SAFE Act guide

[Doc8404]

refreshing reading
Didn’t realize the retired officer part is so restrictive. But that’s good.

I know several that feel they are exempt with assault weapons. Period.
http://www.nypdcea.org/pdfs/nysp_safe_act_field_guide.pdf

 

[S&W Fan]

Reading that in its entirety gave me a frigging headache and pissed me off all at the same time. WTF

 

[holdover]

Our guide was written several hundred years ago. Self defense was recognized as an en alienable right that cannot be infringed upon , not even by a narcissistic communist anti American governor like Cuomo the homo , who is in fact , one of the very reasons we have a 2nd A to begin with .

 

[Darth]

Too complicated to follow. Going to have to give this one a hard pass.

 

[Deplorable Me]

Screw you and your damn lawn Andy.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I prefer this version of the Safe Act guide...

 

[Phazer]

Ummmm......outdated information in that document:

5. Possessing a magazine loaded with more than 7 rounds / New PL section 265.37

Although a person may continue to possess magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds, the
SAFE Act prohibits having more than 7 rounds loaded in any particular magazine. New
Penal Law section 265.37 provides that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an
ammunition feeding device where such device contains more than seven rounds of
ammunition.​

 

[Greywolf224]

I prefer this version of the Safe Act guide...

Doc are you telling me to start reading at page 1?

 

[Uzi]

Ummmm......outdated information in that document:

5. Possessing a magazine loaded with more than 7 rounds / New PL section 265.37

Although a person may continue to possess magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds, the
SAFE Act prohibits having more than 7 rounds loaded in any particular magazine. New
Penal Law section 265.37 provides that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an
ammunition feeding device where such device contains more than seven rounds of
ammunition.​

The problem is that nobody can come up with the amended portion of that law, instead people keep referring to a judge's decision and assume that is the law for everyone in the entirety of the state now and everything's great and dandy, Nobody will get arrested or charged anymore for loading 10 rounds in their ccw etc.... Unless someone can find that specific amendment to the penal law, which nobody has yet.... it's hearsay, let alone for the western part of upstate NY. Also no cop will sit with you and debate it, they'll refer to this type of shit, arrest you and so on...

 

[Madmallard]

As far as I known it has never been amended. FUAC most likely wants to appeal the courts ruling rather then change the law.

 

[Doc8404]

Ummmm......outdated information in that document:

5. Possessing a magazine loaded with more than 7 rounds / New PL section 265.37

Although a person may continue to possess magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds, the
SAFE Act prohibits having more than 7 rounds loaded in any particular magazine. New
Penal Law section 265.37 provides that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an
ammunition feeding device where such device contains more than seven rounds of
ammunition.​

We all know it still stands in most parts of the state.

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Here's on emore for ya Princie....

 

[holdover]

As far as I known it has never been amended. FUAC most likely wants to appeal the courts ruling rather then change the law.

Vagueness doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. Criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable for example are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.[1] Related to the "void for vagueness" concept is the "unconstitutional vagueness" concept (see below).

To summarize the contents of the doctrine, it establishes specific criteria all laws, or any legislation must meet, to qualify as constitutional. Such criteria includes the following:[1]

• Law must state explicitly what it mandates, and what is enforceable.
• Definitions of potentially vague terms are to be provided.

Vagueness doctrine - Wikipedia


The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

 

[Marine Cpl]

The problem is that nobody can come up with the amended portion of that law, instead people keep referring to a judge's decision and assume that is the law for everyone in the entirety of the state now and everything's great and dandy, Nobody will get arrested or charged anymore for loading 10 rounds in their ccw etc.... Unless someone can find that specific amendment to the penal law, which nobody has yet.... it's hearsay, let alone for the western part of upstate NY. Also no cop will sit with you and debate it, they'll refer to this type of shit, arrest you and so on...

Article 265 Penal Law Firearms | Dangerous Weapons | NY Law

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (a) has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, or * (b) contains more than seven rounds of ammunition, or (c) is obtained after the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which amended this subdivision and has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than seven rounds of ammunition

* NB Suspended and NOT Effective per ch 1/2013 S 58, as amended by ch 57/2013 Pt. FF S 4

 

[Uzi]

Article 265 Penal Law Firearms | Dangerous Weapons | NY Law

23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (a) has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, or * (b) contains more than seven rounds of ammunition, or (c) is obtained after the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which amended this subdivision and has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than seven rounds of ammunition

* NB Suspended and NOT Effective per ch 1/2013 S 58, as amended by ch 57/2013 Pt. FF S 4

I'll take it. That's the first time I've seen anyone show proof of it written into actual law as being amended. Thanks!

 

[Saltwater60]

Ummmm......outdated information in that document:

5. Possessing a magazine loaded with more than 7 rounds / New PL section 265.37

Although a person may continue to possess magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds, the
SAFE Act prohibits having more than 7 rounds loaded in any particular magazine. New
Penal Law section 265.37 provides that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an
ammunition feeding device where such device contains more than seven rounds of
ammunition.​

It is outdated, but you will never find it anywhere listed by the government that we are allowed to have 10 rounds in a magazine now. The safe act web site was not updated either.

 

[Phazer]

It is outdated, but you will never find it anywhere listed by the government that we are allowed to have 10 rounds in a magazine now. The safe act web site was not updated either.

Websites and open letters by the NYSP "clarifying the requirement for face-to-face ammunition purchases" are not law, legally binding code, or even accurate.

 

[Tinman]

Does recertification in January of 2018 give you an extra year on the next one or just an extra month?

 

[Doc8404]

Does recertification in January of 2018 give you an extra year on the next one or just an extra month?

Won’t matter. By then all NY permits will be null and void.

 

[Edwardteach72]

It is outdated, but you will never find it anywhere listed by the government that we are allowed to have 10 rounds in a magazine now. The safe act web site was not updated either.

Did you not read the actual penal law that Will provided a link to and the actual text?

 

[Mike1Juliet]

Safe act repeal wheeeeeeeen?

 

[Edwardteach72]

Safe act repeal wheeeeeeeen?

Lol

 

[Podmonkey]

Safe act repeal wheeeeeeeen?

When you move.

 

[BLAMMO!!]

The way this was rammed up our asses might make it harder to get a bump-stock ban. Maybe some pols learnt their lesson.

Let 'em have the bump stocks and get back our pistol grips, telescoping stocks and muzzle "breaks".

 

[Edwardteach72]

The way this was rammed up our asses might make it harder to get a bump-stock ban. Maybe some pols learnt their lesson.

Let 'em have the bump stocks and get back our pistol grips, telescoping stocks and muzzle "breaks".

Fun fact they are already banned for use in New York, but hey glad you are ok selling out your 2A rights

 

[GOPerfect]

I will not be able to comply upon retirement. Sorry.