Sledgehammer's Cycles

Sledgehammer's Cycles
Sledgehammer's Performance and Custom Cycles

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

So would that New York ban on magazines larger than 7 rounds ...

... make my Lee-Enfield illegal?


Unusual for bolt action rifles, it has a ten round magazine (twice as big as the typical 5 round one).  Also, the magazine is removable, although it was only removed by the British Tommies for cleaning (it was loaded via stripped clips, two clips of five rounds each).  In fact, #2 Son's SKS is the same - a nominally removable 10 round magazine loaded via stripper clip.

But what are the chances that the Solons of the Empire State wrote a law that would not force me to divest myself of these magazines, if I were an inmate of that once great state?  One suspects that the law is like Massachusetts' ban on possession of ammunition or ammunition components if you don't have a FID card - even expended .22 brass that has no other use than for scrap.

To even ask the questions is to provide the answers - the purpose of gun control legislation is to cast a net so wide and so onerous that lawful gun ownership will wither due to the fear of inadvertently running afoul of the court system.  Meanwhile, gun violence will continue unabated. 

11 comments:

Wolfman said...

Through a feat of ridiculousness, I am now the proud owner of no less than 3 guns the possession of which is a felony in New York. Thats up from the one that counts against me in CA, IL, MA and whatever other miniscule nationstates count their number in the mire of New England. Cheers!

Rob K said...

Heh, I can stuff 12 rounds in the magazines of my 7.62NATO Model 2A Lee-Enfield. It has a bayonet lug too!

Ratus said...

No, BP they'll have you do this.

http://snarkyposters.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-york-state.html

Dave H said...

Actually BP, that rifle's magazine is still okay in NY. There's an exception for Curio & Relic magazines, which are defined as being manufactured at least 50 years ago for use in guns that were also manufactured 50 years ago. You're also still allowed to load 10 rounds into it at a dedicated shooting range, training session, or competition sanctioned by a national governing body. (The NRA is referred to by name in that case.)

In spite of what it looks like, the new law does have some nods to existing gun owners. They didn't have to do that. They way they shoved it through the legislature with no time to study it, those little gestures wouldn't have been needed to sway anyone's vote.

My biggest complaints against the new law, and the reason I'll work to help remove it, are 1) the way it was passed, with no debate, and 2) The gun, magazine, and ammunition restrictions are worthless for stopping the kind of violence they're supposed to be addressing. There are provisions for identifying risky people and getting help for them, which is good, but the whole thing as a package is the wrong solution.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"There's an exception for Curio & Relic magazines, which are defined as being manufactured at least 50 years ago for use in guns that were also manufactured 50 years ago."

But, if I'm reading/understanding it right, that exception doesn't apply if there are any modern reproductions (i.e., less than 50 years old) that can accept the original magazines. IOW, to be considered a C&R magazine, it cannot be usable in any gun made after the cutoff date, even if it's an exact reproduction of the original gun.

"You're also still allowed to load 10 rounds into it at a dedicated shooting range, training session, or competition sanctioned by a national governing body."

But only 7 rounds anywhere else, including at home. Loading an 8th round into the magazine is a crime.

It would be silly, if it weren't (almost literally) criminally stupid.

Wolfman said...

My biggest complaints about it are: Its ridiculous on its face, its exactly what they said they weren't doing while knowing its what they wanted to do, and it sets the ratchet one step tighter, which we knew they wanted. I'd have detested it even if it wasn't stuffes through at midnite with backhanded tribute. They set firearms technology back 100 years, and this is on top of having all the laws they want at the federal level. When it doesn't effect changes in criminal behavior, they'll want to pass the New York 7 rd law at the federal level, amd proceed to a 5 rd law, or straight to single shot. Its not about a battle for gun-control. Its about a strangulation of the gun culture. Now they can 'fall back' on new laws, without losing ground. New York is not part of a free country any longer.

Dave H said...

Jake: You're correct, an AK-47 magazine made in 1960 is off limits because it fits AKs that were built more recently. But I'm pretty sure the last Lee-Enfield was built more than 50 years ago.

Old NFO said...

Hmmm... What about a Model 39A... It holds 12-16 depending on .22long or .22 short???

Geodkyt said...

Dave H --

You would be mistaken. Because of the way "built" ("made" or "manufactured") is defined, there are SMLEs that were "built" last year.

The timeline clock resets to zero when someone extensively modifes a C&R gun.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Even worse (if my interpretation is correct), if a C&R gun takes a magazine that fits in any non-C&R gun, then the magazine does not qualify for the C&R exemption under this law.

Take, for example, JMB's Remington Model 8. The police version takes 15 round magazines, so it falls under this law, but it hasn't been made (and assuming for the sake of argument that no replicas have been made) in over 50 years, so it and the "police-only" magazines would qualify for the exemption. Now assume someone comes up with a new design rifle, but decides to copy the Model 8 police magazine design.

Suddenly, and without any action taken on the part of current owners, every magazine they own for that gun becomes illegal because it can now be used in a non-C&R gun.

Geodkyt said...

Jake (formerly Riposte3)

A-yup.