Andrew Cuomo Realizes He Mandated Gun Magazines That Don't Exist


Office of the Governor

Two months ago, you may recall, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo won the race to enact new gun restrictions following the Sandy Hook massacre, beating every other opportunistic, grandstanding politician in the country by signing a bill that was passed so fast legislators had no time to read it. One consequence of that unseemly haste, I noted a few days later, was that legislators forgot to exempt current and retired police officers from the new rule for magazines, which reduced the maximum number of rounds from 10 to seven (because, as Cuomo explained, "nobody needs 10 bullets to kill a deer"). The ensuing outrage at the lack of a double standard revealed not only that cops take their special rights for granted but also that they do not believe the magazine limit—which they support for "regular citizens"—will have any impact on criminals. Now Cuomo has noticed another problem: Before imposing his arbitrary ammunition limit, he did not bother to check on the availability of seven-round magazines. It turns out "there is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine," he said at a press conference yesterday. "That doesn't exist. So you really have no practical option."

That's a slight exaggeration. Seven-round magazines do exist, just as three-wheeled cars exist, but they are not standard. Last month the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle noted that "gun manufacturers have not had much reason to make a magazine with fewer than 10 rounds, except for limited uses, because no state required it until now." Based on interviews with gun dealers, the paper reported that "there are no manufacturers planning to make special seven-round magazines to serve the New York market." The new magazine limit takes effect on April 15.

The governor's solution: change the law so that people are once again allowed to buy 10-round magazines but make it illegal to put more than seven rounds in them. I swear I am not making that up; it is already the rule for previously owned 10-round magazines, which are legal as long as they contain seven or fewer rounds. Putting in that eighth round is a violation punishable by a $200 fine for the first offense and a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail, for a second offense if the magazine stays in your home; if you walk outside with it, that eighth round could cost you up to six months in jail for the first offense and up to a year for the second.

Richard M. Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, objects to Cuomo's proposed accommodation. "I think the governor and the Legislature got it right the first time," he tells The New York Times. "We don't want to have to tell the mother of a young man who's just been shot and killed that he was killed with the ninth bullet."

Stephen J. Aldstadt, president of the Shooters Committee on Political Education, also perceives a flaw in Cuomo's proposal, which he calls "the most asinine thing I've ever heard." But Aldstadt's objection is somewhat different from Aborn's. "Any person who is going to go commit a mass shooting like Columbine or Sandy Hook is certainly not going to pay attention to a law restricting magazines to seven rounds," he says. "The only people who would possibly obey that law are legal gun owners, and they're not your problem."

As I wrote in January:

It is implausible enough to suggest that a criminal—who by definition has no compunction about breaking the law, who is not legally permitted to possess firearms to begin with (if he has a felony record), and who is highly motivated to obtain the tools of his trade—would be deterred from obtaining a 10-round magazine by the legislature's new dictate, especially since plenty of them will remain in circulation. It is beyond fanciful to suppose that, having obtained a 10-round magazine, a criminal would think twice about putting more than seven rounds in it because legislators said he shouldn't. 

But this is the sort of magical thinking that passes for reasoning among advocates of sensible, common-sense gun control.

NEXT: Federal Reserve May Lay Off Stimulus, Eventually

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "We don't want to have to tell the mother of a young man who's just been shot and killed that he was killed with the ninth bullet."

    But if he's killed with fewer bullets, perfectly okay.
    Are we sure we haven't reached Peak Retard?

    1. Its worse than that. Even if the perp fired 9 or more bullets, there's no way to know which one killed the victim.

      Assuming, that is, that you don't number your bullets while loading them.

      1. Does this idiot really believe the words that are coming out of his mouth, or is he just being dishonest to push his goals? I'm not sure which is worse.

        1. He may suffer from Cocktail Party Syndrome: A descriptor for the behaviour of children with arrested hydrocephalus, who may be sociable, talkative, pseudointelligent, and speaking in a seemingly erudite fashion on subjects about which they have no true understanding.

          1. "The only people who would possibly obey that law are legal gun owners, and they're not your problem."

            the hell you say. they are the entire point of this law. the idea is to ban guns without actually saying so directy. if you didnt realize he was purposely picking a round-count south of a standard 1911 you are a moron

            1. to rephrase: im a moron.

              i think i was remembering 1911 mags as 8 instead of 7+1

    2. This is like the inverse of the idiotic arguments for a higher minimum wage. Why not limit magazines to zero bullets? We don't want to have to tell the mother of a young man who's just been shot and killed that he was killed with the first bullet

      1. "Why not limit magazines to zero bullets?"

        that's step 2

        step 3 is making pointing your finger and going "Bang! Bang!" punishable by death

    3. I know what you're thinking. Did you put ten rounds in the magazine, or only seven? But being as this is a 44 magnum with a 10-round magazine, and one extra round could get you thrown in the pen for a year, you've gotta ask yourself one question - do you feel lucky, punk?

  2. Derp! Just remember, we need MOAR government so we can have more rulez like this.

  3. I honestly am kind of amazed at the stupidity of New York's gun bill, and I lived there and experienced its already epic levels of stupidity. But this is just above and beyond.

    1. I am trying to think of ways this could possibly be funnier, but I figure I should just leave that to Cuomo. He will figure it out.

      1. Who knew Cuomo was a comic genius? I'm sure he didn't.

  4. Michael Bloomberg: "You can have your 20 ounce cup, as long as you only put 16 ounces of liquid in it."

    1. Does ice count?

      1. Ice takes energy to produce, which harms the environment. So yes, ice counts.

    2. I wonder - would a 16 oz drink with no ice have more calories than a 32 oz drink full of ice? If so, why not get a water cup, fill it with ice and pour in your uniced 16 oz. cola to accomplish the same effect?

  5. There's no way to support this without looking like both an authoritarian statist and a fool at the same time. Democrats would be well-advised to take note of this as an example of what not to do if they want to keep what they have through the midterms.

    1. There's no way to support this without looking like both an authoritarian statist and a fool at the same time

      You say this as though this has been an obstacle in the past. for the love of zeus, its the fucking M.O. of the "Progressive"

  6. "The only people who would possibly obey that law are legal gun owners, and they're not your problem."

    This is something that liberals will never understand.

    1. Incorrect, a "progressive" understands this perfectly. The people they want to pacify are the average citizens, not the criminals.

      1. So they are dishonest. I can buy that.

      2. What they want is to eliminate, not pacify "legal gun owners".

    2. I think they understand just fine, and it's actually their goal to go after legal gun owners.

      1. Which actually makes a perverse kind of sense. Once the progtards have outlawed guns, outlaws will be instantly recognizable by their possession of a gun and lack of a badge.

        1. The could not care less about criminals.

          It is the average gun-owner they want disarmed. The kind of person who might decide to resist an oppressive government someday.

          1. They are fond of saying "We are government."

            So in their mind anyone who would resist government is resisting them. It never occurs to them that government might actually go after them.

        2. don't be so sure about the lack of badge meaning not a criminal ...

    3. They understand it fine. This law just allows for more selective policing, meaning they can protect enlightened people like David Gregory when they break a plainly-written law for a political purpose and can put some poor nigger in jail because he lives in a shithole the cops refure to police.

      It's fucking disgusting.

  7. Jesus, they almost found a brilliant solution to their political dilemma. Instead of banning actual guns, which upsets a good number of people and is generally illegal, anyway, they should ban fictional things. Like phasers.

    "New York is proud to lead the way in banning the deadly phaser. While we all acknowledge that "stun" is a generally harmless setting--though subject to potential abuse--the phaser's "kill", "dematerialize", and "overload" settings are inconsistent with a free and safe society and, surely, totally unimagined by the Founders."

    1. We will, of course, amend these regulations to exempt Starfleet personnel, who have been trained in the proper use of the kill setting, and have been entrusted with protecting our safety.

      1. When seconds count, Starfleet is light years away...

      2. You wouldn't want to be the Starfleet Commander that has to tell a grieving mother that her Cadet son was killed by a phaser that was set to kill, when we have law the specifically prohibit proles from using the 'kill' setting on their phasers.

      3. Do Starfleet personnel really need phasers? Can't they just use their fists, the way Kirk intended?

        1. Space karate takes special training. Also, you have to know how to avoid sharp weapons in precisely the right way to have your shirt rip exactly the same each time.

          1. You can also just do defensive tactics, which are even less violent. I'm pretty sure Archer teaches a class on ways to fight without harming the opponent.

            1. One of the flaws in that show is that they didn't really explore the less enlightened days of pre-Federation.

              1. Didn't they still have money even? How evil!

                1. They had money in TOS, too. Not sure when the communist totalitarian state took power.

                  1. The Klingons stole it all to fund their ridge reconstruction research.

                    1. One of the dumber things they did was worry about the fact that they didn't have much budget for makeup in TOS. I mean, come on, it's pathetic for people to complain that 60s effects were, well, 60s effects.

                    2. True, but I think we can ALL legitimately complain about things like this:

    2. You can totally regain access to the "kill" setting by filing down the inhibitor, though.

      1. My disruptor is way better than any crap-piece phaser.

        1. Disruptors are the assault weapons of the energy-weapon world. They look bad-ass.

          1. Also the name sounds more sinister.

            1. And the firing sound is much cooler. Though we must acknowledge the awesomeness of the original phaser rifle.

      2. Punishment for that is banishment into the Phantom Zone.

    3. Have you seen the clause banning detachable rocket launchers in the new AWB? Pretty much the same thing as a phaser ban.

  8. My Walther PPK/S has a 7 round mag. Maybe he got bribes from Walther.

    1. Love my PPK/s. Mine is SS made by Interarms. Is yours a S&W?

      They also make 7 rnd. 1911 mags so it could be a Colt driven directive.

      Have you had a chance to try out one of the Walther PPQs? Schaweet!

      1. It's one of the S&W ones. And it's a great little pistol. Not the lightest thing, but compact, elegant and fairly pleasant to shoot.

        Haven't had my hands on a PPQ, but sounds interesting.

    2. Did you mean a 007 round mag?

    3. A single-stack 1911 .45 holds seven rounds. That's where the seven round mag come from.

      What this mag limit really promotes is small concealable pistols. What used to be called Saturday Night Specials, allegedly preferred and used by criminals and ban-worthy.

      1. Why are easily-concealed weapons ban-worthy?

        1. The original handgun-ban movement was aimed at Saturday Night Specials: cheap, easily concealed handguns. Naturally, they were supposed to be favored by your darker-skinned types.

          The banners have gone from trying to eliminate these guns to promoting them.

          1. OK. I misread your original post and thought you were calling them ban-worthy. I about shit myself.

            1. I about shit myself.

              Too much artisinal mayo?

              1. Nope. Too many pickled eggs.

                1. Artisinal pickled eggs?

          2. Yes. There was even a Lynyrd Skynyrd song about it.


            That was the hot issue back in the 70s. Liberals really do have a memory hole.

            1. Of course they also sang "gimme back my bullets"

            2. By the way, most modern music sucks compared to this.

              1. I am more of an Almond Brothers man myself. But yeah, most of it today sucks.

                1. I always preferred Skynnyrd to the Alman Bros. But I have albums from both.

                  1. The older I get the more I like The Band.

                    1. I have never gotten The Band.

                2. Yeah, the Almond Brothers are great. I'm a bigger fan of the Pistachios or the Cashew Twins, though. 😉

                  1. Mr. Peanut's solo work was the bomb-diggity, YO!

          3. I remember the good old days when progressives worried about poor people shooting each other with Saturday night specials.

            In light of today's discussions, those efforts of yesteryear to ban cheap guns seem sorta rational.

            1. I remember the money line for them was "They're only good for killing someone." Which, if you need one for protection, is pretty much the point.

    4. I believe my old 1911 which wouldn't feed anything held seven rounds.

      1. Really? My 1911 would feed a chicken if I could get one into the mag well.

        1. It was MY 1911. It was a Colt from the mid 90s which were apparently notorious for quality issues.

          I like the design of the 1911, and there are apparently really good ones out there.

          But my next gun was one 'o them fancy, new-fangled space aged polymers that all the young people are using these days.

          Haven't had a single failure. Not one.

          1. Some of the polymer guns will stovepipe if you limp-wrist them.

  9. "there is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine," he said at a press conference (Cuomo)

    Protozoans90+% of all Politicians.

    1. My greater than symbol disappeared.

      Should read Protozoans(greater than) 90+%

      1. That symbol has been declared illegal by Cuomo (and the Reason squirrels).

        1. LOL +1

        2. Well it has sharp pointy parts, someone could hurt themselves on one of those. Besides, it completely eviscerates the concept of equality by categorically making one side a higher value. We had to ban them, you understand. For the children.

          1. Nice!! Damn I love Libertarians.

            1. You're welcome. Snark and sarcasm are just some of the services we offer here at the HnR comments section.

              1. Sometimes, snark and sarcasm are the only services here at HampersandR.

                1. Well, you gotta go with what you're good at. And besides, it's fun. They haven't completely outlawed fun, yet.

                  1. citation needed

                    1. A citation for fun that isn't outlawed or a citation for my claim that I'm good at snark and sarcasm?

                    2. I think my snark speaks for itself.

                      As far as the fun goes. Well, you can still... nope.
                      Uhh, you are still allowed to... wait, nevermind.

                      Shit, gonna have to get back to you on that.

          2. Instead of those nasty things, why don't you use a nice, childsafe ) ?

            1. Because I hate children, that's why.

              Fuckin little dirty bastards deserve to get stabbed with math symbol. Teach them to think they're precious little snowflakes.

  10. Not that i at all agree with NY's dumbfuck gun laws, but there are lots of weapons that have a 7 round or less mag.

    Doesnt the venerated 1911 hold 7 rounds? I know my colt mustang does. The Smith & Wesson M&P shield does.

    1. Yeah, my Shield came with a 7 and with an 8.

      1. Been thinking of getting one, how do you like your shield?

        1. I traded mine for an XDS and never looked back.

    2. Plenty of weapons with 7rnd mags. Cuomo had no idea what he was talking bout then, now, or ever. But he feels good. Now if they could only find a piece of amber with a mosquito in it that has feasted on Unicorn blood he could start on his next great project.

  11. serve the New York market

    What is that, like, two guys?

  12. OT:
    "Auditor: 2 on Oakland council broke law"
    Notice that the city charter specifically states: "a council member who is convicted of violating the non-interference law must forfeit his or her seat."
    So it's an odds-on bet that there will be no charges, no trial, no conviction and the perps will be re-elected.
    It's CA; wadaya expect?

    Read more:

  13. "New Yorkers can call the 'Gun Tip Line' if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun. Hotline calls are answered by state police and tips are referred to local law enforcement, the station reported."

    1. We can't be totally safe unless we put aside our differences and spy on our family, friends, and neighbors. For safety!

    2. Sweet. Another anonymous tip line to turn out the SWATties on your annoying neighbor.

      I submit that a libertarian siccing the SWATties on his proggy neighbors is no worse than a libertarian claiming the mortgage exemption on his taxes. While we may decry it in principle, if the state is going to provide it we might as well take advantage, no?

      1. What about calling the tip line on politicians and bureaucrats only? Not all proggy neighbors are busybodies.

        1. I like the way you think and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

        2. Not all proggy neighbors are busybodies.

          If they were proggy busybodies, they'd be a politician or a bureaucrat.

      2. No exemption for law enforcement in the law, right? Call them in. Of course, have to be a bit careful not to let on that they're a cop, or it wouldn't go anywhere.

        1. "I saw this guy walking into a donut shop a minute ago and he had a gun! Yeah, he was wearing dark blue and had a hat on."

          That should do the trick.

      3. You mean it was a lawn rake? It looked like one of those evil assault weapons to me.

        And of course overloading the hotline with thousands of anonymous tips would count as perfectly legitimate civil disobedience.

        1. Do they still have payphones in NY? Because I'm not calling in more than once even on a burner cell.

          1. If they do have pay phones, that won't benefit you because there's probably some sort of surveillance camera pointed at all of 'em.

    3. I say we call in a tip on Cuomo himself, and say "the gun looked big and scary, so it must be illegal!"

      1. And he is surrounded by thugs with guns.

  14. "We don't want to have to tell the mother of a young man who's just been shot and killed that he was killed with the ninth bullet."

    You mean like the young man who was executed over his toilet by the NYPD? That ninth bullet is the difference-maker.

    1. wonder what happens if you use the trigger to count out how many bullets are actually in your gun when LE confronts you on it?

    2. His lawyer Stuart London said Haste believed he saw a weapon on Ramarley Graham and "acted accordingly." No gun was recovered at the scene.

      "He continually asked the individual to see his hands. 'Let me see your hands, let me see your hands.' The officer's state of mind, we feel, indicated he thought his life was in serious physical danger, and he had no option but to discharge that weapon," London said.

      There's a lot of 'thought, feel, believe' in that statement. I'm so glad that I can be unarmed and shot in the back by a cop based on 'thought, feel and believe'.

      1. His lawyer Stuart London said Haste believed he saw a weapon on Ramarley Graham and "acted accordingly." No gun was recovered at the scene.

        You mean the cops couldn't even plant a gun at the scene to recover? They're getting incompetent.

        1. No, just lazy. They've figured out that they don't need to plant a gun; they're aren't going to be arrested or fired unless they fuck up on tape, and mostly not even then.

  15. Ladies and Gentlemen, a big hand for Charlie Rangel!

    We're talking about millions of kids dying ? being shot down by assault weapons,

    1. From the comments: "In a lot of ways, he's a human dilldough"

      Probably would go well with artisanal mayonnaise.

    2. If Charlie was worried about all those kids, he could have let them hole up in one of his several rent-controlled apartments that he illegally had in the city.

    3. Good lord. I managed to make it all the way through his spiel. My frontal lobe feels like it was just scooped out.

    4. To be fair, *we're* "talking about" unicorns shitting Skittles.

      Still, Rangel is an ass.

    5. We're talking about millions of kids dying ? being shot down by assault weapons

      So that's why he keeps calling for reinstating the draft!

    6. There is no hunter that needs automatic military weapons to enjoy the culture of going hunting.

      a reference to hunting AND calling them "automatic military weapons" in the same sentence. The derp is strong in this one.

      1. You mean he doesn't remember presiding over this farce?

        1. There was a bill called Foppa?

        2. Is this playing correctly for everybody else? For me the visual is working fine but Rangel's audio has been replaced with a clip of Gilbert Gottfried doing his impression of Ralph Kramden. Though it does match up amazingly well to the video...

    7. Charlie Rangel!

    8. If there was any such thing as a Stupid Singularity Charlie Rangel would be the event horizon.

    9. "There is no hunter that needs automatic military weapons to enjoy the culture of going hunting."

      It amazes me how they can continue to pull this bullshit without getting called on it. This is like if Bloomberg were defending his soda ban by saying that people shouldn't be drinking bleach anyway.

  16. All you Libertarians just do not understand the power and majesty of the New York Governor's Office. If the Governor commands thou shalt not load more than seven rounds, then it shall be so. If the Governor commands the tides to recede from Long Island, then it shall be so. If the Governor demands that his head shall be pulled from his ass,. . . well that may be beyond his powers.

    1. New York is seriously screwed. Cuomo and Bloomberg are in a no holds barred competition for most idiotic decree.

      1. It's almost worse than Chicago

      2. I don't understand the point of the NY governor. I mean, NYC voters pretty in charge of everything that goes on in Albany- the mayor of NYC is essentially in control of the state. Might as well eliminate the redundancy.

        1. Eliminate redundancy in government???!?!??!?!?!??!?! What are you, some sort of anarchist?

          1. Nah, I'd just hate to see two politicians fighting over the power right to screw the same constituents.

  17. Is this a joke? It has to be a joke. It's not a good joke. Write better jokes, Sullum.

    1. Hey, you go to press with the Governor yuo have, not, God knows, the Governor you wish you had.

  18. Why don't they just pass a law that says you can't kill someone with a gun? Won't that solve the whole problem?

    1. That's not an apt comparison.

      1. That's a really good comparison actually.


      Oooh, ooh! I know, we should outlaw hurting other people while we're at it. Then no one will EVER get hurt. Wow, how come nobody thought of this before us? Strange.

    3. This "just don't put another bullet in it" is even more mindnumbing than the "well, it'll make it harder for the criminals who ignore laws anyway to get the guns."

    4. I suggest they make it illegal to kill anyone with the 8th bullet.

      1. And add another strike for using each additional bullet.

  19. And don't forget Cuomo is beloved by the progtards and considered prime Presidential material for 2016. And it is the GOP who are the stupid party.

    1. That's because the Dems are the Evil Party.

      1. They are the stupid and evil party. Sorry, but you can't call someone like Cuomo smart. He is a fucking moron and every bit the moron that the worst Republican is.

        1. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

          1. Sometimes, it's both. - Stranger's Razor.

        2. Well, the poles should be shifting between now and 2016. The GOP will steadily become the Evil party while the Dems become the Stupid party.

  20. Who is going to be the brave soul who puts in that seventh bullet to gain standing for a Constitutional suit?

    1. You mean 8th bullet?

      1. Maybe...

    2. That could make for an awesome press conference. Invite the governor, maybe some police and a prosecutor, AG. Live video it all, especially if someone like Fox News would pick it up (or MSNBC for their two minute hate).

      "And so, as you can see, I'm now inserting an 8th round into this magazine. I'll now place it in this evidence bag for the police, who I'm sure will be right along to arrest me and collect it."

      Wonder if David Gregory would be available and willing?

      1. The point would be to actually get the charge enforced, which didn't happen with him last time...

  21. What's the rule on seven in the magazine and 1 in the chamber? Is that another "gray area" for cops to exploit so they can arbitrarily shake people down?

    Also, when will an enterprising "civilian" make a citizen's arrest against a police officer that had a 10-round mag in his shooter? Can that "civilian" do a stop-n-frisk stop with the cop to determine how many rounds he is packing?

    1. Didn't they fix that portion by adding an exemption. I mean it's only logical that a cop might need more than 7 rds to defend themselves. They're terrible shots and there might be a few dogs that need shooting.


    I raised this issue when this idiocy first appeared on the horizon. Yes, there are pistols (real man's pistols like the 1911 GI, and a multitude of purse pistols) which take a seven round mag. However, if you're talking about a downsized double stack modern pistol, ten rounders is what is out there.

    If you go to the range with your California or Massachusetts legal Glock, will half the other guys on the line be counting to see if you've put too many rounds in?

    Also hastily exempted from the law: movie and television actors!

    1. If you go to the range with your California or Massachusetts legal Glock, will half the other guys on the line be counting to see if you've put too many rounds in?

      No they won't.

  23. when will an enterprising "civilian" make a citizen's arrest against a police officer that had a 10-round mag in his shooter?

    10? Hah. What's a full capacity Glock 9mm mag hold, 16? More?

    1. 17rd for 9mm (G17), 15rd for the 40S&W (G22), and 13rd for the 45ACP (G21). Of course, these are the FS models.

      Of course, there are also 33rd magazines for 9mm, 29rd for 40S&W, and 25rd for 45ACP, but those aren't practical for EDC and only purpose is to shoot congresswomen and kids, and give antis huge banboners.

  24. But, but, but . . .if you enforce the 7 round limit the in 60 to 80 years we can be as gun free as Japan.

  25. what a dumbass Cuomo is.

    I wonder if his takeover of the real estate appraisal industry had any unintended consequences that worsened the economy. It certainly cost consumers money.

  26. Has anyone noticed the non-sense in so called "common sense"? What a heartbreak it must be to the children of these nannies when they realize they are being led by perfect idiots.

  27. Sometimes when I'm shooting deer with my Springfield XP 9mm I need a few more rounds than 7 to get the job done...Especially when I'm driving...Just saying

  28. OK, can somebody explain to me how NY state, and NYC in particular, has not reached "idiocracy" status? How much more of a self-inflicted comedy do their politics have to be before we can officially change the name without anybody noticing?

  29. Agammamon|13 @ 6:33PM|# But, but, but . . .if you enforce the 7 round limit the in 60 to 80 years we can be as gun free as Japan.

    I'm not sure how well this is understood in the US so here's some background. A few years back in Japan a guy had a grudge against his doctor and wanted to kill the quack. He walked into the local Yakuza office (they used to have signs making it perfectly clear what the business was) and announced that he wanted to buy a gun. Cash was produced and he went home with a loaded Tokarev T-33. A day or so later he waited for the doctor at a train station, confronted and shot him to death.

    So much for the effect of gun bans after a few centuries.

  30. "The ensuing outrage at the lack of a double standard revealed not only that cops take their special rights for granted but also that they do not believe the magazine limit?which they support."

    I wasn't aware the COPS wrote this law.

    I personally do not know any cops who support gun control, though I am sure they exist.

  31. My god, is there some sort of state-level contest to enact the stupidest legislation between CA, NY, and MD? I can't explain this kind of shit in any other way without having nightmares.

  32. just as Betty answered I can't believe that any one can profit $7390 in 1 month on the computer. did you see this link

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.