Did NYS finally remove the 7-round magazine rule

[Saltwater60]

A guy on another forum asked me if the removed this from 265, but I had not heard of it. I was curious so I looked at the resources for gun owners and I see they removed it from that page as well.
It used to be here under the magazine section. I never did the 7-round thing unless I was carrying my LCPII and that’s mostly what I was carrying at that time but hey whatever and I just think it’s funny it’s gone now and it was done quietly.

Resources for Gun Owners

Find helpful information and answers to frequently asked questions for gun owners.

gunsafety.ny.gov

 

[ManualF150]

Till you get jacked up in a lawful self-defense shooting by having that 8th round.

I'm sure it's hidden out of sight across the table behind the bag of Lays potato chips and box of crackers...

 

[pshift]

It's my understanding that it is still there but not able to be enforced. Same as the tasers.

 

[Saltwater60]

It's my understanding that it is still there but not able to be enforced. Same as the tasers.

That’s what I thought as well but I know it was listed on the gun owners resource page under magazines and it has been removed recently. It has been removed within the last month so why? I just looked not too long ago and it was there but now it’s not??? If it’s a law on the books why would it be removed? NYS doesn't want us to have 10-rounds in our mags so why would they remove the most visible and easy to find resource to tell us to stick with 7-rounds? Something happened. I know they pulled some bullshit to try to moot the CCIA lawsuits with the passage of the budget so did they remove this at that time as well?

 

[Glock_USA]

I'm interested in this as well. Following..

 

[Defilade]

Can't wait till .Gov tells me how many gallons of gas I can have in my truck every week.. Climate change and all.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

Can't wait till .Gov tells me how many gallons of gas I can have in my truck every week.. Climate change and all.

The goal is zero.

 

[Egret-II]

Wait, what? I thought 10 plus one was okay.

 

[Saltwater60]

Wait, what? I thought 10 plus one was okay.

It is ok but they never removed the law from the books after Skretney overturned it and some said it didn’t apply to all of NYS. Every DA around me said they would not prosecute it but the law was still on the books. What I saying or asking is did this get removed from the books entirely? It’s a step in the right direction if they did and now there would be no chance of anyone being prosecuted.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

It's a law but it's not a law

 

[repete]

It's a law but it's not a law

OH, well that clears that up, so in other words it's exactly the same but different.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

Can't wait till .Gov tells me how many gallons of gas I can have in my truck every week.. Climate change and all.

Soon they will as only electric cars allowed and gas out or rationed on the way out

 

[Mr. terzmo]

7 rounds...10 rounds...both are arbitrary numbers and should be struck down.

 

[SomeSoldier]

7 rounds...10 rounds...both are arbitrary numbers and should be struck down.

Shall not be infringed! But NY isn't part of the USA.

 

[Bob]

The law is technically still on the books. NYS Penal Law 265.37 - Unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices. That part of the law was struck down in federal court as an 'arbitrary restriction" that violated the Second Amendment. There has been some debate as to the applicability of the ruling. There is an opinion among several District Attorneys that the federal court opinion isn't binding until it is upheld by the Supreme Court. Most District Attorneys, however, are choosing not to prosecute.

 

[Vapor]

Yes but also no.

 

[Rocpo]

7 rounds was struck down. It is NOT enforceable.
10 rounds is the legal limit.

 

[Far king]

The question l have is how many of the folks who carry guns, badges and handcuffs are up to date on the law ?

 

[Defilade]

The law is technically still on the books. NYS Penal Law 265.37 - Unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices. That part of the law was struck down in federal court as an 'arbitrary restriction" that violated the Second Amendment. There has been some debate as to the applicability of the ruling. There is an opinion among several District Attorneys that the federal court opinion isn't binding until it is upheld by the Supreme Court. Most District Attorneys, however, are choosing not to prosecute.

Ammunition feeding devices are not magazines! Ha! Words Matter!

 

[Vapor]

We are looking at houses across the border every week almost now.





Soon....

 

[Acer-m14]

The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, a court must apply the law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant.

 

[Acer-m14]

so what is a high cap mag ??

10 .5 . 30.5 , 50.5 .. 100.5 ..

 

[Cavalry]

so what is a high cap mag ??

10 .5 . 30.5 , 50.5 .. 100.5 ..

There is no such thing as high capacity. There is standard capacity and nanny state capacity.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

so what is a high cap mag ??

10 .5 . 30.5 , 50.5 .. 100.5 ..

I assume to "them" it's anything over 10...or whatever fits their agenda at the time

 

[4WHLDRFTN]

 

[Robin]

7 rounds was struck down. It is NOT enforceable.
10 rounds is the legal limit.

Well, yes, and no. An officer would probably be told, after the fact, that the DA will not prosecute such a violation of the law as it exists, and go merrily on his way without penalty, wink, wink, smirk, smirk. Meanwhile you have been cuffed, deprived of your freedom, printed, and had your mug shot. Sometimes it is the process and they know that.
Sad times we live in.
Robin

 

[Rocpo]

Well, yes, and no. An officer would probably be told, after the fact, that the DA will not prosecute such a violation of the law as it exists, and go merrily on his way without penalty, wink, wink, smirk, smirk. Meanwhile you have been cuffed, deprived of your freedom, printed, and had your mug shot. Sometimes it is the process and they know that.
Sad times we live in.
Robin

And when you file the 1983 suit against the PO/Dept, the officer pays out of their own pocket because it violates a clearly established right.

 

[Saltwater60]

And when you file the 1983 suit against the PO/Dept, the officer pays out of their own pocket because it violates a clearly established right.

When can we start doing this to politicians that knowingly pass laws that violate our rights?

 

[Rocpo]

That'd be an interesting route to take against the tyrants now wouldn't it?

 

[Zerex]

How about ten in mag and one in chamber???..............11 ready to go.