Possession Of Any Weapon Is Now Illegal In New York

Cuomo rushed the law through before anyone could read it. It is now illegal to posses any weapon in New York, including a slingshot.

ScreenHunter_407 Jan. 16 09.13

ScreenHunter_408 Jan. 16 09.19

s3.documentcloud.org/documents/555303/s2230-text.pdf

h/t to Dave G

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Possession Of Any Weapon Is Now Illegal In New York

  1. scizzorbill says:

    No weapons in sight: criminals delight.

  2. PatN says:

    And if you read down to line 23- 24 where, in continuation, it says “and has been convicted of a felony or serious offense;…”

    You want felons to have guns?

    • daveburton says:

      PatN, you didn’t read carefully. Steve is right. The “and” clause about convicted felons pertains only to paragraph (4) (on p.21, lines 22-23), about rifles, shotguns & muzzle-loaders. It does not pertain to paragraph (1), which is much broader, and outlaws possession of any firearm, switchblade, throwing knife, slingshot, bludgeon, etc.

      The relevant portion starts near the end of p.20:

      52 § 40. Section 265.01 of the penal law, as added by chapter 1041 of the
      53 laws of 1974, subdivision 1 as amended by chapter 257 of the laws of
      54 2008, subdivision 2 as amended by chapter 220 of the laws of 1988,
      55 subdivision 3 as amended by chapter 199 of the laws of 2006, subdivision
      56 4 as amended by chapter 357 of the laws of 2011, subdivision 7 as added
      
      1 by chapter 807 of the laws of 1981, and subdivision 8 as added by chap-
      2 ter 646 of the laws of 1986, is amended to read as follows:
      3 § 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
      4 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
      5 degree when:
      6 (1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic
      7 stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal
      8 knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles,
      9 metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type sling-
      10 shot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or
      11 (2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto,
      12 imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon
      13 with intent to use the same unlawfully against another; or...
      
    • F– for reading comprehension. Try reading it again

      • Andy DC says:

        Will since they are potential weapons, will possessing hands now be a criminal offense?

      • gofer says:

        This is exactly what’s going to happen in court, disputes over the wording and what it means. Can I have a cane sword in my house or a blackjack? How about a baseball bat? Anything says I can’t carry one down the street?

    • kirkmyers says:

      I don’t agree with laws forbidding gun ownership by all convicted felons. What type of felons? Tax evaders? Marijuana smokers? Bad drivers? Not all felons are violent.

      Instead of banning guns, perhaps we should require every household to own one. That will make criminals or the government (but I repeat myself) think twice about threatening someone’s life or property.

  3. jimash1 says:

    I think you can still carry a fork.

  4. Glacierman says:

    That is a seperate condition. Reading comprehension problem?

  5. kbray in california says:

    41 pages of incomprehensible gobble-de-gook.

    “§ 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.” , That paragraph that criminalizes all weapons is hidden in the middle of that pos on page 21.

    I got a headache looking at it.
    I’m sure the illiterate folks will have an easier time with the reading and comprehension of it.
    We are expected to read and understand this crap ?

    Where is the spanish version ?
    This law in the end will be judged by the courts to be only enforceable against law abiding English speakers… for Diversity Justice… comprende ?

  6. pinroot says:

    I’m sure the crime rate will plummet now.

    • Paul in Sweden says:

      With violent crime now eradicated, NYC & Albany will be able to cut back on their police forces and save a fortune.

  7. oeman50 says:

    This law fails the prevention test I learned in root cause analysis training. If this law had been in place in Connecticut, would it have prevented the Sandy Hook disaster? Not even close. So all 42 pages do not do what they are purported to do.

  8. Jambon-X says:

    Damn it! Only “wrist-brace type” slingshots are criminalized.

    Governor (Moe Szyslak lookalike) Cuomo: Bart Simpson and Dennis-the-Menace (MENACE!) are still free to terrorize and maim and slaughter with their Death-Star-like terror weapons of death! You have left us dangerously vulnerable with this loophole! Fix this law and ban ALL weapons!!

  9. slimething says:

    Even without point 4, doing a quick read the myriad of restrictions renders a very large number of citizens criminal felon status. They’ve pretty much required a gun owner to hire a lawyer to parse the language.

    38 22. “Assault weapon” means [(a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an
    39 ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the
    40 following characteristics:
    41 (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
    42 (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
    43 the weapon;
    44 (iii) a bayonet mount;
    45 (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a
    46 flash suppressor;
    47 (v) a grenade launcher; or
    48 (b) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following
    49 characteristics:
    50 (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
    51 (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
    52 the weapon;
    53 (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds;
    54 (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
    55 (c) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable
    56 magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics:

    READ ON FROM THERE

    This section is particularly interesting:
    9 (c)_a_semiautomatic_pistol_that_has_an_ability_to_accept_a__detachable
    10 magazine_and_has_at_least_one_of_the_following_characteristics:
    11 (i)_a_folding_or_telescoping_stock;
    12 (ii)_a_thumbhole_stock;
    13 (iii)__a__second_handgrip_or_a_protruding_grip_that_can_be_held_by_the
    14 non-trigger_hand;
    15 (iv)_capacity_to_accept_an_ammunition_magazine_that__attaches__to__the
    16 pistol_outside_of_the_pistol_grip;

    Line 15,16 if I read that correctly, wipes out just about every Glock, several Sigs and others.

    This section eliminates 22LR versions of AR 15 and several others; Pea shooters.
    10 (v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm;
    11 or
    12 (d) any of the weapons, or functioning frames or receivers of such
    13 weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known
    14 as:
    15 (i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all
    16 models);
    17 (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
    18 (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
    19 (iv) Colt AR-15;
    20 (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
    21 (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
    22 (vii) Steyr AUG;
    23 (viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
    24 (ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street
    25 Sweeper and Striker 12;

    The Commies are here.

    • Yes, besides the general ban on all weapons, looks like they have specifically banned just about every gun in existence, including most antique rifles which were designed to hold bayonets.

  10. daveburton says:

    Note that this bill to outlaw possession of “any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type sling-shot or slungshot, shirken or ‘Kung Fu star'” by anyone in the State of New York was a Democrat bill. It wasn’t quite a party-line vote, but most Democrats supported it, and most Republicans opposed it.

    That’s to be expected. By and large, Democrats oppose allowing ordinary citizens to enjoy the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, except, perhaps, for the Third Amendment.

    This provision will go into effect for 60 days.

    Note, though, that it doesn’t outlaw all weapons. Firearms, bludgeons, Tasers, and non-lethal stun guns are all being outlawed, but bows & arrows aren’t mentioned. Perhaps some key Democrat is an archery buff.

    • bows & arrows aren’t mentioned
      I sense the sinister machinations of the Native American Lobby. Clearly those lawmakers haven’t seen the carnage that we faithful readers of this blog have witnessed. Won’t someone please think of the keyboards?!

    • kbray in california says:

      I didn’t see any restriction for whips and spiked heels.
      The New York Dominatrixes and their Politician clients are safe to continue their encounters. Funny how that gets protected.

    • daveburton says:

      Correction:

      “This provision will go into effect for 60 days”
      should be:
      “This provision will not go into effect for 60 days”
      or:
      “This provision will go into effect in 60 days”

      Sorry.

  11. daveburton says:

    BTW, y’all might be wondering why they would follow a blanket prohibition of all firearms with a lot of specific prohibitions of particular firearms in particular circumstances. Of course, it looks like the Democrats who wrote this bill are simply idiots. But I don’t think so. I think the reason they did that is on p.38 of the bill:

    44 § 57. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or
    45 part of this act shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdic-
    46 tion to be invalid and after exhaustion of all further judicial review,
    47 the judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder there-
    48 of, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence,
    49 paragraph, section or part of this act directly involved in the contro-
    50 versy in which the judgment shall have been rendered.
    

    They know that the law they passed is of dubious constitutionality (oath? what oath?). They fear that the courts might void their prohibition against all weapons except bows & arrows, so the other provisions are there as “backups.”

  12. Kaboom says:

    Something as blatantly violating the constitution will not even go into effect. The first federal judge to preside over an injunction request will suspend it.

    • daveburton says:

      You assume, Kaboom, that which is not in evidence. Remember: many of those legislators are lawyers, too, and they also swore oaths to uphold their two constitutions.

  13. Scott says:

    Sand bags are illegal? What? Is that just a type of weapon I don’t know about, or does it literally mean sand bag? The next time there are flooding conditions and someone tries to use sand bags to reinforce/build a levee, are they going to be arrested so the greens can point to the property damage that resulted from a lack of temporary levees and say “it’s worse than we thought”?

    -Scott

    • daveburton says:

      It’s not clear. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was probably intended to constrain only the federal government, even though its language is broader than the language of the 1st Amendment (which, by its wording, restricts only “Congress”).

      • PatN says:

        the second amendment was put in to allow the southern states continue to have “well regulated militias” to keep up the ‘slaves patrols’ in order to keep the slaves from uprising.

        the word used is ‘state’ not ‘country’, and the founders knew the difference.

      • daveburton says:

        PatN, that’s utter made-up nonsense. But if you think the 2nd Amendment was ill-considered, then why don’t you propose an amendment to the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment. That’d be the honest approach.

      • PatN says:

        we don’t need to eliminate it. we just need strict interpretation and original intent. original intent was ‘arms’ meant muzzle loading muskets. if you need to get off a hundred shots and want to carry 100 muskets, i’m all for it.

        military style assault weapons and high capacity magazines have absolutely no redeeming social value in the hands of the general public.

        they are only appropriate for those, like my son, when in uniform, as a special ops person, but not me, or you, or any in the general public.

      • Hopefully you aren’t as stupid as you pretend to be.

      • I think it’s possible to put forward coherent arguments that counter Steve’s position. Or, you can take PatN’s approach, which is to make weird things up and let everyone read it and groan. Not sure that’s a viable approach, though.

      • squid2112 says:

        PatN, wow, just wow. And I thought our politicians were stupid. If one “honestly” takes the 2nd ammendment literally (as it should be), then EVERY gun law in this country violates the constitution. “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Make no mistake, this includes ALL arms. This literally means that I have a constitutional right (that shall not be infringed) to own a fricken ICBM if I so choose. There are absolutely NO restrictions upon what those arms are or can be. This is expressly by design, so that the “people” remain more powerful than those that govern. There is absolutely NO other interpretation. Validation of this is also clearly written within the Federalist Papers.

        I agree with the 2nd ammendment in its entirety and strict (and only) interpretation, with one minor exception, that those citizens as stupid as yourself shall not own, touch or even look at a firearm or other weapon, either directly or indirectly by book or film .

      • gofer says:

        The meaning of the word “bear” is to “carry”, so the right to keep and CARRY arms shall not be infringed upon.

      • V10 says:

        PatN: “we don’t need to eliminate it. we just need strict interpretation and original intent. original intent was ‘arms’ meant muzzle loading muskets. if you need to get off a hundred shots and want to carry 100 muskets, i’m all for it.”

        OK, as long as we apply strict interpretation and original intent to everything else. The First Amendment does not apply to movies, television, audio recordings, statements and speeches delivered over a public address system or via megaphone, and internet postings. Protection of printed materials applies only to those created using presses, paper and inks that existed in the 18th century. A protest sign written with a Sharpie marker on a piece of plastic posterboard is not protected.

      • squid2112 says:

        Gofer, what part of the word “keep” did you miss?

      • PatN says:

        squid, best you go check with antonin scalia on that.

  14. Dalcio Dacol says:

    Lines (6) to (13) (page 21), the blog post shows only lines (6) to (10), state that the use of all such weapons plus other items such as imitation guns “with intent to use the same unlawfully against another” constitute “Criminal possession possession of a weapon in the fourth degree” . For example this “Criminal possession…” would be an additional charge against somebody that robbed you using an imitation gun to threaten you. Those lines do not state that just the possession of any of such weapons and objects is a criminal offense in the State of New York. Otherwise it would be as commenter Kaboom stated: a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.

    • There is an “or” in between those clauses. If your were a computer guy you would understand that a logical or means that each clause is independent of the others. The law reads exactly as I stated.

      • Dalcio Dacol says:

        No Steve, you made a mistake here. Lines (6) to (13) are as I stated above. Lines (14) to (21) list another situation for “criminal possession”: having an unauthorized firearm in a school grounds. Lines (22) to (24) list another: possession of firearms by convicted felons.
        Other lines outline other cases of “criminal possession”. The text is clumsy but intelligible.

      • No, there is an “or” at the end of line 10, The next clause is completely independent.

      • PatN says:

        the clauses are not independent, they are separated by semi-colons, not periods.

      • squid2112 says:

        Dalcio, you are a mental midget in the world of processing logic and reasoning. Thank goodness you are not a programmer of mission critical software systems (if you really are, please let me know which systems so I can stay far away)

    • daveburton says:

      You’ve misread it, Dalcio Dacol. Steve is right. The “with intent to use the same unlawfully against another” clause restricts only the paragraph of which it is part, paragraph (2), pertaining to dangerous knives, toy guns, etc. It has nothing to do with paragraph (1), which outlaws all firearms, Tasers, stun guns, bludgeons, etc., for everyone.

      I quoted both paragraphs here.

  15. peterh says:

    Well it’s pretty much identical to California law…all the stuff I played with as a kid is illegal. And California has a 3 feature test instead of a 1 feature test.

    Numerous parts of this law have already been struck down or worked around here.

    If that was the whole list of specific firearms, I actually think none of my rifles would qualify as an “AW” in New York…several AK’s not on the list, etc. Only my Saiga 12 qualifies, and then not if I fix a 5 round magazine.

  16. peterh says:

    Posession of more than 3 firearms is a felony:

    S 265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
    A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third
    degree when:

    (1) Such person commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon
    in the fourth degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five
    of section 265.01, and has been previously convicted of any crime; or
    (2) Such person possesses any explosive or incendiary bomb, bombshell,
    firearm silencer, machine-gun or any other firearm or weapon simulating
    a machine-gun and which is adaptable for such use; or
    (3) Such person knowingly possesses a machine-gun, firearm, rifle or
    shotgun which has been defaced for the purpose of concealment or
    prevention of the detection of a crime or misrepresenting the identity
    of such machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun; or
    (5) (i) Such person possesses three or more firearms; or (ii) such
    person possesses a firearm and has been previously convicted of a felony
    or a class A misdemeanor defined in this chapter within the five years
    immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such possession
    did not take place in the person’s home or place of business; or
    (6) Such person knowingly possesses any disguised gun[; or
    (7) Such person possesses an assault weapon; or
    (8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device].
    Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.

  17. As a martial artist of a quarter decade I suspect all the weapons I’ve routinely trained with would also be illegal here.

  18. slimething says:

    peterh,
    I would suggest reading the section again concerning your AK. It doesn’t need to be a specific brand. Does your AK have a compensator, ability hold an extended mag, collapsible stock etc.?

    I didn’t see a provision to “fix” the magazine. If the rifle has the ability to accept more than xx number of rounds with mag or otherwise, it is banned as I read it,

  19. SOYLENT GREEN says:

    No sword canes? John Steed wont be helping anyone out there either.

  20. oxyartes says:

    No, one exeption:

    Not illegal IF YOU ARE A POLITICIAN

  21. Eric Simpson says:

    This is revolting. Get it… revolt-ing. This, and O’s Executive Orders on gun control, bypass the constitution. What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is not understood? And what part of “divided government” does the preezy not understand? Congress is there for a reason.
    Ron Paul has a huge point. We fought the revolution to end monarchy. We don’t have “King Obama.” Or do we? “The Kenyan King.” To be a big Hollywood hit. Or will the people have the power to stop this man from running roughshod over the constitution?

  22. Blade says:

    Steve … You’ve got to see the brilliant video on this page …

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/16/journalists-refuse-yard-signs-say-home-proudly-gun-free

    A great story and a fine example of citizen journalism.

  23. Robertv says:

    In less than 4 years you will have His Majesty King Obamba the First. Congratulations !

    • Robertv says:

      In a very near future Not even chopsticks will be legal. Start practicing eating with your hands. You better buy your assault hammer and screwdriver now . Tomorrow could be too late

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Michelle O will be The Second. The lib kowtowers will call her King Queen Obama the Proud, because she will finally be proud of her country.

  24. Dave says:

    Link to full text of the law.

    http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013

    Definition of assault weapon is interesting. Glad I don’t live in NY.

  25. Latitude says:

    “criminals mob police stations to turn in guns”……
    ……film at 11

  26. Bruce says:

    So it is illegal to possess a “sand bag” in NY.

    OK, well that’ll be really interesting when next it rains a lot. The NY finest will be out arresting all the emergency workers filling these deadly illegal weapons.

    • gofer says:

      The word can also refer to a simple weapon consisting of a small bag filled with sand for use as a cudgel typically by criminals, or to the act of striking a person. ….WIKI

  27. gofer says:

    Who came up with this absurd notion that the Founding Fathers were referring to only muskets as arms? It sounds like a joke, but apparently it’s a liberal talking point, since it’s all over the place. Good grief, how stupid can you be? That was “arms” of the day. It didn’t say not to infringe on the bearing of “muskets.” There would be no America if the King had taken away the farmers “arms” way before revolution occurred. Most all the “militias” were farmers, the main occupation of the day and therefore private citizens who took their privately own weapons and formed their militias.

    Obama had letters from little kids requesting gun control. I wonder how letters, from little kids, requesting a stop to aborting little babies would go over? You think it would traumatize a 6 year old to know these facts. They rightly should be protected by such information, but the same people have no problem telling little kids their home will be under water if their parents don’t change light bulbs. This happened after a little girl watched Gore’s movie and went home crying because they lived near the ocean. Libs don’t care about the emotional state of children if they can advance their agenda.

    • Bob Koss says:

      If the 2nd amendment only refers to muskets, then the 1st amendment only refers to human operated movable type printing presses.

      • daveburton says:

        Shush! The liberals have already determined that schoolchildren and schoolteachers are “Congress,” and their prayers are law-making, for the purpose of banning the practice of Christianity in schools under the authority of the First Amendment. Don’t you give ‘em even more ideas.

  28. Robertv says:

    Gun free zone

    guided tour of the ISS-

    http://www.wimp.com/orbitaltour/

  29. Jon says:

    What about soft pillows and comfy chairs?

  30. ralphcramdo says:

    I see there’s no mention of “baseball bats” in the weapon list. I wonder why?

  31. What this shows is that the liberal morons failed to read the legislation they voted on. If you look on page 22, it states that anyone who legally possessed a firearm prior to passage and fails to register it is in violation and subject to a class E felony.

  32. Oh, and no electronic stun guns. Sorry, ladies, if someone is intent on raping you, you can’t protect yourself, just submit.

  33. Ira says:

    I think sec 265 is one of those bits of law that can be interpreted either way. Steve, talking about programming logic when you’re dealing with NYS Dem politicians makes as much sense as talking about programming logic with a cat.
    Perhaps this is why Sen Gillibrand sent out emails urging us to write our members of Congress to pass Pres Obama’s gun control legislation immediately.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s