The New York Magazine Ban

…is probably unconstitutional:

Whether by clever design, simple ignorance, or haste-induced inattention, these provisions in effect have turned the most popular handguns bought for self-defense and recreational purposes — 9mm and .40 caliber semi-automatic pistols — into expensive paper weights, unusable for their intended and wholly lawful purposes. That’s because, with the exception of a small number of small 9mm “pocket pistols” and a slightly larger number of .40-caliber pistols — there are no seven-round magazines produced or available (magazines produced for semi-automatic pistols normally hold eight or more rounds). Thus, although the most popular handguns themselves remain legal under the New York law, the magazines that are necessary for them to work have been declared illegal.

As he notes, this is a de facto ban of all hand guns other than revolvers, and as the court ruled in Heller, far too sweeping to pass Second Amendment muster. Also, expect the “assault weapon” ban to be challenged as well. The federal version expired prior to Heller, so it hasn’t been tested.

19 thoughts on “The New York Magazine Ban”

  1. I wonder if it would stop or slow the march of Progressivist thinking, to have a New Yorker Magazine Ban?? All the good little Liberals I know have a subscription.

  2. Heller hasn’t percolated to its conclusions in the first place:

    Short choke shotguns (“Sawed off”) were ruled ‘bannable’ because they aren’t something issued to the average member of the military. But they -are- the preferred weapon for defending a room. And “self-defense” has (under Heller) nothing to do with “things assigned to an infantryman”.

    And it should extend (IMNSHO) to a wide array of lessor weapons also: Pepper spray, tasers, … brass knuckles, etc. They’re banned outright in places. “Ok, I’m allowed a pistol for self defense … but a Taser is too dangerous for me to wield?!?”

    1. I had heard that they were the preferred method of clearing a trench–it was a case of the Supremes asserting that a weapon had no military use and therefore could be banned without actually asking anyone who might know.

    2. The Mossberg 590 is standard military issue,our military is one of the few in the world that uses shotguns regularly.There’s video from the Battle of Baghdad of a wounded soldier being carried in a stretcher when he sees a bad guy pop up & the wounded guy takes him out with his shotgun.

      Daver,they were called “trench brooms” in WWI & the Germans complained that they were inhuman,they threatened to execute any American soldier caught with one.Pres. Wilson said “Go ahead,we’ll do the same to any German caught using poison gas”.

      1. Yes, I trained on them during infantry training in 1975. They also had M576 “shotgun” rounds for the 40mm M203 grenade launcher although I never fired one. Now that’s a short barreled shotgun! Not as good as a Claymore mine (which is in effect a very short single-shot shotgun) but I’d have to be on the receiving end of one.

  3. I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire seven shots or only six? Does the seven shots include the one already loaded into the chamber?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being that this is a NYPD-issue Glock with the downsized magazine, not the most powerful handgun in the world, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

  4. There’s a lot of 1911 magazines that only hold 7 rounds; the USMC-issue ones are 7-rounders. The compact Kahr autos are 7-or-fewer in some calibers and frame sizes (and I don’t know about now, but Kahr K9’s used to be the approved backup gun for the NYPD).

    Of course, what COULD happen is the same thing that happened teh last time a mag size law was in effect: a move to either smaller frames or heavier calibers…

    1. I sense a rebirth of interest in derringers and miniature revolvers… I wonder how a “pepper-pot” would fare under their new “law”…

  5. I dont think NY cops need more than 7 rounds either.. the existing police magazines can be modified temporarily with a small block of wood.

    1. A small block of wood? That would be an interesting synchronicity, seeing as how this law was passed by blockheads. 🙂

  6. Shotguns come with a plug that reduces the magazine capacity and makes them legal for bird hunting. Wouldn’t that approach work for semiautomatic pistols? Would it satisfy the new NY law?

    1. Well, considering bayonet lugs, i.e. the capability to install a bayonet, on your rife were regulated items under the first AWB, it could go either way. Besides, this is for the children now, not just to give birds a sporting chance.

      And as they’ve all said, they respect and support the 2nd Amendment. It’s not like they want to take away our right to defend ourselves with handguns that today use > 7 round magazines. They still permit us to pistol whip people in self defense right?

      I’m guessing this law is going to be taken about as serious as a country hiway speed limit sign.

    2. Probably not. Shotguns get ‘plugged’ to comply with hunting regs; in most states it is otherwise legal to own a full-capacity (5, 6, whatever number of shells) shotgun as long as you’re not hunting with it. If the last gun ban was used as a model, magazines would have to be permanently and irreversably modified to be legal: SIG’s 10-rounders used a long plastic baseplate on the bottom of a small, 10-round magazine section; Glock’s 10-rounders had plastic rails molded into the sides of the mag tube to de facto turn a double-column mag into a single column; there were a couple of other designs but those are the ones I remember.

  7. Imagine if they were ever successful in taking away guns. Bozo the nutjob would find that they could kill more people with grenades and you don’t need to buy them from specialty shops.

    Then they’d make a law that nobody can own a bag that might hold grenades.

  8. Has anyone considered the possibility that the purpose of this legislation wasn’t to ACTUALLY ban guns in the first place, but rather to ‘throw a bone’ to the slavering Left that desparately wants just that, while at the same time not actuallly neutralizing the issue by accomplishing anything. This way a Federal Judge will overturn the bans (likely), and the Left will continue to have an issue to fixate upon…

    1. According to our leftist friends that post here, no one wants to take people’s guns away and anyone claiming they do is participating in a ginned up conspiracy theory designed to sell more guns.

      A conspiracy theory that there is a conspiracy theory seems perfectly natural these days.

      1. Considering the first drafts of the law included confiscation, that Cuomo discussed confiscation, and that other “legislators” are talking about confiscation, I find the blather that “no one is talking about confiscation” to be an outright — and insulting — lie.

  9. As far as I know the New York ban does not compensate for the loss of property, as in the loss of magazines now illegal to possess. Isn’t that an unjust taking? And therefore violate the Federal constitution?

    It was my understanding that the primary reason so many gun bans grandfather pre-existing weapons is because the government doesn’t want to pay compensation (or can’t afford compensation).

    1. That’s a scary thought. I really don’t want the government to determine that they can use an eminent domain like procedure to keep me from owning any particular type of property, as long as they throw me a couple bucks to ‘compensate’ me.

Comments are closed.