NY 7 Round Limit to Be Suspended Indefinitely: NY Senate Majority Leader

Surefire 60-round magazine courtesy brownells.com

Bloomberg News is reporting that the 7 round limit on magazines, which Governor Cuomo had said he wanted to keep, may be suspended indefinitely. Apparently the upcoming budget bill will include language that places an indefinite suspension on the enforcement of the law, which was part of the NY SAFE Act that was rushed through the NY legislature without being read By those who voted for it. The suspension comes after the members of the NY legislature suddenly realized that no one makes magazines for firearms that would be legal under their new gun control measure, and after a significant backlash from their constituents. No word yet on how this will impact the pending legal challenges against the other parts of the act.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

54 Responses to NY 7 Round Limit to Be Suspended Indefinitely: NY Senate Majority Leader

  1. avatarLance says:

    Good to hear some good news!

    • avatarLC Judas says:

      It’s a mixed bag. They back out of 7 round limits, the easiest part of the bill to undo, and you get a more complex legal battle. Still winnable but not so easily when the weakest link is tossed before it can compromise the rest of the chain.

      • avatar16V says:

        Which is exactly the strategy. Doubtful it was part of a ‘plan’, but it certainly is the well-reasoned response to facts on the ground.

        While we don’t see any scientific validation for their thought processes, nor their conclusions, only a fool thinks our enemies are stupid.

  2. avatartangledthorns says:

    This is not a win, not by a long shot. If anything it’s a reprieve for the law abiding NY citizens and their state is still a anti-gun state and we must remain vigilant.

  3. What a bunch of Ass-Clowns. They just wanted to say they did something. Then passed an impossible law for people to obey. Now they are trying to keep from getting embarrassed by having the courts throw out this law on the grounds of stupidity.

  4. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    The 7-round limit was a huge brainfart even by the low standards of the civilian-disarmament brigade.

    They’re just doing this so they can regroup and inflict 10-round magazines instead, with the now-customary exceptions for the knighthood (ahem) I mean law enforcement.

  5. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    Damn it all to Perdition! Have you plonkers any idea how many well-paid jobs will now NOT be created in the nascent seven-round magazine industry? This is a huge loss for the U.S. economy!

    I weep for the unemployed. [SNIFF!]

    • avatarNom Deguerre says:

      All those potential jobs that will never be… boo hoo hoo :(

    • avatar16V says:

      Glad to see the reports of your demise were greatly exaggerated.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Thank you.

        Yeah, it pokes me when RF uses liberal as a swear word, but I shouldn’t have flown off the handle.

        Very few decisions should be made at stupid o’clock in the morning, and e-mail written after midnight should seldom be sent before morning coffee.

        Consider my temporary ass-hat acknowledged and removed, in all head-hanging, sheepish humility.

  6. avatarDave says:

    It is probably still this: you can buy a 10-round magazine, but you can only carry or defend your home with it loaded to 7. At least that’s where things stood a couple of days ago. And I saw Cuomo’s remark somewhere that loaded to 7 is OK for the State, because NYC has been limiting you you to carrying 5 for a while anyway. I better stop before I say anything else …

    • avatarBill F says:

      I am afraid you are probably right. A few days ago Cuomo admitted the 7 round mag limit presented an impossibility, conceding to the fact that there were no 7 round mags made for most guns. But, at the same time and from the other side of his mouth he said the seven round loading limit would still stand. Just to prove how gun friendly he really is, he was talking about reducing the cost of hunting licenses by two bucks or some such silly shit.

      • avatarBill F says:

        Really the only thing that has changed is NYers will still be able to buy 10 round magazines after April 15. But they can only be loaded with 7 rounds. The original plan called for no sale of 10 round mags after April 15. Previously owned 10 rounders could be kept, but only loaded to the magical number 7. Previously legal pre-ban 10+ capacity mags have to be sold, destroyed, or turned in. Most of us, of course, immediately destroyed any previously allowed, pre-ban 10+ mags.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Y’know, I know a guy in Albany with a 12 shot cap’n’ball Navy revolver.

          I wonder how this’ll apply to him…?

    • avatarMichael K Smith says:

      I am sure the gang-banger’s are going to follow the law of only 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine. Really what kind of fools do they have in NY ?

    • avatarNickbnumbers says:

      Unintended consequences? Now if you’ve got someone loaded to 10, he’ll make sure he unloads the thing in the bad guy when maybe only a single shot would have sufficed. Better than getting caught with 9 in the magazine is to be holding an empty gun and tell the cop you had to reload.

      I feel stupid for being continually amazed at what politicians come up with. When you allow someone to have a job where they MUST be paid (or the person who refuses to pay the tax gets locked in a cage), where they can’t be fired for doing a terrible job, and where they’re exempt from any market feedback, and have a gold-plated pension and separate health care system, you’re putting a power-seeker into a consequence-free environment. If their actions have no negative consequences for themselves, how much though do you think they put into how it will wreck YOUR life?

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Thomas Jefferson, or Mario Cuomo: who ya’ gonna trust?

  7. avatarg says:

    It’s half and half… it never should have been a law (duh), but removing it is probably a strategic move to allow the rest of the SAFE act to live on despite the legal challenges.

    Still, I’m sure all of our brother/sister gun owners in NY are glad they won’t have to waste money buying non-existent 7 round mags.

  8. avatarJohnnyNRA says:

    Not over till the whole act is repealed, and compensation is given for the damages/loss of life it has caused.

  9. avatarGabriel Martin says:

    The good old “hit them with a hammer, so they don’t complain about getting slapped in the face.”

  10. avatarPat says:

    Is there anybody in NY with an AR that DOES NOT have it loaded with at least a 20 round mag?
    Twenty rounds really is a number I could live with regarding offensive and defensive capabilities.

    • avatarMatt in SD says:

      Not one inch.

    • avatarDave says:

      Maryland has had a 20-round limit. They are about to make it 10. Compromises would be worth it if things would stay in one place, but never seem to.

    • avatarGreeneGuy says:

      My AR only came with one 10 round magazine when I bought it here in the DPRNY (Democratic People’s Republic of New York). Too bad I lost it in a tragic ice fishing accident this winter…..

    • avatarJohn in AK says:

      Why 20? Why not 21? If 21 is the ‘right’ number, does that make 22 an invitation to mass murder? What about 15? Why do we hate 15 so? I rather like 11. Or maybe 19. If we can save one life by making it 19 and not 20, think of those we could save by making it 18 instead of 19. . .

      What we have, here, is acquiescence to tyranny, to an arbitrary and capricious number, with no foundation in fact or logic, a mere bright-line magical number that somebody grabbed out of thin air to provide a ‘malum prohibitum’ rule as a means of control by prosecution.

      If we can ‘live with’ one more arbitrary restriction, we can ‘live with’ the next one, and the next one, and so on. It will NOT stop at 20. Or at 7.

      The correct number desired by our opposition is ‘zero’. ‘Zero’ is a number they could live with regarding offensive (gasp!) or defensive capabilities.

      • avatarPat says:

        I mentioned 20 as a number I (myself) could live with personally to engage in offensive and defensive activities, as it is hard to imagine needing to go over twenty if a couple dirtbags enter your dwelling (in which case I would reach for my Handgun for quick reload). I should mention that I do own magazines over 20 rounds. My main thrust was to point out that 7 and 10 can EASILY run dry against a few dirtbags breaking in and that 20 is a world of difference.
        And yes, I agree that we cant give in an inch against the libtard morons.

  11. avatarMichael K Smith says:

    Another classic case of Democrats signing Bills into Law without reading or understanding what they are doing. Monkey see monkey do.

    • avatarNickbnumbers says:

      You’re right. We ought to draft a bill that would repeal all existing gun control laws, prohibit all future gun laws, and include a provision that puts an iPad in every city bus and train.

      We tell the Democrats that it’s to ensure that the “underprivileged” have “access” to technology.

      Call it the Making America More Competitive by Putting Computers in Buses and Giving Away More Free Stuff to Poor People and Saving Our Children Act, and those drones will vote Yes (or Aye or whatever anachronism is fashionable in that viper pit) without even turning past the first page.

  12. avatarMikeyCNY says:

    No deal – repeal!

  13. avatardirk diggler says:

    Their problemis the law still exists even if not funded or enforced. The courts can still slap this down

  14. avatarHaiku Guy says:

    So, am I to be limited to seven rounds in a ten round magazine? If so, what is the difference between seven rounds in a ten round magazine and seven rounds in a twenty round magazine? Inserting that eighth round is a crime, either way. The only difference is the amount of space under the last round.

    This is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious. They are banning millions of standard capacity magazines for no reason, whatsoever. They are functionally the identical as a partially loaded 10 round magazine.

  15. New strategy;

    Convince magazine maunfacturers to stop making 10 round magazines. Then we can say no one makes 10 round magazines, and thus you can’t limit magazine size to 10.

  16. avatarLabman says:

    Sure, this right after the NYC police were turned down when they tried to buy .50 caliber rifles from Serbu. They aren’t rescinding the law, just putting it on the back burner. Maybe it’s another just head fake?

  17. avatarNor'Easter says:

    This is obviously an attempt to safe face (and their political asses) by the pernicious pols of Metrolandia. The 7 round nonsense was particularly galling since it sweep up many classic handguns and such venerable firesticks as the M 1. FYI over 10 rd mags were already banned in NY BUT with all pre-1994 ones grandfathered. If this is restored, it will relive much of the pressure.
    This does not end the lawsuits by any means but since judges do read the papers, it can roil the waters and remove the immediacy of the situation. Scalia is still waiting though.
    Let’s not forget that this also shows the power of the people to move these buzzards. Even though America is – like almost all modern societies – largely ruled by a “ruling class” it’s a dirty little secret how vulnerable it is to the peasants with their torches and pitchforks whenever they can be shaken awake enough to act up.
    Very gratifying to see this in NY. We may not be as stalwart as citizens as we should be but we’re pretty good at suing and making noise!

    • avatarDave says:

      But the over-10 previously grandfathered ones will no longer be legal to possess, right? There may be an option to modify them to 10 (or 7?) permanently, but that’s about it.

  18. avatarNor'Easter says:

    As of now yes, but if the backpedling continues this may change also – good to hear from you.

  19. avatarjustice says:

    The argument about magazine or firearms for my personal use is dictated by the local Law Enforcement group, and their risk assessments for the local area and what their officers need. LEO has the right to have whatever they choose for capacities- That’s one of my major points when I write, email and call politicians- The firearms and amount of ammunition that the LEO’s have is deemed sufficient for them to protect themselves in the event of a situation justifying the use of firearms (this is typically admin code or statute that each state has dictating circumstances for deadly force). If a LEO or department takes a policy that their officers can carry sidearm with __ amount of rounds, and tactical rifle with __ of rounds per magazine, that tells me that I should have the same rights to deal with threats local to the area. The risk assessment by LEO’s is proper for them and recognized by courts and legislation, then it is proper for me to recognize that same risk factor.
    Keep up the pressure to look at alternatives- we have been pushing gun safety items, with tax credits/deductions; i.e. getting tax rebate/credit for various items like we had for energy efficiency credits. Amazingly, 6 state reps (5 dems, 1 Repub.) have started looking at the writing of a proposal. The dems like it because they are shown to be pushing safety on 2nd A issues, but without getting into the frying pan or risking re-election issues. Find your fence sitters (you should know by now…) and present this in a nice formatted letter, with LOTS of supporting signatures.

  20. avatarsdog says:

    haha doh! about that 7 round limit now…

  21. avatarBill F says:

    Yes, you are limited to 7. Cuomo’s words: Gov. Andrew Cuomo had said he wanted to clarify that “the law would allow gun owners to load seven rounds into a magazine that could hold 10 bullets.” Cuomo had insisted that the effort was not a whole-sale scale back of the law, which is a signature achievement for him so far this year.

  22. avatarpinecarpenter says:

    This is was last Thursdays news. Front page of the Buffalo News. It already cleared with Quomo… If your going to post ”news” you have to make it current or don’t bother. Also, modified magazines are not allowed in NYS even before the ban.

    • avatarDave says:

      According to NY SAFE Act FAQ – http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq

      Q: What if I have a magazine that can contain more than ten rounds?
      A: You can permanently modify the magazine so that it holds no more than ten rounds, responsibly discard it, or sell it to a dealer or an out of state purchaser by January 15, 2014.

      This suggests that the modified magazines are allowed. Are they talking about something different from what you are referring to?

  23. I like the sell it out of state option. So what you’re saying is that these devices are evil and we should not be allowed to have them, but it’s okay to shovel that supposed evil onto a neighboring state? Meanwhile Bloomburg and Cuomo blame guns from other states for the crime in NYC…

  24. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    Kimber makes seven round mags.

  25. avatarNor'Easter says:

    Hello again Dave – To answer your inquiry, yes that is correct that they can be “permanently modified” but with no direction as to how. Someone mentioned a wooden block as is used for hunting but I doubt that this is “permanent” enough.

    This is another change from the old entry which said that you could only keep previously owned 10 rd mags, converted to 7. Dare I say we’re making headway?

    Saw your latest reports of the Cuomo gang turning on and blaming each other, Bloomberg and the Brady Bunch for this mess? I hope you feel as bad for them as I do.

  26. I don’t know what is more retarded, the 7-round capacity law or the lawmakers who passed this. Now they are back-tracking this dumb restriction.

    There is really no common sense in loading just 7rounds, whether its a 10rd mag or a 7-round mag. So does it make you a felon in NYS if they catch you with 8-rounds in your mag?

    Plain stupidity at its finest.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.