Did NY have a 10 rd limit prior to safeact?

[Uzi]

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.

 

[Airborneguy]

I can’t think of a way to explain it more simply, but what I wrote above is 100% correct.

 

[Airborneguy]

Maybe this is better:

The state couldn’t make a law saying that anyone who owned a pre-ban mag in 2011 could now be charged with a crime. They CAN make a law that says anyone who owns a previously legal magazine now must get rid of it or NOW they are breaking the law. Better?

Like I can be charged with a murder that happened in 2011. But I can’t be charged with possessing something in 2011 that was legal then even though it’s illegal now. I could be charged with possesing it now though.

Get it?

 

[Shadow2]

Yep lets keep squabbling over the scraps ...

MY BAD! This was an old topic.

 

[Chevusa]

Isn't there an amendment in the Constitution where the Government can't take your property? Isn't that the same thing? How can they make you get rid of what you legally owned? I understand the Constitution doesn't mean shit in NY.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I thought this was a new thread.

 

[spat]

Isn't there an amendment in the Constitution where the Government can't take your property? Isn't that the same thing? How can they make you get rid of what you legally owned? I understand the Constitution doesn't mean shit in NY.

SAFE violated half if the bill of rights, not just the 2nd.

They don't care.

Arguing any of it in NY court will get you as far as telling a mugger he can't have your wallet because it's illegal.

The people who passed that law and the ones who enforce it are criminals. By definition they don't care if what they are doing is illegal.

 

[Chevusa]

If Trump can get 1 or 2 more Justices into SCOTUS it would be life changing for all of us I believe. And it's not that unreasonable to think that he could do it. There are even a few females that are VERY conservative who have to be on his radar. Please give us our country back. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Grimscale]

If Trump can get 1 or 2 more Justices into SCOTUS it would be life changing for all of us I believe. And it's not that unreasonable to think that he could do it. There are even a few females that are VERY conservative who have to be on his radar. Please give us our country back. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, and Trump could do something RIGHT NOW by telling New York "Repeal SAFE Act or don't see a dime in Federal funding".
He could also do something by turning the weight of the DoJ on New York, as well as prosecuting all of the myriad of offenses Queen Andy has done, and launching a huge investigation into Andy-boy's antics.


But he didn't, even when the GOP had all three branches.

 

[Blackpowdershooter30]

Pre ban mags we're good to go!

 

[redtail]

I miss my pre ban GI mags. This state sucks donkey balls.

 

[Darth]

If Trump can get 1 or 2 more Justices into SCOTUS it would be life changing for all of us I believe. And it's not that unreasonable to think that he could do it. There are even a few females that are VERY conservative who have to be on his radar. Please give us our country back. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Couple more bucks to the NRA and we got this for sure!

 

[redtail]

Yes, and Trump could do something RIGHT NOW by telling New York "Repeal SAFE Act or don't see a dime in Federal funding".
He could also do something by turning the weight of the DoJ on New York, as well as prosecuting all of the myriad of offenses Queen Andy has done, and launching a huge investigation into Andy-boy's antics.


But he didn't, even when the GOP had all three branches.

Because the majority of GOP congress critters are swamp cucks. He is not a king.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

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.

My 11 round mags were fine before the crap act.

 

[Chevusa]

Couple more bucks to the NRA and we got this for sure!

Plus God will help us. He works in mysterious ways, don’t ya know.

 

[E the massive]

Plus God will help us. He works in mysterious ways, don’t ya know.

If one truly answers to a higher power, then man's law is of no consequence.

 

[Blimey]

Isn't there an amendment in the Constitution where the Government can't take your property? Isn't that the same thing? How can they make you get rid of what you legally owned? I understand the Constitution doesn't mean shit in NY.

Not sure what the constitution has to do with New York...?

 

[Truebeliever]

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.

Please do not believe this interpretation. It means if you possessed them two seconds before it became illegal , you are okay. If you possess it a second after it’s illegal , it’s current possession and not ex-post facto.

 

[Truebeliever]

Yes, and Trump could do something RIGHT NOW by telling New York "Repeal SAFE Act or don't see a dime in Federal funding".
He could also do something by turning the weight of the DoJ on New York, as well as prosecuting all of the myriad of offenses Queen Andy has done, and launching a huge investigation into Andy-boy's antics.


But he didn't, even when the GOP had all three branches.

Nope. A federal judge blocked that on immigration where that is a spelled into the spending bill. Imagine what they would say if Trump tried that.

Highway funds were withheld if a state didn’t raise the minimum drinking age but again that was written into the spending bill.
Be careful what you wish for, the next Democrat President would have the power to force a state to do something despite the wish of Congress like that.

 

[Paperpunch]

There was a five round limit on big game hunting but not on recreational shooting.

 

[Shadow2]

LOL so did I for some reason it popped up on the top of the list ... my bad for rehashing old shit.

But you

I thought this was a new thread.

 

[Shadow2]

Well yes and no, they can take your shit but have to compensate you for it. But then you have the second amendment right to fight the abuse of that power, this is where it can get pretty sticky.

Isn't there an amendment in the Constitution where the Government can't take your property? Isn't that the same thing? How can they make you get rid of what you legally owned? I understand the Constitution doesn't mean shit in NY.

 

[Acer-m14]