Photo by Alen Fetahi.
At Ruger’s Custom Guns in the Town of Ulster, the confusion that reigned in the aftermath of the laws passage about what would and would not be legal has continued. Co-owner Marie Ruger said that the boost in sales in the wake of the act’s passage has been offset by hours spent fielding questions from gun owners about the law’s requirements. In an effort to close loopholes in earlier assault weapons bans that allowed manufacturers to make the firearms compliant with a few cosmetic changes, the NY SAFE Act included the strictest definition of an assault weapon on the books anywhere. To qualify as an assault weapon, a firearm must have two or more of a laundry list of “military features” including detachable magazines, muzzle brakes, folding stocks or thumbhole grips. New sales of assault rifles are banned; existing ones will need to be registered with the state police by April 15.
Since the law took effect, Ruger said, gun manufacturers have tried to come up with a new class of “New York compliant” versions of popular guns like the AR-15 while individual gun owners have worked to retrofit their firearms in line with the law.
“I’ve spent hundreds of hours answering the same questions over and over and over and it’s not done yet,” said Ruger. “The lawsuits are not complete; it’s probably going to be another few years in the courts.”
Gun owners won a victory last month when a state Supreme Court ruling struck down one of the most unpopular provisions of the law — the seven-round limit on detachable magazines. The judge in the case ruled that allowing the possession of ten-round (the smallest manufactured for most semi-automatic firearms) magazines while threatening arrest of anyone who loaded more than seven was arbitrary and amounted to “virtual entrapment.” Challenges to other elements of the law, including the registration requirement for assault rifles, remain before the courts.
Gun owners protest, politicians backpedal
While the courts hash out the meaning and constitutionality of the law, a backlash has been building among gun owners in Ulster County and statewide. Nationwide, the push for more gun control in wake of mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut has largely subsided. Federal lawmakers failed to pass a bill requiring universal background checks for gun sales. Nationwide in the year since the Newtown shooting more laws have passed loosening restrictions on guns than ones tightening them. In his State of the State speech earlier this month, Gov. Cuomo limited mention of the NY SAFE Act to a single line in a section about crime-fighting measures and state lawmakers have declined to provide funding for one of the law’s key provisions, an online database to conduct background checks on ammunition sales.
Locally, members of the shooting sports community say that they’ve seen a sharp increase in activism following the act’s passage. In Saugerties last week, dozens of people showed up at the Saugerties Fish and Game Club at noon for a “Shot Heard ’Round New York event” to mark the anniversary of the laws passage.
“The first meeting we had [after the act passed] was standing room only and that never happens,” said Bill Schirmer, a Saugerties town councilman who sits on the Saugerties Fish and Game Club’s board. “People have become much more active in our club and I think a lot of it has to do with the law.”
Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston) described himself as a “reluctant” yes vote on the NY SAFE Act. Cahill said he was uncomfortable with some aspects of the bill, but felt that on balance it was a needed revision of existing state law in response to a new era of mass shootings. As an indication of the emotions around the issue, Cahill said a few longtime friends stopped speaking to him after the vote. A year later, Cahill said, he remains concerned about aspects of the law, in particular their impact on collectors who he called “absolutely the most responsible” of gun owners. But, Cahill said, he believed that loud calls on the right to repeal the act were more political theater than an actual movement. Lawmakers, he said, were unlikely to revisit the law until it had been thoroughly reviewed by the courts — a potentially years-long process.
“I don’t see a great hue and cry to go further,” said Cahill. “I do think that people, for their own political purposes will try to gin up discussion around this just so they can fundraise and show the flag so it can be torn down.”
Assemblyman Pete Lopez (R-Saugerties) was a vocal no vote. Like Cahill, Lopez said that he doesn’t envision the act going on the legislative chopping block anytime soon. But he said he thinks supporters of the bill had badly misjudged both the depth and breadth of anger it would stir among their constituents. One year later, he said, the anger remains red-hot in a movement that straddles traditional political divisions.
“For a lot of people, the right to bear arms is where it begins and ends for them,” said Lopez. “And those people feel like their rights have been diminished.”
it’s not hard to figure this out. if they can create felons out of gun owners they kill two birds with one stone. they won’t be able to own firearms and they won’t be able to vote. it is a dream come true for the left.
I see no problem with this law for me as a gun owner. My weapon is a Magnum rifle with a 9 round clip, for which I need only insert 7 with a round in the chamber. I am not hurt by this law and I do not see why anyone needs to have more than 8 rounds in their weapon at one time, unless they are going to have a rampage or shoot an animal to pieces. The whole argument put forth by the opponents is ludicrous and clearly an emotional response. Wake up
I see no problem with not allowing you to post on this page. I see no need to allow you to have your freedom of speech.
Seems like the 7 round limit has been lifted, back to 10 rds. What gets me is the internet purchase of ammo. My last internet purchase contained an item of ammo that was $130 delivered. Gander Mnt. in my area had the same thing and it would have cost me $190. So the law has limited my option to shop for the best price. Ordering on line and having it shipped to a local FFL is not going to work when the FFL sees he is not selling his supply because he’s priced higher. No law states that the FFL has to accept shipment of ammo purchased by the public.
David: Just drive out of state and purchase it somewhere else.
You are absolutely correct, Bob, there is no problem at all for you with the SAFE act – for now. NY legislators responsible for passing the SAFE act last year recently said they see it as only a starting point in a new era of gun control and they intend to introduce even more restrictive legislation this year. What will you say if they decide to ban magnum rifles this time? Will you then see the slippery slope of gun control for what it truly is – an effort to ultimately disarm all gun owners. It’s time for ALL gun owners to stick together – no matter what type of firearm you choose to own – before the gun banners divide, conquer, and disarm us all one little step at a time. As you admonish us, Wake up.
Keep giving, till all you have left is your life.
You got it right Bob. Lots of hysteria over reasonable actions to make us all safer. The slippery slope arguments are laughable. If the doomsday scenario that the NY Safe act is the gateway to happens, there will be support to put it in check. Quite the contrary is happening right now. The gun lobby has put so many loose cannons in the hands of loose cannons that mass shootings have become the new normal and barely get a mention. Had there been such a proactive stance to the slippery slope that started in 1871, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Explain how we are any safer Ken. Good luck.
Lots of hysteria? We are being preemptively treated like criminals.. Reclassification of my favorite 22 is not going to save any lives… Treating responsible gun owners like criminals is a crime in itself. Look up “Bill of Attainder”. , It’s just typical of NY to control everything! Can’t build a shed, can’t have a fire, you can’t do anything in this state but pay taxes and die.
guns owners we have the biggest fight on our hands now we got to stick together ,people have died for this freedom.lets get the nys safe act off the books.stand up and fight for your rights.
I agree with Bob! Sensibile.
I’m willing to die to protect my rights, are you ready to die trying to take them away from me?
[…] those that don’t know much about the NY SAFE Act, […]
The SAFE Act is anything but. Andrew Cuomo doesn’t want to answer tough questions but the fact remains gun crime has increased in the major cities since his overnight passing of this ill thought law. Another side effect of this law is those seeking mental health help have stopped seeking treatment for fear of losing their gun rights with the new reporting process of mental health professionals to the State Police. These people have stopped seeking therapy, counseling and refuse to see their doctors to fill their prescriptions that keep them stable. Cuomo’s desire to upstage the President after Newtown has only made New Yorkers less able to protect themselves against those who pay no mind to law. The media should be all over the governor over the crime statistics. The SAFE Act is a failure and millions lost rights so one man could attempt to make himself look good. The irony is his ratings are falling fast.
[…] those that don’t know much about the NY SAFE Act, […]