It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Additions to be made to gun laws for law enforcement (New York)

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:03 PM

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws. The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers. Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March. As the statute is currently written, it does not exempt law enforcement officers. Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity
Read More....

There are a couple of different things going on here. One, this is what happens when you ram through a bill, exempting a rule (New York has a 3-day waiting period on new bills) and not have a debate on regulations or legislation.

Second, why are agents of the State allowed to have what a citizen cannot?
edit on 17-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:14 PM
If the capacity law is legal, it certainly should affect law enforcement equally. They are not our masters, they are supposed to serve us.

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
If the capacity law is legal, it certainly should affect law enforcement equally. They are not our masters, they are supposed to serve us.

This is quite true. Laws are to be applied equally. An officer of the law can carry their weapon with a larger magazine but a citizen cannot; the difference? One is an agent of the State and the other a mere taxpayer.

Ban "assault" rifles but SWAT still has them. Ban "high-capacity" clips, but LEOs have them. I would even wager that the governors private security will be somehow exempt.

Equality in this sense is to be equal under the law; what we see here is Lady Justice being desecrated.

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:32 PM
The cops need the capacity. C'mon.. I get what we all mean here by saying it's blatant hypocrisy and that is wrong on it's face. I agree too.... but I hope that wouldn't actually extend to HOPING they get limited down like everyone else. If I'm a victim of a violent crime in progress in New York and especially now with those draconian restrictions on citizens ..I'll absolutely want the cops to have all the firepower they need ...since they're also the only hope there is left. I mean, defense is problematic in New York NOW .... After all this? Judged by 12 or Carried by 6 becomes more than a figurative thing. It sounds like an all but promised choice for outcomes.

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me to see a slip in for changing the capacity enough so the cops ALL have to buy new magazines just like the rest of the citizens. I mean this is the biggest scam known to man happening here. WHO exactly has the ownership interest in magazine producers up there??? Choosing an oddball number means re-manufacture and literal purchase replacement of EVERY magazine in New York.

It's more than political stupidity. I question outright corruption on an unheard of level for the money involved here.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:38 PM
1st reply here at ATS.!!! AND they recently made the Ruger 10/22 and other 22 caliber magazine fed rim-fire rifles illegal, at least as they are commonly manufactured and sold, with 10 round magazines. I think they should at least make it "high powered" rifles, and leave the plinking 22 rim-fires alone.

On second thought, they should repeal that mess of a gun ban bill and leave us the heck alone, BUT if they "have" to do something, it should be thought out and logical and include input from various factions that are intimate with the real world.

Oops, did I just say that out loud? my bad

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Several good points and I am mostly playing devil's advocate here on this but also a bit of truth. You do however bring up a good point about the size of the magazines; what are the standards? From what I know, most magazine sizes that are considered "high-capacity" are stock or designed for that firearm.

Post Script:

You mentioned that the cops "need" the capacity. Why? Isn't this the same argument that can be used as to why a person "needs" any type of firearm currently on the politico's hit-list of "assault weapons"?
edit on 17-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

In my experience, small capacity magazines come in two flavors. 5rd and 10rd. 5's are pretty rare (outside hunting rifles and 5/7 can be hunting regulation depending on state ..those are internal magazines though)...and I'm hanging onto one I just found in the back of my closet for a real special sale when it's legal but nothing else is and almost impossible to find. (sly grin) It's a 5rd magazine, factory manufacture, for a Ruger Mini-14 I sold years ago. Of all the rifles to have a 5rd for too... I'd obviously forgotten entirely I ever had one ..and that'll be worth a bit someday.

However, nobody has 7rd magazines unless it was made special that way. Some 1911 .45 handguns..although modern ones go higher as I found borrowing a cops magazines for mine on a course here locally. ooo.. Sig makes nice 1911 magazines... but I digress.

Some .22's I've seen for sale have small 7rd magazines as I've seen hanging for sale in the magazine area. Outside that? This law literally requires the paid replacement of every single magazine in New York as I read it.

....and something else I just thought of ... Aside from the billions in replacement costs for citizens collectively ...

Who is offering anything for the billions in REAL property value represented by the magazines they've just outlawed retroactively? I mean, it's hundreds for some ...but thousands of dollars in magazines for others with a diverse collection. It's no small matter, IMO.

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:24 PM
Back to the first point in my OP that I barely touched on. This bill was rushed into place, with the governor waiving the mandatory (I love politicos; call it mandatory but it really isn't) 3-day period in which the legislative was required to read the bill before they can vote on it; all under the guise that it needed to be immediate action.

There was no debate. No proposed amendments. No discourse allowed. It needed to be passed. It would seem New York just took a play out of the Federal playbook in regards to "immediate action" in regards to bills that "need" to be passed. As such, New York is left with a bill passed into law that has serious flaws; such as no out for law-enforcement in regards to their magazine capacity.

It really highlights what type of government New York is running. It has the tenets of a republic. It has the framework of a republic. It has the veneer of a republic. It is hardly one though when such bills are allowed to be pushed through for political favor while an ignorant public adorns their political masters with praise for "doing something".

new topics

top topics


log in