Gun Control

New York Legislators Propose Another Unenforceable Ammunition Limit

Purchases would be limited to twice a weapon's capacity every 90 days.


Office of Roxanne Persaud

The package of gun controls that New York legislators hurriedly passed in January 2013, a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in neighboring Connecticut, banned the sale of magazines capable of holding more than seven rounds. Later Gov. Andrew Cuomo—who had insisted that the bill, known as the SAFE Act, be passed before legislators had a chance to read it, let alone consider its implications—realized "there is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine" for most guns. The law was therefore changed to allow continued sale of 10-round magazines while prohibiting New Yorkers (those without badges, that is) from putting more than seven rounds in them, except at "a recognized firing range." (No, really.) A bill recently proposed by two Democratic legislators from Brooklyn promises to repeat the mistake of imposing an ammunition limit that cannot be enforced.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reports that the bill, introduced by Sen. Roxanne Persaud and Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon, would make it illegal for a gun owner to purchase more than twice "the capacity of the weapon" in any three-month period. Since the SAFE Act bans possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (including those previously grandfathered), that means the maximum amount of ammunition that could be legally purchased for any given weapon would be 20 rounds every 90 days. As the Eagle notes, the 90-day limit might be lower. It would be 12 rounds for a six-shot revolver, for example, and two rounds (I assume) for a single-shot, bolt-action rifle. That does not allow for much target practice.

"I don't even have to own a gun to stock up on bullets," Simon said, explaining the need for the new limits. "Nothing stops me from having friends buy even more bullets for me. The sky is the limit. The San Bernardino shooters had 6,000 rounds of ammunition. We need this legislation so that cannot happen here." Persaud said "limiting the quantity and duration between purchases of ammunition is one step in preventing someone with criminal intent from easily accessing large quantities of ammunition."

That's the theory, but how would these limits work in practice? The Eagle dryly notes that "the practicality of limiting small-capacity gun owners to a less than a box of bullets is unexplored." And that is just the beginning of the enforcement challenge. To abide by these limits, a gun dealer would need to know 1) which guns a customer owns and 2) how much ammunition he has already purchased in the previous three months.

New York requires all handgun owners to obtain permits, and it collects information about those weapons. It also has information about whatever small fraction of grandfathered "assault weapons" New Yorkers have bothered to register (as required if you want to legally keep them). Assuming all that information can be gathered together and made easily available to dealers, they still would have no way to confirm ownership of other long guns, which outside of New York City require neither permits nor registration. So if a customer buying 200 rounds claimed to have 10 rifles, each with a 10-round magazine, how could a dealer determine that he was not actually buying that number of rounds for five, one, or zero firearms? Such uncertainty would put dealers in a tricky situation, since the punishment for selling someone too many rounds would be one to four years in prison.

Dealers would have to keep records of each customer's ammunition purchases, and that information would have to be entered into a database they all could consult to make sure no one exceeds his 90-day limit. They also would be prohibited from "selling ammunition for a firearm to anyone unauthorized to have such a weapon, regardless of the weapon type." At a minimum, that would mean verifying that someone buying handgun ammunition has a pistol permit and that someone buying ammunition for an "assault weapon" has registered it. It might also mean performing a background check on all ammunition buyers to make sure they are not legally disqualified from owning firearms. Such background checks were notionally required by the SAFE Act, but the necessary database was never created, and last July the Cuomo administration announced that the plan was on hold indefinitely.

Robert Farago, publisher of The Truth About Guns, notes that the database for ammunition buyers proved "unworkable and really, really expensive." The Persaud-Simon bill would require an even more ambitious database, including a lot of information the state does not currently collect. "This amendment to the SAFE Act could well be the most impractical gun control legislation ever drafted," Farago says, "and that's saying something." 

[Thanks to CharlesWT for the tip.]

NEXT: Armed Protesters Occupy Wildlife Refuge Outpost in Oregon, Free State Project Hits 90 Percent of Goal, ISIS Threatens U.K. in Latest Execution Video: A.M. Links

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. This law would also make it impossible to be a responsible gun owner, because it would make it impossible to become proficient with your guns. Firing 20 rounds every 90 days is worthless as far as gun handling skills go.

    1. Yeah, it’s totally ridiculous and out of touch with reality. Either they don’t care if what they say makes any sense, or they have no idea what people do with guns.

    2. From the antis perspective, that’s a feature rather than a bug. They’ve been getting smarter about the laws they propose lately.

      1. Short term smarter; like all statists, they simply cannot see any consequences to anything. I think it was Cafe Hayek which said that everything in life is a tradeoff, and statists cannot see that; my sense is that they see symptoms as causes, as if they could control the speed of a car by twisting the speedometer needle.

        The more ridiculous laws they pass, the more they paint themselves into a corner, unable to backup for fear of losing face. I don’t know what the end result will be, since they do try to enforce their unenforceable laws, but it won’t be what they want.

    3. Not so hard to be a responsible gun owner… just impossible to be an *honest* responsible gun owner. As the second to the last paragraph notes, “At a minimum, that would mean verifying that someone… buying ammunition for an ‘assault weapon’ has registered it.”

      Actually, it would mean that a hypothetical person could buy ammunition for the thousands of bolt action .223 rifles that don’t need to be registered, but he totally, completely swears he owns. Then he would use that ammo to practice with his hypothetical unregistered “assault weapon”.

  2. What’s to stop someone from driving to PA and stocking up?

    1. Nothing? But that’s the point, just like the SAFE Act. Just one more opportunity for someone to fuck up or another “loophole” to close down the road because the current law isn’t restrictive enough.

      1. When my brothers were living in MI, they drove just a few miles to the Indiana border to get cigarettes, which were ten dollars a carton cheaper. The response was to park cop cars just over the border and arrest people for smuggling.

        1. It is like we share a mind, Timbo.

          1. I had noticed that. Disgusting wretches that we are. We should compares scars sometime.

            1. Let’s start with our hernia scars!

        2. When my brothers were living in MI

          There are stories of PA state troopers camping out in NJ liquor store parking lots, when they see a person with PA tags shopping there, they will follow the car back across the border and stop them. I’ve never actually heard a first person account of this though.

          1. In the late 70s, plainclothes Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control agents would stake out liquor stores in Georgetown, D.C., to see if any customers were loading Virginia-license-plated cars with more than the gallon or two that was legal to import into the Commonwealth, then radio the make, model, and license plate to cops on the Virginia side of Key Bridge, who would pull the dangerous bootleggers over and bust them. That stopped pretty fast after the DC Council passed a law making it a felony to do what the Virginia agents were doing.

            (I cite this example to friends who tell me that the DC government fucks up everything. Sure, it’s only a single counter-example, but it illustrates the problem with over-generallization.)

            1. DC was undoubtedly responding to the cronies who own the licensed liquor stores, but hey, I’ll take what I can get.

    2. We will just hire more New York State troopers to patrol the Pennsylvania border to pull over any suspicious vehicles. If those vehicles refuse to let the troopers search for ammunition, the vehicles will be taken under asset forfeiture laws.

      It is so simple!

      1. Well, since the 4th amendment is virtually dead at this point, I could see that actually happening.

        1. It is not a far-fetched idea, which is thoroughly depressing.

  3. Even New York wouldn’t pass this dreck.

    Now California on the other hand…

    1. Don’t be so sure, they did pass the SAFE act after all.

    2. New York is experimenting with the notion that the executive does not have to wait for the legislature to pass laws. See their late shenanigans on the minimum wage and daily fantasy leagues.

  4. As a resident of New York State, I am glad my legislature is #doingsomething to keep me safe from terrorists. And to thank Senator Persaud for her effort to keep me safe, I am calling for our legislators to engage a mandatory and intensive diet and exercise plan that will allow them to improve their health so that they can continue to keep me safe.

    1. I am calling for a ban on “assault appearances”. Really, what person NEEDS to weigh 350 pounds and wear hipster glasses? I would suggest that we ban anyone from having a BMI over 25, if they also have at least one “assault feature”. “Assault features” will include hipster glasses, Girls merchandise, any hair color by Mop-&-Glo, and any clothing feature indicating support for Oberlin College.

      For those of you who think my BMI limit is too crude, I direct you to section W, paragraph (a), subsection (r), clause (t), subclause (y). “The BMI limit does not apply if the person’s body-fat percentage is equal to or less than 15%”.

      1. I think my BMI is like 26 so, it has to be higher than my BMI. Otherwise, I like where your mind is at.

        1. Whatever fatty, report to the camps immediately.

        2. The Reason commentariat will (of course) be exempt.

  5. The Eagle dryly notes that “the practicality of limiting small-capacity gun owners to a less than a box of bullets is unexplored.”

    Prohibitionists, whether they’re trying to ban “military-style” weapons, marijuana or miscegenation, do not care for such trifling details as “practicality”. Hell, half the fun of doddering around the legislature (or any other zero-accountability 100% paper-pusher job) is that there is a comfortable buffer between you and any concrete, physical results of your actions. You just run your mouth and get a paycheck. Caring about the real world results of your actions is pleb shit.

    1. “Practicality” and “unenforceable” are silly concerns anyway. Government has a monopoly on force for exactly such occasions.

  6. Legislation like this is not meant to be enforced. It is meant to be yet another charge to pile onto a defendant in order to force them to take a plea bargain rather than allowing them to attempt to prove their innocence to a jury.

    1. ^ Agreed!

      Selective enforcement gives incredible power to the government.

    2. From memory:

      We expect those laws to be broken. That’s the game Mr. Rearden.

    3. Exactly. Every little law that people may deride as inconsequential is always yet another tool for the government ti impose tyranny through it’s “justice” system.

  7. “Since the SAFE Act bans possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (including those previously grandfathered), that means the maximum amount of ammunition that could be legally purchased for any given weapon would be 20 rounds every 90 days.”

    To get a CCP, don’t you have to demonstrate competency by being able to hit a target from x distance two handed, left handed, right handed, etc.?

    Wouldn’t depriving people of practice rounds make it effectively impossible to obtain a CCP?

    Ammunition is a lot more expensive than most people realize. If this bill passes, somebody’s going to make a fortune selling reload kits.…..516280.uts

    1. Wouldn’t depriving people of practice rounds make it effectively impossible to obtain a CCP?

      Feature, not a bug.

    2. Can’t reload rimfire as far as I know.

      1. Nope. It’s also pretty hard to buy less than 50 rounds (of .22 LR, at least).

        How long until they propose a law against selling “loosie” ammunition?

        1. That was my thought as well. Handgun ammunition typically comes in a box of fifty rounds. ‘Special’ ammunition, such as hollowpoints is often sold in a twenty pack, perhaps to reduce the cost to the end buyer.

          Rifle ammunition (centerfire) is usually in a box of twenty.

          If law enforcement weren’t considered so ‘special’ and left exempt to these BS laws designed to (ultimately) disarm the law-abiding public, the laws never would be proposed. At the least, police chiefs and LEO unions would be screaming loudly about the legislators being ‘anti-cop’.

          With this ridiculous proposed rule, the owner of a single semi-automatic handgun or revolver couldn’t buy a full box of ammunition at one time. I live in a ‘more free’ state, can buy firearms without much restriction, ammunition is limited to how much I can afford at one time. Since I shoot frequently, I buy in bulk, usually at least five hundred rounds of a given caliber. New York would consider me to be a genuine threat to public safety…

      2. No doubt.

        I’m still learning about this stuff.

    3. To get a CCP, don’t you have to demonstrate competency by being able to hit a target from x distance two handed, left handed, right handed, etc.?

      Not in New York.

      In New York permits are issued if and only if your are friends with the issuing official, or if you have made it through the bureaucratic thresher without having made an error such as using the wrong color ink when filling out your application, (I am not kidding, using the wrong color ink counts as failing to follow instructions since it states a color in the fine print), and the issuing official is in a good mood at the time.

      Actual proficiency with firearms never factors into it.

      1. “Actual proficiency with firearms never factors into it.”

        That’s kind of frightening.

        The statistics from states that don’t require a demonstration of proficiency for CCP should be thrown out.

        That’s would be like looking at accident statistics from states that don’t require a driving test to get a drivers’ license.

        I’m not exactly in favor of the government putting any restrictions on the right to bear arms, but if they’re going to put any restrictions on it at all, being able to demonstrate proficiency before they give you a permit to carry it in public seems a lot more reasonable than trying to restrict people’s access to ammunition.

        I’d care more about whether people can hit what they’re shooting at (rather than innocent bystanders), and depriving people of practice rounds just makes it less likely they’ll hit what they’re shooting at.

        1. “Actual proficiency with firearms never factors into it.”

          That’s kind of frightening.

          Doesn’t seem like much of a problem in shall-issue states and states with no permit requirement.

          1. What’s frightening about a lack of infringement on your human right to self-defense, Ken?

            1. This is vis a vis a law that limits ammo purchases.

              IF IF IF they’re going to do anything, rather than limiting ammo, they should try to make sure people can use what they carry.

              In the meantime, yeah, when I see progressives cite stats that say people are more likely to shoot themselves or a family member, I want to see which states’ stats they’re citing. They cite those stats to suggest that guns can’t be owned and operated safely.

              Is the incidence of people shooting themselves or family members different in places where you have to demonstrate proficiency? If it is, that would fly in the face of what the progressives are saying about safety and gun ownership.

              Of course, whether proficiency makes carrying safer and whether it should be required are two different questions.

              1. In my mind, licensing gun ownership or carry is a textbook infringement. Anything that makes the license harder it get, compounds the infringement. Proposing a different infringement is playing their game.

                Don’t do it.

              2. Is the incidence of people shooting themselves or family members different in places where you have to demonstrate proficiency?

                Seems like that could go either way. I’m not sure that training on using a gun would make a person less likely to kill someone. Maybe slightly less likely to do so by accident. But except in the terrible places where you need a permit to have a gun at all, people can generally have guns in their homes with or without a permit, so I doubt it makes much difference.

                In any case, I prefer not to go down that road at all as it works well as an argument for onerous permitting requirements which would only further restrict people’s rights.

          2. Why ignore half of what I wrote?

            1. I, at least, was just narrowly responding to the specific passage.

              And I’d agree at least that requiring proficiency is less bad than requiring that you be properly connected to get a permit. Though no permit requirements at all would be the best option.

        2. Thing is, regular people are held responsible for errant rounds, while police are not.

          Meaning if we miss and cause damage, we’re facing charges. If a cop misses and causes damage, his target gets charged.

          So who do you think has a greater incentive to be proficient?

          1. Not to mention the tremendous incentive that us regular folk have not to shoot unless absolutely necessary.

            1. We know the courts will “second guess” our decision. Cops know they won’t, as a matter of law.
              Read it and weep.


              The Graham analysis essentially prohibits any second-guessing of the officer’s decision to use deadly force: no hindsight is permitted, and wide latitude is granted to the officer’s account of the situation, even if scientific evidence proves it to be mistaken

    4. “Wouldn’t depriving people of practice rounds make it effectively impossible to obtain a CCP?”

      Lefties are perfectly happy to do things that they would call an egregious infringement on a constitutional right IF it were applied to rights that they (claim to) care about.

      Look at half the shit that one must go through to buy a gun in the deep blue enclaves of NYC and California, then observe how they shriek when someone proposes that voters should have to show a driver’s license to verify that they are who they say they are.

  8. Does this include shot guns? That would be 4 shells in my O\U. Hell I’ve shot a 100 rounds shooting clay,or pistol shooting.Many more with my .22 rifle. Hell,you couldn’t hunt upland birds or waterfowl.And ,ammunition comes in packs that are larger than two reloads in many cases.These people are either stupid or evil.Maybe both.

    1. These people are either stupid or evil.Maybe both.

      I would say definitely both.

      1. But mostly evil

  9. Walked out of the local gun shop with 1000 rounds of .22lr for ninety bucks. Guess I’m a terrorist or something.

    1. Squirrel terrorist.

      I’ve probably got around 100x the capacity of ammo for every gun I own. I don’t know what that makes me.

      1. Prepared.

      2. You can never have too much ammo, IMO.
        I feel like Scrooge McDuck counting his gold when I look at my ammo.

  10. Would effectively end all recreation target and skeet shooting in NY – and drive many gun shops out of business – all features.

  11. I was lookin’ at the SIG MCX online the other day.

    The barrels are interchangeable, so you can switch calibers easily. The barrels are made to be swapped out at will. but you can also swap out barrel lengths.

    I was thinking about it in terms of barrel length restrictions. You can’t have a rifled barrel under 16″ on a rifle–but if you swap out the 16″ barrel for the 9″ barrel, it isn’t a rifle anymore–it’s a perfectly legal pistol!

    And you can attach it to your favorite AR-15 lower, and it’s just as legal as anything.

    It’s just so painfully obvious that whatever the lawmakers try to do, it always fails to do what they want–and thank God for that. If the lawmakers could actually accomplish what they’re trying to do, it would be a much scarier world. Who was it that said, “The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency”? You could say that about lawmakers, too.

    1. I was thinking about it in terms of barrel length restrictions.

      Be careful with that. I’m not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, so do your own research. This is how I understand it:

      Once assembled, your receiver/lower is either a pistol or a rifle, which is apparently determined by how it was assembled the very first time.

      If it was assembled as a pistol (sub-16″ barrel, no stock) you may freely convert it between pistol and rifle, as long as you never have a stock and short barrel on at the same time. If this happens, you’ve created an unregistered short barreled rifle (SBR), that’s a hefty fine and years in jail.

      If your receiver started life as a rifle, you cannot convert it to a pistol. Adding a sub-16″ barrel in any configuration creates an illegal SBR.

      Interestingly enough, it seems if you shoulder a pistol (lets say it has some protrusion that isn’t a stock, which lets you do this), you’ve also created an illegal SBR. So holding your gun in a certain way can be part of the manufacturing process.

      1. I’ve always wondered, why 16 inches? These laws are bizarre. Adding a rifle stock to a pistol somehow makes it more dangerous?

      2. That’s interesting.

        This is what I’m talking about:

        You see that they have both the 16″ and 9″ barrel available as acessories–and you just pop ’em in and out on the fly. They also come standard with a folding stock–and the gun can be fired with the stock folded. You can buy a telescoping stock from them for it, too.

        When you have the 9″ barrel on it, they refer to it as “the pistol configuration”.

        1. Clearly the only reason to have a gun like that is to commit mayhem. Ban it !
          (except for our heroes in blue of course)

          1. Recreational use. Target shooting and stuff.

            I spend a lot of time off road in the desert out in the wilderness. Nevada, Utah, Mojave desert, and other places. A lot of times the people you meet out there are really nice people.

            Sometimes not so much.

        2. Now that I look at it closely, I see that on the “pistol configuration”, they don’t have a “stock” per se. They have another accessory they call “a stabilizing brace”.

          I guess it’s okay to use the rifle like a pistol (with the stock folded or telescoped) so long as you have the 16″ barrel on it at the time? Or is it the other way around?

          You can’t put a stock on it when the 9″ barrel is on?

          1. The stabilizing brace only looks like a stock. It’s really meant to be strapped to or rest against other body parts, like your forearm or cheek. It’s all about design and intent, it’s not designed or intended to be used as a stock.

            The moment you put the end of that thing against your shoulder with a 9″ barrel, you’ve manufactured a firearm (according to the ATF) that is illegal without the proper paperwork, registration, permits, and a $200 tax. Same thing if you put a stock designed to actually be a stock on a pistol like that.

            In fact, just being in possession of the wrong combination of parts could possibly land you in legal trouble.

            1. You can’t put a stock on it when the 9″ barrel is on?


            2. For what it’s worth, I found this letter from the ATF about the brace:


              Seems that there was quite some discussion about whether it was legal and why . . .

              I suppose this speaks to my larger point, which was that whatever it is lawmakers are trying to accomplish with these restrictions, they never seem to work as intended. I have little or no interest in firing an AR-15 like a pistol, but people who want to do that can and will find a way.

              I suspect this ammo restriction under consideration will go the same way. Whatever they’re trying to accomplish with the ammo restriction, it probably won’t accomplish that. . . . unless the intent was just to make everything a big pain in the ass with no meaningful impact on the occurrence or severity of mass shootings.

              1. ATF has since changed their opinion on the brace:


                Being law abiding is nearly impossible for the average person, particularly when it comes to guns. There are thousands of these braces out there, and more than likely most owners don’t bother to keep up on the latest interpretations of a nearly 100 year old law regarding what makes a gun illegal.

                As you said, it will be the same with this ammunition restriction if it passes. And with absolutely no possible gain in safety for society at large.

  12. “Later Gov. Andrew Cuomo…….?realized “there is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine” for most guns.”

    I think/know their knowledge of guns comes from the “6 shooters” they see in Cowboy movies, so this makes sense.

    Either that or the feature/bug thing. ie like Obama’s next exectuvice order :”All households containing in excess of .95 persons will be assessed a carbon tax based on this net worth formula. All exceptions will be listed in the soon to be published footnotes after my term is completed.”

  13. What you can’t make illegal, you bury in regulations.

  14. So if I own a double barrel shotgun, I can buy eight (8) rounds per year?

    Who knows? This is so ridiculous that it might actually prompt SCOTUS to start defending their Heller decision, which they haven’t done in years.

    1. And yet, depressingly, there’s a chance they may not defend Heller.

      1. They have refused several appeals that upheld pretty ridiculous restrictions. Shame, really. We are (optimistically) one Justice away from the repeal of Heller and the de facto repeal of the 2A. Not reinforcing Heller now with a body of supporting cases makes it easier to repeal later.

        1. Nuh uhhhhhh! Elana Kagan stated repeatedly in her confirmation hearing that she won’t work against Heller because it’s “settled law”.

        2. Have they accepted any appeals of those ridiculous restrictions ? Serious question. The latest refusal was the Highland Park, Illinois assault weapons ban. But I know there have been several what appeared to be slam dunk appeals of laws that are at odds with Heller, and I don’t think they accepted any.

          1. I think people have read way too much into Heller. The Court does not like curtailing state power, and any time it “must”, it does so in very circumspect ways. All Heller did was to remove “the 2nd is not an individual right” as a justification for restricting gun ownership. To a libertarian, that sounds like the Holy Grail. To a statist, that is just a minor obstacle. There are plenty of other “justifications” in their toolbox. Even when the court rules “decisively”, the law that was thrown out typically gets re-passed with a new justification. “Oh, we can’t do X for Y reasons? Well, we’ll just do X for Z reasons, problem solved.” The SC lets the appeals courts do the dirty work of making it legal.

        3. Not reinforcing Heller now with a body of supporting cases makes it easier to repeal later.

          As they say, “Feature, not bug.”

    2. “So if I own a double barrel shotgun, I can buy eight (8) rounds per year?”

      Buy the Chiappa Triple Threat, then you can have more! (until the anti-gun people start squealing about the “triple barrel loophole”)

  15. When I read stories like this, it occurs to me that what we need is Common Sense Gun Control Control. My personal proposal would be something to the effect of, if you’re a legislator or bureaucrat, you are legally forbidden from proposing any law in any way relating to firearms unless you can demonstrate proficiency with a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun and pass a detailed test on firearms theory and practice, as well as 2nd Amendment Constitutional jurisprudence.

    1. they should also be required to try hunting. I’m so tired of anti gunners claiming you only need one shot for everything. they clearly only watch the hunting shows where the deer are caged and they edit out all their misses.

    2. We need Common Sense Government Control.

      1. I thought that’s what the 2A was for?

  16. This idea was stolen from Chris Rock, so this is further proof that the left is out of ideas:

    1. And Chris Rock stole the idea from Andy Griffith.

      1. +1 Fife pocket bullet

  17. “I don’t even have to own a gun to stock up on bullets,” Simon said, explaining the need for the new limits. “Nothing stops me from having friends buy even more bullets for me. The sky is the limit. The San Bernardino shooters had 6,000 rounds of ammunition. We need this legislation so that cannot happen here.”

    Once again, a fake solution to a nonexistent problem that would prevent the recurrence of an incident that didn’t even happen. Did the San Bernadino shooters kill 6,000 people? Did all those unspent rounds cause some harm that has not yet been disclosed? I’m just surprised they didn’t respond to San Bernadino by trying to ban shotguns and sniper rifles.

    1. Bullets and shot gun rounds have a mind ,an evil mind,too kill ,kill everyone. Only tamed one’s growing in government labs and used by their agents are forces for good.

    2. If only we had common-sense ammunition control like France, where it’s illegal to keep over 1000 rounds per firearm, mass shootings would never happen. No sir. Nobody has ever been able to commit a mass shooting in France thanks to this law.

    3. Of course the quantity of cartridges a person may happen to possess is completely irrelevant to mass shootings or any other violent crime, but we’re dealing with people who have eschewed logic and act just on their feelz. 6,000 rounds is bad because it feels like “too much”. This, from the people who try to lord it over us that they’re the intellectual giants of Western society.

      1. This, from the people who try to lord it over us that they’re the intellectual giants of Western society.

        The same people that are working overtime to destroy western society.

      2. I’m sure that the idea of people shooting thousands of rounds per year as a hobby, would be completely bewildering…

        I worry though, that this bill is not the product of ignorance and cultural circle-jerking. Instead, it may be a calculated attempt to go after the competitive and recreational shooting community.

        The progressives have probably figured out, by this time, that they’re losing the millenials on the gun control issue. The number of young people, minorities, and women who are taking up sport shooting (as opposed to hunting) has been skyrocketing over the past ten years. This is eventually going to cut into their votes, if the progs don’t get a handle on it.

        Making it harder to take up shooting as a hobby, would be one way of getting a handle on it.

        1. I can see how they would want to nip sport shooting in the bud, but up to now they’ve steered clear of pissing on sportsmen. They’ve been playing “divide and conquer” by claiming that they’re just going after those evul “assault weapons” and “nobody is going to take away your deer rifle”. To an extent it has worked; I certainly know hunters who turn a blind eye to gun control since they figure it doesn’t concern them. So I’d be a little surprised to see the progs destroy their own strategy.

    4. Unlike in video games, real ammo has weight. Ammunition is between 20 and 40 rounds per pound (about 20 for 45 ACP and 40 for 38). So 6000 rounds would weigh between 150 and 300 pounds. The fears expressed in news reports imply the shooters were carrying that much. Not a recipe for effective shooting.
      One gets the feeling the pearl-clutchers don’t think this stuff through.

  18. Charles C.W. Cooke addressed this.…..-amendment

  19. The left has to keep messing with its ideological enemies. That’s all it knows.

  20. Roxanne Persaud

    Roxanne spent many years as a Higher Education Administrator prior to being elected to the State Legislature.

    She is a graduate of Pace University from which she holds a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Education Administration.

    In the Senate, Roxanne’s legislative priorities for the District will include safer communities, affordable housing, funding for schools and libraries, supportive services for youth and senior and quality healthcare

    Yet, when you look at her introduced legislation:

    3 bills of nothing

    1. I’m starting to think that Roxy may not be the sharpest tack in the box.

      1. What gave it away? The degree in education *administration*?

    2. Her bio should get a progtard cliche award. Holy fuck.

    3. Master of Science in Education Administration


  21. I think the object is just to score political points by proposing gun control legislation. That’s not to say the legislators behind this aren’t stupid. They are certainly very, very stupid.

    1. Yes. and it will pass, and then it will get tossed out by a judge. and millions will be wasted so some people can say that they “Did Something”

  22. Ammunition is just like Sudafed. The 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of responsible users will suffer because of the actions of a terrorist politician.

    Yes, I am saying that Roxanne Persaud is more of a terrorist than the two assholes from San Bernardino.

  23. I would note that Robert Farago is not the publisher of TTAG, rather Dan Zimmerman who publishes Dead Hooker magazine is. And both are plagarists.

    1. Jeez. I forgot to mention the whole Robert Farago/Dan Zimmerman/Dead Hooker Magazine connection. Silly me.

  24. This won’t go anywhere. About 1/3 of the population lives upstate, and they like their guns.

    1. Democracy is two people from the city and one upstater voting on what to eat for dinner.

  25. And how, one wonders, might appellate courts view this exercise, this abuse of legislative power and authority?

  26. I should have said, if enacted, which it just might be.

  27. Vehicular homicide, and manslaughter are serious problems also. Vehicles should be limited to two tanks of fuel per calendar quarter.

  28. The Democrats will not stop until they have made the possession of firearms by anyone except law-enforcement or government agents illegal. The only way to stop them is to vote every last Democrat out of office!

  29. Interesting…. these Noo Yawk “lawmakers” are stuck on stupid, which means the people who keep putting them in office are REALLY stuck on stupid.

    So, suppose I have an “unregistered” black and ugly rifle, and can’t buy ammo for THAT because… they say so. But suppose I ALSO have a Ruger Mini 14, or a CZ Bolt Action rifle, or a Ruger American semi auto in the “high powered” (but too feeble for deer hunting) .223/5.56 calibre… and can freely buy, every three months, twenty rounds for each one of them…. WHO or HOW will anyone prove I used them in my “unregistered” scary looking rifle with the same action as the Mini 14? How will anyone know and prove how much ammunition I have “stockpiled” (a more gentle and equally accurate term is “laid by”) and have owned it for years?

    Then we’ll have an “incident” where a couple like the ones shot up the Cnhristmas party in San Bernardino… who had bought some of their guns in Escondido, I believe it was, about 150 miles away…. which means a similar couple could have the guns already in New York but travelled to any of maybe six other states, travelling the same distance as the San Bernardino shooters did, to “stockpile” their six thousand rounds…. one more stupid law that could NOT prevent any evil act of evil people, but illegally burdens the nice, kind, polite, law abiding and genteel citizens of New York….

  30. Nary a word to challenge the legality, here. It’s all about workability in this article. Holy mackeral.
    Sometimes you just have to say “we will not comply with illegal forms of legislation. And note, it is a form of legislation. Being illegal it is not “legislation”. I base my claim on the obvious need for an ability to “fire” to keep and bear “fire”arms.
    For one thing, if no one is ever arrested for violating the decree the supreme court will rule in favor of the State. There has to be a real controversy and not a potential one. Someone is going to have to fight for their rights in order to preserve them. That’s why we sometimes see the court rule what seems clearly at odds with the Constitution. They will not undo bad law that isn’t under a challenge because some one actually had their rights curtailed by arrest or suit. I don’t agree with that jurisprudence but there you have it.
    This article is a weakling.

  31. Subject: It’s time to act to stop gun violence
    Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:08:43 -0600
    From: White House Snapshot

    Reply-To: The White House

    “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something — anything — to protect our kids from gun violence?”
    ? President Obama

    RIGHT ON!!
    Don’t you want to “protect our kids from gun violence”?
    I suggest we remove all pregnant women to a walled, guarded, secure “safe house”, where they can get the best Affordable Care free of charge until their infants are born, at which point they will be returned to their homes, leaving their children to be nurtured and raised in the finest circumstances the Government can provide until they graduate from (free, of course) college.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.