Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Government News Politics

New York Passes Landmark Gun Law 1591

New submitter mallyn points out that the state of New York has become the first state to pass a new gun control law since the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary last month. "Called the New York Safe Act, the law includes a tougher assault weapons ban that broadens the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, and limits the capacity of magazines to seven bullets, down from 10. The law also requires background checks of ammunition and gun buyers, even in private sales, imposes tougher penalties for illegal gun use, a one-state check on all firearms purchases, and programs to cut gun violence in high-crime neighborhoods. ... New York's law also aims to keep guns out of the hands of those will mental illness. The law gives judges the power to require those who pose a threat to themselves or others get outpatient care. The law also requires that when a mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm, the risk must be reported and the gun removed by law enforcement." Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is expected to propose a new federal assault weapons ban later today.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Passes Landmark Gun Law

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @09:27AM (#42602117)

    Considering how easy it would be to set off some of those cheap Blue-Rhino propane tanks and get a similar death-toll, I hop that NYC is going to have gas control next on the agenda.

    But ... but there are regulations on gas, how you transport it, who can drive the truck that transports it, where you can park it, where you can store it, etc. What sort of ineffective troll are you?

  • Re:Chicken or Egg? (Score:5, Informative)

    by RPI Geek ( 640282 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @09:37AM (#42602225) Journal

    How about house-holding - if someone in the same residence is a registered gun owner, will they be forced to surrender their weapons?

    From the bill []:

    Safe Storage

    To prevent, among other things, unauthorized and unlicensed use of guns, section 47 of the bill adds a new Penal Law 265.45 establishing safe storage requirements for rifles, shotguns and firearms. Under this new section, a gun owner who lives with someone who the owner has reason to know is prohibited from possessing a gun because the prohibited person has been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, is subject to a court order of protection or has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence whose sentence has been completed in the last five years must, when the gun is out of the owner's immediate control, keep the gun secured in a safe storage depository (for example, a safe or similar secure container with a lock that can be opened only with a key or combination, or other locking mechanism) or render it incapable of being fired by putting a safety lock on the gun.

  • by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @09:45AM (#42602303)
    Considering murders from rifles (of any kind mind you) account for 5% of murders by firearms, apparently they don't cause this "mass mayhem." But, lets not allow facts to cloud your emotions.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @09:56AM (#42602471) []

    Full text of the law.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:00AM (#42602537)

    The Government will confiscate the gun.
    The Government will not return the gun.
    The Government will not re-imburse the owner for the cost or value of the gun.
    From news reports, the gun is generally "lost".
    Just ask the gun-owners who have used their guns to defend themselves against criminals. The Government takes their guns "as evidence" and rarely, if ever, returns them. Even if the gun-owner sues, the Government declares the guns missing, destroyed, or needed for future use. I live in Tennessee, a carry permit state, and instructors of gun course routinely tell students that they should expect to lose their guns if ever confiscated and to act accordingly. There have been news stories and they all bear this recommendation out.
    A serving, military person was jailed when the state he was driving through to get to his next military, duty station. (The guns were safely and appropriately locked in the trunk of his car.) His guns were confiscated. When he was released, the Government officials would not return his guns. He sued and it took over a year to retrieve some of his guns. His guns were legal in the state of his previous duty station and in the state of his new duty station but were not in the state he was driving through.

    As with Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, etc., once a gun is confiscated, it is never returned and the cost or value of the gun is never given. The real kicker is that confiscated guns have ended up in the hands of criminals (passing through the Government's "law enforcement") and used in the commission of crimes--imagine the chagrin of being notified that your gun was used to threaten, rob, destroy or kill after the Government took it from you.

  • by RPI Geek ( 640282 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:06AM (#42602643) Journal
    Thank you for your input, AC. I'll try to explain why you're wrong.

    There are millions of AR-15s owned by responsible people who will never use them to "cause mass mayhem". I own one and I use it for target shooting - I shoot paper targets at a proper range. Why do I need it? Well I guess I could use something else, but the AR-15 is widely available, easily customizable - there are lots of add-ons on the market that let me customize it to fit me just the way I like, it's cheap to shoot, and it's accurate. When I'm done with it for the day, it comes home with me and goes in the gun safe. A friend of mine uses his M14 [] (which is, by the way, 100% legal after this law even though it has 10-round magazines and has a much higher muzzle energy) for the same purpose - but his cost to shoot is higher. Most of the people who I shoot with at the matches also have AR-15s for the same reasons.

    Other people use their AR-15s for hunting or for self-defense in the home (I would argue that a shotgun loaded with bird shot is a much better option for home defense, but I digress). Because they look scary though, and because a few of them were used by troubled people to do evil things, now the vast majority of us - who will never use them irresponsibly - need to suffer.

    I'm not going to risk making a flawed analogy, but I resent the fact that people who know nothing about the safe handling of firearms and who have obviously never been to a shooting range can tell those of us who do and have, our own business. I suspect (since we're on slashdot) that we can agree that rules by people who aren't "in the know" often have the tendency of being profoundly misguided.
  • Re:Ban Walmart (Score:5, Informative)

    by Beyond_GoodandEvil ( 769135 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:10AM (#42602695) Homepage
    Bleach and ammonia = mustard gas
    Sorry to be pedantic(not really, this is /.), but mustard gas is C4H8Cl2S. Where's the sulfur in bleach(NaClO) or Ammonia(NH4OH), hint there isn't any. Hell, you don't even have any carbons either, so no, you cannot make a "mustard" gas out of bleach and ammonia(you'll make some nasty chlorinated ammonia compounds, but not mustard). Still it is a bad idea to mix the two, so don't.
  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:16AM (#42602767) Homepage Journal

    if you outlaw guns, crazy people will still find ways to kill other people, and in mass numbers.

    That would explain the improvised bomb attacks that happen almost monthly in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany...

  • by Bartles ( 1198017 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:16AM (#42602777)
    Actually, It makes most semi-automatic firearms illegal. Everything but revolvers and large caliber handguns. Those Ruger 10/22's that many kids grew up with are now assault rifles. My Browning Medalist target .22, is now an assault weapon and if I lived in NY, would be banned.
  • by Farmer Pete ( 1350093 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:20AM (#42602813)
    What percent of the time were the guns owned by the person using them in the shootings? I don't know the answer. Using my unscientific method of "memory", I believe most of the guns were acquired from relatives. Either they stole them from parents/uncle, or were given them by parents. I don't understand how having a 7 round magazine will change that. Will having a 7 round magazine help anything? Maybe. But if you had passed a law requiring gun owners to use approved gun storage containers, and you made people accessories to crimes if their guns were stolen and not properly stored, I think it would do more to solve the school shootings issue than any real legislation that has been brought up. I also know that you would have a lot more support from the gun owners of America.
  • by Copperhamster ( 1031604 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:23AM (#42602849)

    Shotguns cannot have more than a 3 round magazine if used to hunt migratory birds; commonly, this is achieved by a wooden dowel inserted in the tubular magazine to limit it's capacity. The dowel can be removed for home defense, hunting deer, or skeet shooting. A friend purchased a handgun that he understood had been the personal 'off duty' firearm of a California State Trooper. The smallest capacity magazines it takes are 15 round; his had two magazines with wooden blocks, one with wadded up paper, and would not take more than 10 rounds without their removal. (He does not live in a state that limits magazines to 10 rounds, thus removed the blocks). If this applies in the New York law's case, I don't know.

  • by ATMAvatar ( 648864 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:26AM (#42602885) Journal
    But the shooter might have gotten a few more bruises through his body armor.
  • by Grimbleton ( 1034446 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @10:36AM (#42602997)

    In 2011 there were 323 murders committed with all types of rifles. In that same year, there were 6,220 committed with handguns. Yet there is an insane push to outlaw the firearm which is statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of crime.

  • by akboss ( 823334 ) <akboss@suddenl i n k .net> on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:05AM (#42603359)

    Required carry and concealed carry imply training.

    Most states mandate training in the use of, retention of and storage of weapons before you get the magical license.

    Background checks, finger printing are also done.

    Startled-I would be startled to have shots fired but with my training I know what would come next.

    Panicked- not me and I would think not most of those with concealed carry permits would be.

    untrained- well see there ya'l just gone and went stupid on us. To carry means trained not untrained.

    Spraying bullets- I think you have been watching too much TV and western movies. Your NOT taught to spray and pray your taught site picture and center body mass shots.

    As for body armor- I was always taught and practice doubles. 2 to the chest...doesnt drop them then 2 to the head.

    But then I shoot IPSC and PPC and have for 36 years so I may skew your numbers.

    Your statement would lead one to believe that it was the wild west out here, when it isnt.

    Alaska doesnt have any of the mandated training, it says that any LAW abiding person my carry...period.

    When was the last mass murder in Alaska??

    Oh yeah Bethel, Ak.(1981) 2 dead and Evan [] in prison until he dies.

  • by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:23AM (#42603639)
    The Germans probably thought the same thing. But national "emergency" trumps the special interests of evil gun-owners.

    Step one is always to disarm the populace. With an armed populace, the government can only become so oppressive.
  • Re:Ban Walmart (Score:5, Informative)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:23AM (#42603641) Journal

    He is probably referring to Phosgene, not Mustard Gas. And he forgot to include some Comet cleanser in the mix. It adds oxidizers in the form of 1.2% sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione dihydrate (a derivative of cyanuric acid).

    Nasty stuff.

  • by crakbone ( 860662 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:30AM (#42603749)
    You have obviously never been shot with body armor on. It's not paintball.
  • Re:no cool off (Score:5, Informative)

    by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:43AM (#42603937)

    Judging by Norway's murder rate they are doing just fine.

    At some point crazies will always do bad things, but preventing more mundane crime that kills more people is a far more effective goal. Norway seems to be doing pretty well on that front.

    For reference Norway has a homicide rate of 0.6/100k the USA is at 4.8/100k. []

    Clearly they are doing something right.

  • by spacepimp ( 664856 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:50AM (#42604047) Homepage
    An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is single fire, in the same way that a hunting rifle is, and the same way that a handgun/revolver is. One bullet per trigger pull. It was already illegal to own an assault rifle. That is until they change the definition. Sort of how anyone is a potential terrorist.
  • by Eunuchswear ( 210685 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:51AM (#42604073) Journal

    The Germans probably thought the same thing. But national "emergency" trumps the special interests of evil gun-owners.

    Step one is always to disarm the populace. With an armed populace, the government can only become so oppressive.

    You do know that the 1938 German Weapons Act actualy removed restrictions on firearms ownership, don't you?

  • Re:Ban Walmart (Score:5, Informative)

    by heypete ( 60671 ) <> on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:53AM (#42604111) Homepage

    Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934 and any machine gun manufactured after 1986 is illegal for private sale. No legally-owned machine guns have been used in crime in decades, as they're almost exclusively owned by wealthy collectors.

    The AR-15, while it looks like the M16, is functionally identical to many other civilian-legal firearms in that it only fires one shot per pull of the trigger. It's not very commonly used in massacres of any type, as handguns are much more frequently used in such situations (handguns are also very commonly used for self-defense. Rifles of any kind, including AR-15s, were used in only 3.7% of gun-related homicides in 2011 and have been trending downwards for years.

    It's a very common misconception that just because a gun (say the AR-15) looks like a machine gun (say the M16), then it is a machine gun. This is not true, though I don't fault you for being somewhat confused.

    ObSlashdotCarAnalogy: A Honda Civic with a spoiler, a stripe, some racing stickers, and a stock engine may look like a race car, but it's functionally no different than a normal Civic or other common cars.

    AR-15s are very commonly used for recreational, sport, and competitive shooting (including the National Matches []). There's no real pressing or justifiable reason to ban or restrict them.

    Gun-related crime rates haven't been this low since 1964.

  • by heypete ( 60671 ) <> on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:57AM (#42604175) Homepage

    Did he get a license or permit to transport his gun through the state? If not, he should have done his due diligence of using a licensed professional to transport is equipment.

    It doesn't matter: Federal law specifically protects [] the transport of firearms through areas where a gun is restricted so long as the gun is legal to own at the start and ending points of the journey and that the person transporting the guns keeps them unloaded and not immediately accessible (e.g. in a trunk or locked container) and does not make any extended stops in the area where the guns are restricted (stopping for food or gas is acceptable, though it's unclear if staying overnight at a hotel is acceptable or not).

  • by Sez Zero ( 586611 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:57AM (#42604193) Journal

    Or with a bomb. []

    To date, this remains the deadliest school killing. The guy had a gun, but chose explosives.

    I'm not going to pitch in on this emotional debate, save to point out that if you outlaw guns, crazy people will still find ways to kill other people, and in mass numbers.

    That may be exception to the rule, instead of statistically significant. Gun-control laws in Australia show different results:

    Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides.

    From: []

    There's more than a decade of experience with "they will use something else for mayhem" not proving to be true. I agree most of the NY law is just plain dumb, but if any positive change is going to be made we have to throw out the dumb notions and misconceptions on both sides.

  • by medcalf ( 68293 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @11:59AM (#42604233) Homepage
    Notably, there also hadn't been one before, either.
  • by Squiddie ( 1942230 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @12:10PM (#42604423)

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to grant every yokel the right to whatever firearm they please. The purpose is not to take up arms against your own government, but rather to take up arms for your government, as part of a militia, in order to defend your country from others. Within that scope, I am fully supportive of the right of individuals to bear arms. However, I do not support the right of anyone and everyone to go buy an assault rifle with no regulation whatsoever, as many gun enthusiasts are crying out for.

    "Well regulated" refers to a militia working well. That's what that phrase means. It doesn't mean government regulation. I guess the founding fathers believed in the right to bear arms for Britain too, right? And furthermore, the SCOTUS disagrees with you. The second amendment does grant the people an individual right to bear arms. The second amendment is not about self protection, nor hunting, nor sporting, it's about retaining the ability to defend yourself and your rights from enemies both foreign, and domestic.

  • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @12:14PM (#42604481)

    Australia has also seen a 47% increase in the rate of violent assault and a 22% increase in the rate of sexual assault since enacting that ban. []

    In their case the lack of guns has resulted in fewer murders but an overall increase in violent crime.

  • by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @12:25PM (#42604671)
    I don't have a television, and those stores defended by gun owners were spared from the rioters, while those that weren't were burned.
  • by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @12:30PM (#42604743)
    Well, we have already lost all of our other rights. The right to own firearms is all we have left. Losing that is losing all that is left.

    And no, most Western societies are no longer free. Lots of "nutcases" in Germany said the same thing about their society as their rights were rapidly eroded. The worst actions only happened after the loss of the right to bear arms.
  • Re:no cool off (Score:5, Informative)

    by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @12:47PM (#42605029)


    13636 homicides / 3.79 million sq miles = 0.00359788918 homicides per sq mile.

    29 homicides / 148,720 sq miles = 0.00019502353 homicides per sq mile.

    The total homicides come from: []
    The areas are as reported by google.

    Also your statistic is arbitrary the murders per 100k population is instead a well used and studied figure. Standardized upon around the world.

  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @01:23PM (#42605567)

    I suspect that there was significantly less looting of the Korean owned stores than there was of the London stores.

    I suspect more of them died, thinking that they could protect their stores with guns. I suspect more of them killed innocent people, thinking they were protecting their stores with guns.

    "Edward Song Lee
    TIME: 9:50 p.m. LOCATION: Near corner of Third Street and Hobart Boulevard, Wilshire District
    Lee, 18, a Korean-American living with his mom in the Wilshire District, was out with three friends when they got into a fight with another group of Koreans. Police responded to the gunfight and exchanged fire with both groups. Lee suffered two fatal hits to the chest as he sat in the front seat of a car. Someone in the rival group shot him. Detectives later learned the gun battle was a tragic mistake. Each group had been protecting Korean-owned stores and mistook the other for looters. Police made an arrest; no charges filed." []

  • by Zcar ( 756484 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @01:24PM (#42605589)

    Well, not entirely illegal to own an assault rifle. However, if you want a automatic M16 there are significantly more hoops to jump through than for a semi-auto AR15.

    1. Find one which was registered with the ATF prior to 1986 and is for sale.
    2. Pay around $15-20 THOUSAND for it (artificial scarcity due to regulations).
    3. Fill out a Form 4 to transfer it to yourself. Visit a local LEO for a certification there's nothing to prevent you from owning it. Get fingerprinted. Set the above with a check for $200 to the ATF. Some of this step can be short circuited by buying it as part of a trust or corporation.
    4. Wait months for the Form 4 to be approved and returned to you.
    5. Pick up your assault rifle.

    Additionally, some states have their own prohibitions on actual assault rifles.

    Ultimately, and it's borne out by a National Academy of Sciences survey of available research, there's no conclusive data supporting an AWB (or any gun control, for that matter) as reducing crime. It's supposition. As stated by the Supreme Court in Heller, the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right and I'm very hesitant to support restriction of an individual right based on such guesswork. We don't support prior restraint of Free Speech, even though it has motivated mass killings, yet we do here. I'm also very hesitant to support such restriction on everyone because some may misuse that right. In the case of the 2nd, it's pretty clear it was intended to protect the individual's right to own and use the state of the art infantry small arms of the day. It's equally clear the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights aren't restricted to the technologies available at the time it was enacted. So why the 2nd? IMO because, in the wake of tragedies such as Newtown, it's easier to focus on the tools than the why.

  • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @01:50PM (#42605951)

    And imposed a complete ban on firearms and other weapons ownership by Jewish citizens.

    Lets be clear here, because there's an awful lot of misinformation on this topic.

    Germany lost the First World War. And as a result, In 1919 and 1920 legislation was passed to disarm the Germans, both the military and the civilans. Civilian gun ownership was forbidden.

    The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition once again allowed private gun ownership.

    From 1933, the German government started oppressing Jews. The first concentration camps were opened, and the first specifically antisemitic laws were passed.

    The 1938 German Weapons Act further relaxed gun control.

    On Nov 7th 1938, Kristallnacht happened. An early notable mass extermination and incarceration of the Jews.

    On Nov 11th 1938, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. was created to stop the Jews fighting back.

    So no, they didn't disarm them first. They oppressed them first.

    And Germany isn't a parallel for current day gun control in the USA, as they were actually rearming the general populace at the time, not disarming them.

  • by Dystopian Rebel ( 714995 ) * on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @01:59PM (#42606101) Journal

    > We have a messed up society.

    What the US has is a constitutionally protected gun business.

    There are more than 20 US manufacturers of guns. This business is worth about $30 billion a year ( []).

    The US market for guns is more than 300 million people. Gun ownership in Canada and the UK, to cite figures from nations that have gun-control laws, is at about 30%. Gun ownership in the US is at about 80%.

    So, the probability of a gun in the US being in the hands of a crazy person is very high.

    The probability of a gun in the US being in the hands of a person who will *go crazy* at some point is also high.

    The guns won't go away -- there are too many of them now, and a profitable, constitutionally protected gun business with a huge market will do whatever it must to keep producing and selling.

    The only practical options for gun ownership are

    constraints on types of weapons and quantity of ammunition for citizens, and
    annual psychological testing of gun owners.

    In short, political suicide.

  • by Kreigaffe ( 765218 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @02:44PM (#42606745)


    You mean the guy whose family was murdered by Federal agents? Who was never convicted of a crime except for "FAILURE TO APPEAR"? That guy? The guy who didn't do anything wrong? That guy? The guy from Ruby Ridge?

    Yeah, no, he didn't do anything wrong, bro. Just because the guy owned guns and killed federal agents doesn't mean he's a bad guy.

    I mean, he is kinda a bad guy. I think he's racist. Yanno what, I know plenty of racists, of all colors and shapes and sizes. I'm not down with that, but no one's perfect.

    But he did nothing that called for his family being murdered, and though he killed federal agents -- it was their fault. As it turns out, he was legally within his rights to do so. Imagine.

    And maybe keep in mind that it was those trusted federal agents that shot his wife as she was holding their baby. Wanna know why they did that?


  • by BergZ ( 1680594 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @04:06PM (#42607811)
    The article that scarboni888 linked to says that there were 11 mass shootings in Australia before the Port Arthur massacre (1996).
    Not being an Austrialian myself, I thought I'd look it up in the Wiki: []
    ... It certainly seems that there were a few a mass shootings *before* the Port Arthur massacre.

    Welcome to Orwellian Slashdot: Where misinformation is rated "+5 Informative"!
  • Re:no cool off (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2013 @04:35PM (#42608181) Homepage

    How many of those were by firearm? How many were done by Police Officers?

    A few murder stats from Norway, since you ask:
    Knife: Around 40%
    Guns: Around 20%
    Suffocation: Around 15%
    Blunt trauma: Around 15%
    Other: Around 10%

    Murders by police officers isn't in the statistics, but if you count people shot and killed by the police then in the last decade the answer is 2, one in 2005 and one in 2006. Though I would argue that they should have been on the scene earlier and shot Breivik. Some other stats:

    Around 85% of the victims had a relation to the murderer, around 45% friends, 25% intimate relations and 20% family. Around 50% affected by alcohol or drugs, around 50% unemployed, 25% working, 20% on benefits. Around 75% of the murders happens in either the perp's or victim's home, 5% other private place and 20% in public. Of causes the big ones are arguments with 45%, jealousy 20%, mental problems 20%. revenge 10%. Murder as a result of burglary/robbery etc. is very rare.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell