Did NY have a 10 rd limit prior to safeact?

[Target]

Were we , as NYers , able to have standard capacity magazines prior to safeact?
I did not have any firearms 5 yrs ago so do not know.

 

[MikeyCNY]

Don't quote me, but yes, and I think they had to be preban (pre 1994). I remember seeing them at the Syracuse gun show before (un)SAFE Act..

 

[wirehairfan]

Don't quote me, but yes, and I think they had to be preban (pre 1994)..

I'm quoting you and pretty sure you're right. Pre-ban mags were legal before the UnSafe Act.

 

[Darth]

Before SAFE mags made before 1994 could be any capacity. Mags made after 1994 were still limited to 10.

 

[Target]

Pistol and rifle?

 

[dsdmmat]

Pistol and rifle?

Yes

 

[Apeman]

Pre 94 mags are technically still legal because of ex post facto law.

ex post facto law definition. A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law

Nobody wants to be the guinea pig to get caught with one and have to spend an ass load of time and money taking the case all the way up the ladder so most people got rid of their mags or moved them out of state.

 

[Darth]

Pre 94 mags are technically still legal because of ex post facto law.

ex post facto law definition. A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law

Nobody wants to be the guinea pig to get caught with one and have to spend an ass load of time and money taking the case all the way up the ladder so most people got rid of their mags or moved them out of state.

You sure?

Isn't the law you are currently breaking, with them, "possessing them?"

So if you get caught in possession of one tomorrow, you broke the law on that date. No matter when the mag was made.

Not that I really care about the SAFE act, but I think you are misrepresenting this.

 

[GOYABEAN]

Pre 94 mags are technically still legal because of ex post facto law.

ex post facto law definition. A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law

Nobody wants to be the guinea pig to get caught with one and have to spend an ass load of time and money taking the case all the way up the ladder so most people got rid of their mags or moved them out of state.

 

[MikeyCNY]

Pre 94 mags are technically still legal because of ex post facto law.

ex post facto law definition. A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier. The Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law

Nobody wants to be the guinea pig to get caught with one and have to spend an ass load of time and money taking the case all the way up the ladder so most people got rid of their mags or moved them out of state.

And SAFE Act violates the 2nd..

 

[Shadow2]

IF YOU LEGALLY OWNED THEM BEFORE the date the law went into effect your covered ex post ... you cant buy a 94 mag today and claim ex post because you broke the law after the date the law went into effect. The loop hole is that its dam near impossible to prove when you got your preban mags unless of course you where born in 2013 then your screwed. If you gifted your new born son all your preban mags on the day of his birth before the start date in 2013 hes covered ex post facto.

This is why most those who know and respect the law add grandfathering and exemptions for kids to avoid the red tape ... this state is well aware of Ex post and hope most people don't.

You sure?

Isn't the law you are currently breaking, with them, "possessing them?"

So if you get caught in possession of one tomorrow, you broke the law on that date. No matter when the mag was made.

Not that I really care about the SAFE act, but I think you are misrepresenting this.

 

[Darth]

IF YOU LEGALLY OWNED THEM BEFORE the date the law went into effect your covered ex post ... you cant buy a 94 mag today and claim ex post because you broke the law after the date the law went into effect. The loop hole is that its dam near impossible to prove when you got your preban mags unless of course you where born in 2013 then your screwed. If you gifted your new born son all your preban mags on the day of his birth before the start date in 2013 hes covered ex post facto.

This is why most those who know and respect the law add grandfathering and exemptions for kids to avoid the red tape ... this state is well aware of Ex post and hope most people don't.

If that were the case, nobody could be busted for marijuana possession.

"I grew it before the ban."

 

[MikeyCNY]

IF YOU LEGALLY OWNED THEM BEFORE the date the law went into effect your covered ex post ... you cant buy a 94 mag today and claim ex post because you broke the law after the date the law went into effect. The loop hole is that its dam near impossible to prove when you got your preban mags unless of course you where born in 2013 then your screwed. If you gifted your new born son all your preban mags on the day of his birth before the start date in 2013 hes covered ex post facto.

This is why most those who know and respect the law add grandfathering and exemptions for kids to avoid the red tape ... this state is well aware of Ex post and hope most people don't.

How does that not cover rifles built pre-Safe then? Oh they added 'registration'.. does that get around it? (I honestly don't know, hate the law, so complicated and convoluted)

 

[ProgSpear]

Seems to me the entire unSAFE act is ex post facto. Make shit up on the fly to explicitly criminalize previously law abiding citizens owning previously legal objects doesn't fit that definition exactly how? Seriously, I wish I was a multibillionare (for many reasons) just so I could challenge this fuckwad state for their illegal unconstitutional actions, and stuff it directly up their collective progressive noses.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

First question...yes...Clinton era pre-Sept. 14,1993 manufacture or thereabouts AWB 11+round capacity mags were grandfathered in under NY's AWB which took effect when Federal ban sunsetted 2004-which RINO Pataki signed.

Second question...the Constitution forbids CONGRESS from passing ex post facto laws. The Several States are stretching the 10th Amendment to the outer limits.

Third-i am just about at the point where I could care less about what unconstitutional laws these idiots are passing.

 

[Apeman]

How does that not cover rifles built pre-Safe then? Oh they added 'registration'.. does that get around it? (I honestly don't know, hate the law, so complicated and convoluted)

Yes they gave people an "out" by allowing registration. Also, even though they don`t care, I think they knew that if they said you couldn't keep them there would have been a shit storm. CT said you could register your 30 round mags. CA said get rid of them but surprisingly a judge told the state they can't make people give them up.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Ahh. The good old days. Where I paid 50 bucks for a preban magazine that I can no longer have.

 

[Robin]

................except on Tuesday's if its raining. FUNY!
Robin

 

[Shadow2]

One would think it would cover rifles that where pre-safe ...find a judge that will actual back us on that. Yes i think the registration in their minds is the justification to do what ever the fuck they want. Goes as far back as the federal restrictions on machine guns.

100 year old unconstitutional gun laws don't make the new laws any more constitutional. At one time legal slavery was the precedent ... We don't have the support of the courts. When are republicans going to start playing democrat games? We need free states to pass gun bans and have their courts deem them unconstitutional set court precedent.

The progressive judges latch on to the smallest precedent to push agenda country wide, why aren't republican judges doing the same thing?

How does that not cover rifles built pre-Safe then? Oh they added 'registration'.. does that get around it? (I honestly don't know, hate the law, so complicated and convoluted)

 

[Shadow2]

California judge ruled ex post on mags ... that's amazing ... do they have to register the mag?

Yes they gave people an "out" by allowing registration. Also, even though they don`t care, I think they knew that if they said you couldn't keep them there would have been a shit storm. CT said you could register your 30 round mags. CA said get rid of them but surprisingly a judge told the state they can't make people give them up.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

Also- the Burden of Proof is on the Federal, State or Local prosecutors to prove that I did not have lawful possession BEFORE the law went into effect, NOT ON ME re: ex post facto.

I believe this is ONE of the reasons for laws requiring registration of prohibited or strictly regulated items BEFORE a law goes into effect, that it then makes the law(s) easier to enforce, as assumption of possession of unregistered and thus undeclared item(s) would be the unlawful acquisition and subsequent unlawful possession AFTER the law went into effect.

The other reason, of course, being an attempt at 'buyback' for ultimate confiscation. Nationwide, you're talking a lot of cash flow at 'fair market value'.

 

[Burzum]

Before SAFE mags made before 1994 could be any capacity. Mags made after 1994 were still limited to 10.

Correct, it was bad but now it is horrid.

Cuomo was likely blowing his wad thinking of the colonial governor who enforced gun confiscation.

 

[M_F]

California judge ruled ex post on mags ... that's amazing ... do they have to register the mag?

No registration that I'm aware of, but the state is appealing the Judge's ruling, just like they did with Peruta and the 10 day waiting period the 9th circus court of appeals is very likely to justify the ban/confiscation.

 

[M_F]

Did the NYSRPA even mention Ex post facto in court when the unSafe act was challenged?

 

[cgrutt]

I'm not an attorney so take this for what it's worth (my $0.02) but I think some of these interpretations of "ex post facto" (after the fact) laws are not right. I understand an ex post facto law to make something legal under then current law illegal at that point in time (retroactively not prospectively). In effect making an act committed in the past illegal by a new law passed today and applied retroactively. unSAFE didn't make possession of preban mags that were legally possessed under prior law illegal on the date passed but rather at some point (over a year IIRC) later. Don't believe that is ex post facto. I'd suggest anybody planning to claim it as such gets a legal opinion. If that were true the same could be argued FOR ANY NEW LAW. Think about it any action was legal until a law was passed making it illegal. I think some of you folks are missing the boat on this. Stay safe.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Not a lawyer either but I agree with you.

 

[Apeman]

I'm not an attorney either but as I understand it ex post facto says N.Y. can't punish you for currently possssing something that was legal but has now been made illegal. It doesn' matter if things went into effect the day the unsafe act was signed or the April deadline the following year.
I don't know if CT knew they'd have to fight the 30 rnd ban and that's why they said you could keep and register your mags, or if they thought they'd throw owners a bone to keep them quiet instead of what N.Y. did and just take everyting at once and say fuck your rights.

 

[Airborneguy]

I too came here to point out that the interpretation most of you are using is incorrect regarding ex post facto. They cannot criminalize an act already completed and then punish you for it having been completed while it was legal. They can change a law though, any law, to criminalize future acts that were previously legal.

In this example, you cannot be punished for having owned a magazine in 2011 that was legal then, but you can be punished now for owning the same magazine which was subsequently criminalized even though it was purchased legally because you are not being punished for the time period in which it was legal.

 

[cgrutt]

I'm not an attorney either but as I understand it ex post facto says N.Y. can't punish you for currently possssing something that was legal but has now been made illegal.

I disagree but as stated earlier you should really get a legal opinion about that.

From 1927 article (Emphasis added) but seems relevant to this discussion...

Where a course of conduct or condition is continued after the passage of a statute declaring it to be unlawful no constitutional question is raised under the ex post facto clause. Attempts have been made to argue that the statute reaches back and punishes acts done before its passage. This argument was first used in an attempt to defeat the application of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to agreements made prior to its passage, but in United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association'- the Supreme Court disposed of it by saying that "the continuation of the agreement after it has been declared to be illegal, becomes a violation of the Act. 1 1 2 In a recent case 3 a Georgia statute made it unlawful to possess intoxicating liquor and it was argued that to apply the statute to liquor lawfully acquired prior to its passage was to violate the ex post facto clause. Chief Justice Taft said, "This law is not an ex post facto law. It does not provide a punishment for a past offense. It does not fix a penalty for the owner for having become possessed of the liquor. The penalty it imposes is for continuing to possess the liquor after the enactment of the law."

More here...

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3917&context=californialawreview

 

[Airborneguy]

@cgrutt you are 100% correct, there's no question on this. It's a very commonly misinterpreted legal term.