Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone
Done deal.Maryland next
New York passes nation's toughest gun control law | NJ.com
York state enacted the nation's toughest gun restrictions today and the first since the Connecticut school massacre, including an expanded assault-weapon ban and background checks for buying ammunition.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law less than an hour after it won final passage in the Legislature, with supporters hailing it as a model for the nation and gun-rights activists condemning it as a knee-jerk piece of legislation that won't make anyone safer and is too extreme to win support in the rest of the country.
"Common sense can win," Cuomo said. "You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense." |
Full. Retard. Cuomo's gun control bill, and your post.
Look at the actual bill.
LINK The first idiocy found: Page 22. Starting at line 6. Bold mine, though the whole paragraph is horrible.
"
265.01-b Criminal_possession of a firearm. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she: (1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section subject to the registration requirements of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision.
Criminal possession of a firearm is a Class E felony."
If the Second Amendment's still in existence, and there's any common sense and respect for the law, this law gets completely thrown out in the first court case.
At this point I'm not expecting the president's "proposals" to be any smarter or effective.
edit: Looking here (
LINK) and here (
LINK) to look for context after seeing there's no outrage over the quote I listed elsewhere on the web. And there's even more stringent weapon control in § 265.01 at the second link... It doesn't seem like the above refers to just persons committing other crimes. The language suggests an out-right ban, yet if so 265.01 would already outlaw many weapons and non-weapons. What am I missing here?