bring it to the floor for a vote altogether. To the shock of NY gun owners the governor declared a "message of necessity" (a legislative gimmick which precludes the normal 3 day public deliberation period for new laws due to an "emergency") and the vote was held in the middle of the night ------ with the Senate, including Skelos, voting for the bill. The governor signed it the next day.
Rumors floated in the months following that Cuomo blackmailed Skelos to get his support - threatening to withhold disaster relief funds that Skelos' and other Long Island districts needed following Hurricane Sandy.
Regardless of why Skelos went along with the Democrats and the governor, the law went into effect in January of 2013 and, to this day, it is not legally possible in NY to own an "assault weapon" that has one or more evil feature unless it is registered with the state like a handgun or modified so that it has no evil features (see Thorsden Stock). And it is still a felony to be caught with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in NY. (As it is in 6 other states and DC and some cities in Illinois.)
I know this is long and a lot of fine folks in the Carolinas are saying "So what? Who gives a shit about NY?" I only bring it up to show how easily laws can change, given the right set of circumstances.
The US House of Representatives today is controlled by Democrats and a bill to introduce a worse version of the AWB or, in my view more likely, a bill to simply ban "large capacity magazines" would easily sail through if brought up for a vote. And Speaker Pelosi would surely bring it up if she thought the timing was right.
Magazine capacity is ALWAYS bemoaned along with "assault weapons" when one of these shootings happens and I just watched the CBS evening news show a shot of the 100 round double drum the Dayton shooter used. I would be very surprised if the shit did not hit the fan over magazine capacity in the next few days.
If the Senate were to pass a companion bill - and it would only take 4 weak Republicans to make that happen - the bill would land on President Trump's desk. Would he veto a bill outlawing 10+ magazines in the emotionally charged environment that we have today, with having to face that call in his re-election campaign for the next year? The same president whose administration banned the bump stock? Or would he cave?
As I see it, if the House passes such a bill the only hope of it not becoming law is if Mitch McConnell refuses to let it come up for a vote in the Senate.
So my question is -- how strong is Mitch McConnell? Better yet, tell me this will never happen.
It also banned the sale of "large capacity" magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Manufacturers immediately started producing and selling rifles that had only one of the listed features - the pistol grip. And they came "standard" with 10 round magazines.
The law provided that "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines possessed prior to the effective date of the law ("pre-ban") would be grandfathered in, still legal to possess and/or transfer.
The law had a 10 year "sunset" clause and was allowed to expire in 2004. But for 10 years it was not possible to purchase a newly manufactured "full featured" AR-AK-whatever or a new magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
All this is commonly known. What might be less commonly known is also in 1994 New York State passed a law that was an exact copy of the federal law with one distinction - the law would never expire.
So people in NY lived with a state version of the federal AWB from 1994 until 2012.
In 2012 the Sandy Hook shooting occurred and NY Governor Cuomo immediately proposed a new law - the NY SAFE ACT. What this law did, in part, was change the definition of "assault weapon" to a semi automatic that accepted a detachable magazine that had one or more of the prohibited features. In essence, the pistol grip was now prohibited, too.
And the new law required previously owned guns with 1 or more features to be registered with the state police, to be sold to a FFL for sale out of state, or to be sold out of state privately through a FFL. Those that were registered and kept could not be transferred, not even to a family member.
How did this happen? Well, the details of the law were kept pretty much under wraps during deliberations. There were enough leaks that people realized that bad shit was coming down the pike, even if they didn't know all the details. There was a lot of opposition and protests in the state capitol.
At the time, the NYS Assembly was controlled by Democrats (and that's where the actual bill originated) and the governor was a Democrat. But the NYS Senate was (barely) controlled by Republicans with the leader of the Senate being one Dean Skelos from Long Island.
In the lead up to the vote, there was much speculation (hope) that Skelos either would lead the Senate to vote against the Senate version of the bill or refuse to bring it to the floor for a vote altogether. To the shock of NY gun owners the governor declared a "message of necessity" (a legislative gimmick which precludes the normal 3 day public deliberation period for new laws due to an "emergency") and the vote was held in the middle of the night ------ with the Senate, including Skelos, voting for the bill. The governor signed it the next day.
Rumors floated in the months following that Cuomo blackmailed Skelos to get his support - threatening to withhold disaster relief funds that Skelos' and other Long Island districts needed following Hurricane Sandy.
Regardless of why Skelos went along with the Democrats and the governor, the law went into effect in January of 2013 and, to this day, it is not legally possible in NY to own an "assault weapon" that has one or more evil feature unless it is registered with the state like a handgun or modified so that it has no evil features (see Thorsden Stock). And it is still a felony to be caught with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in NY. (As it is in 6 other states and DC and some cities in Illinois.)
I know this is long and a lot of fine folks in the Carolinas are saying "So what? Who gives a shit about NY?" I only bring it up to show how easily laws can change, given the right set of circumstances.
The US House of Representatives today is controlled by Democrats and a bill to introduce a worse version of the AWB or, in my view more likely, a bill to simply ban "large capacity magazines" would easily sail through if brought up for a vote. And Speaker Pelosi would surely bring it up if she thought the timing was right.
Magazine capacity is ALWAYS bemoaned along with "assault weapons" when one of these shootings happens and I just watched the CBS evening news show a shot of the 100 round double drum the Dayton shooter used. I would be very surprised if the shit did not hit the fan over magazine capacity in the next few days.
If the Senate were to pass a companion bill - and it would only take 4 weak Republicans to make that happen - the bill would land on President Trump's desk. Would he veto a bill outlawing 10+ magazines in the emotionally charged environment that we have today, with having to face that call in his re-election campaign for the next year? The same president whose administration banned the bump stock? Or would he cave?
As I see it, if the House passes such a bill the only hope of it not becoming law is if Mitch McConnell refuses to let it come up for a vote in the Senate.
So my question is -- how strong is Mitch McConnell? Better yet, tell me this will never happen.
Last edited:
