Posted on 01/15/2013 8:17:18 PM PST by kiryandil
Did the New York state legislature just accidentally make it a crime to merely OWN a firearm?
See page 22 of the posted bill, s2230:
§ 41-a. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 265.01-b to 5 read as follows:
6 § 265.01-b Criminal possession of a firearm.
7 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she:
8 (1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to
9 the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen
10 which added this section subject to the registration requirements of
11 subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly
12 fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision.
13 Criminal possession of a firearm is a class E felony.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The difference is that the registration was intended as a scheme, however misguided, to fight crime in Canada. Here’s it’s a scheme to end all ownership of those guns within one generation. You’re a criminal unless your gun has a government permission slip, and you can’t transfer it to anyone else in the state, even your heirs.
Interesting
BTTT
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
- Ayn Rand, 1957 -
Well done Hoodat.
May God give us strength.
Tatt
The way it is written makes it a crime to own ANY firearm. Oops.
But wouldn’t it be capitalized if it were a defined term?
Agreed. I was referring to using parentheses to clarify the order of evaluation of arithmetic operators. Humans need them but the machine is fine without them.
The one I see causing more problems is using complex Boolean logic embedded within IF statements. I used to make my people break them down into multiple individual IF statements.
My feelings too.
No longer necessary. A closed door agreement between the two major political parties is all that is needed to change the meaning of the Constitution. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 for confirmation of the above statement.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Some of us got a free ride through college on our reading comprehension, and others did not...
I don’t live in NY, thank the Good Lord! Why would anyone comply with this garbage? I lived for years in the only county in NC that required firearms registration. I never even considered registering my weapon there. I bought it legally while living in another state. It’s mine, guaranteed by the constitution. I’m a decent, civilized, patriotic citizen and I intend to protect myself and my family from those who aren’t.
“The “or” makes the first condition true in all cases of possession of a firearm.
Whoops! Yer all felons, NY gun owners!”
We were wondering the same thing when we tried to make sense out of this bill. One of the worse written bills I’ve ever read.
(1) makes you a felon because you POSSESS a firearm.
This is spot on accurate. The way the legislation is worded, you are a felon if you meet the criteria as specified in (1) - possessing a firearm OR you meet the criteria in (2) AND fail to register it.
Plain and simple - the wording is either intentionally different than what is being reported or they simply screwed up. The problem is, now it has been signed into law and will take legislative or court action to correct it.
I haven't concluded my reading of the entire text - does anyone know if there is a severability clause written in? If not, court invalidation of this portion would deem the entire law unenforceable.
The problem is those who never give a thought to the idea of FREEDOM are moving to the South and corrupting it: to wit, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia.
Hang on to your beans, band-aids, and ammo, because it won’t be long now.
I don't see where they spell out school grounds on page 21. I see it under (3) below as one of the ORs.
52 S 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 S 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
14 (3) [He or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun
15 or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational
16 purposes, of any school, college or university, except the forestry
17 lands, wherever located, owned and maintained by the State University of
18 New York college of environmental science and forestry, or upon a school
19 bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of the vehicle and traf-
20 fic law, without the written authorization of such educational institu-
21 tion]; or
22 (4) He possesses a rifle, shotgun, antique firearm, black powder
23 rifle, black powder shotgun, or any muzzle-loading firearm, and has been
24 convicted of a felony or serious offense; or
25 (5) He possesses any dangerous or deadly weapon and is not a citizen
26 of the United States; or
27 (6) He is a person who has been certified not suitable to possess a
28 rifle or shotgun, as defined in subdivision sixteen of section 265.00,
29 and refuses to yield possession of such rifle or shotgun upon the demand
30 of a police officer. Whenever a person is certified not suitable to
31 possess a rifle or shotgun, a member of the police department to which
32 such certification is made, or of the state police, shall forthwith
33 seize any rifle or shotgun possessed by such person. A rifle or shotgun
34 seized as herein provided shall not be destroyed, but shall be delivered
35 to the headquarters of such police department, or state police, and
36 there retained until the aforesaid certificate has been rescinded by the
37 director or physician in charge, or other disposition of such rifle or
38 shotgun has been ordered or authorized by a court of competent jurisdic-
39 tion.
40 (7) He knowingly possesses a bullet containing an explosive substance
41 designed to detonate upon impact.
42 (8) He possesses any armor piercing ammunition with intent to use the
43 same unlawfully against another.
44 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A
45 misdemeanor.
Some info for the thread.... Not sure if other sections apply also......
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm#p265.01
Article 265 - NY Penal Law
FIREARMS AND OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPONS
265.00 Definitions.
3. “Firearm” means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having
one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle
having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d)
any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration,
modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or
otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e)
an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the
barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the
distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or
breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the
overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance
between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to
the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique
firearm.
*********
The section being added to:
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm#p265.01
S 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
degree when:
(1) He or she possesses 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
slingshot or slungshot, shirken or “Kung Fu star”; or
(2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto,
imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon
with intent to use the same unlawfully against another; or
(3) He or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun
or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational
purposes, of any school, college or university, except the forestry
lands, wherever located, owned and maintained by the State University of
New York college of environmental science and forestry, or upon a school
bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of the vehicle and
traffic law, without the written authorization of such educational
institution; or
(4) He possesses a rifle, shotgun, antique firearm, black powder
rifle, black powder shotgun, or any muzzle-loading firearm, and has been
convicted of a felony or serious offense; or
(5) He possesses any dangerous or deadly weapon and is not a citizen
of the United States; or
(6) He is a person who has been certified not suitable to possess a
rifle or shotgun, as defined in subdivision sixteen of section 265.00,
and refuses to yield possession of such rifle or shotgun upon the demand
of a police officer. Whenever a person is certified not suitable to
possess a rifle or shotgun, a member of the police department to which
such certification is made, or of the state police, shall forthwith
seize any rifle or shotgun possessed by such person. A rifle or shotgun
seized as herein provided shall not be destroyed, but shall be delivered
to the headquarters of such police department, or state police, and
there retained until the aforesaid certificate has been rescinded by the
director or physician in charge, or other disposition of such rifle or
shotgun has been ordered or authorized by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
(7) He knowingly possesses a bullet containing an explosive substance
designed to detonate upon impact.
(8) He possesses any armor piercing ammunition with intent to use the
same unlawfully against another.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor.
end snips
Texas won’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.