Southern Brooklyn

NY State Senate Passes Sweeping Gun Control Laws

Source: barryt83 / Flickr

In a 43-to-18 vote, the New York Senate voted to enact sweeping new gun control laws for the state, according to an article in the New York Post.

State Senator Marty Golden supported the measure spearheaded by Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Democratic caucus, despite outcry from a handful of Republican colleagues in the upstate area who voted against the bill.

“This legislation that we’re passing will save lives,” Golden told the New York Post.

The centerpiece of the new legislation focuses on the ban of assault weapons in the state, as well as broadening the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon. The new definition extends to any gun having a detachable magazine and having one military-style feature. The old definition allowed for two military-style features.

Dubbed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (NYSAFE), the legislation also bans all magazines that hold more than seven rounds and bans all direct internet ammunition sales.

The bill, which Governor Cuomo declared is “the most comprehensive response to this crisis,” requires universal background checks for all gun sales. It will also allow state police to monitor high volume ammunition purchases in real time.

Individuals who currently own assault weapons will have to register them within a year and be recertified every five years.

Also included in the sweeping legislation is what’s known as the “Webster Provision” a life-without-parole sentence for anyone who kills a first responder. The “Webster Provision” came about after firefighters were gunned down after responding to a fire this past Christmas Eve in the upstate Webster community.

Under the proposed law, which still requires a vote by the Democratic-led Assembly, also requires mental-health professionals to report dangerous patients. If the patient happens to own a gun, they might be forced to surrender them. New provisions are also extended to mentally ill prisoners who must now undergo an extensive review before being released from prison.

While the majority of legislation puts the hammer to gun rights activists, there is a provision in the bill that would limit the exposure of people that carry gun permits. According to Capital Tonight, the statewide database of pistol permits would not be subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). This language was included to prevent the incident that occurred this past month when the White Plains Journal News published a map of all the homes that housed gun permit holders, an action that left gun owners feeling vulnerable.

If the bill becomes law, the state will also create an electronic database to identify individuals disqualified from owning guns. Background checks will also be necessary for private gun sales.

Comment policy


  1. This will sure stop all those criminals from EVER getting their hands on a gun. This absolutely won’t just make it harder for law abiding citizens to get one.

  2. law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to own a gun. this privilege is now reserved strictly for criminals and power-usurping government agencies

  3. I would like to know if any of those politicians even know how many people were killed in NYS with so called assault weapons in the last 5 years. Fucking nuts.

  4. Don’t have to look very far – the town of Webster is in New York State.

    The “Webster Provision” came about after firefighters were gunned down after responding to a fire this past Christmas Eve in the upstate Webster community.

  5. What a joke. I’m sure all the bad guys will be flocking to the local police station to turn in their weapons. Last night I read a post from my State Senator that we should all feel safer now that they passed the law that limits and hinders legal gun purchases. Question! Will the elected officials who passed this sham personally apologize to the next murder victims family for offering their loves one a false sense of security? NOT! They will propose to eliminate the Second Amendment all together.

  6. Oh ok so a crazed maniac killed a few people with a rifle so lets ban them all. Yeah that makes sense. Can you stop with the dumb sarcastic wanna be witty responses. I dont mind having a real debate or conversation with you but if you keep at it with dumb shit i wont respond. I know it wont make any difference to you or me if we never go back and forth again but if you want to talk about it use some logic.

  7. The question was in the last 5 years. You point out a terrible event that just happened. I suppose that someone like you who loves knee-jerk reactions would have approves locking all Asians in camps during WWII

  8. Unless you can give me a really compelling reason to own a weapon of this definition I’d say the possibility of other crazed individuals to do similar carnage is a good enough reason to ban them.

  9. It wasn’t even sarcastic (definitely not trying to be witty). I was just pointing out the fact. As kids say these days, chill.

  10. People who advocate stricter gun ownership requirements get death threats from people who think gun ownership is a matter of right at any price. Most of us don’t want to ban guns outright, we want to ensure as fully as possible that those who own them will be responsible and lawful in their use.

  11. I didnt ask when the last time it happened but how many people were killed with rifles in the last 5 years. I already showed you the fbi stats for the country and its only a few hundred compared to a couple thousand each of knives and blunt objects. So why the ban on rifles when knives clearly kill more people every year? These are facts. It doesnt make sense its bullshit.

  12. Dont just jump in out of no where. If you want to keep an open mind and really understand the numbers and stats and then make a decision on this, go and read the back and forth i have been having with levp for the last couple weeks in the other threads. All my arguments are there.

  13. Granted, these measures are not going to reduce the overall crime rates in a statistically significant way.
    Instead, regulations such as these are designed to try to reduce the number of mass murders (still better than nothing).

  14. I don’t think a lot of people fully followed the extended discussion that you and Lev have engaged in during the past month. The sheer amount of it made finding pertinent parts difficult to piece together. Numbers can be helpful, but need context to be useful. Most importantly, it doesn’t answer the core question, why is having this right imperative? The Second Amendment alone is not adequate. A compelling reason would be logical and incontrovertible.

  15. How? So lets take away constitutional rights from millions because of a couple of wacko nutjobs. Are you ok with NDAA and FISA?


    Here are some stats on how people are killed. If you look at them there is no way you can say that a rifle should be banned over a knife. What you need to understand is an ar-15 rifle is not some magic weapon. They are so popular because they can be configured and customized easily to make them more comfortable. All these so called military features is bullshit. They do not change anything on the rifle or make it any more dangerous. I would compare these features to getting dark tint on a car or 20 inch wheels. Also the 223 caliber is one of the weakest in the rifle family. they are also fairly inexpensive all things considered which makes them very popular. They are not the same as a military m16 they only look the same. Just like a car could look the same as a nascar but they are not. Fortunately for me so far i have only needed my firearms for practice and recreation. And this is why you need one

  17. You can have any and all kinds of weapons, for as long as they do not have a detachable magazine and one military-style feature at the same time. Magazine has to hold no more than 7 rounds.

    These requirements should pass constitutional requirements.

    Court opinion on FISA constitutionality is still pending:

    Same for NDAA:

    My opinion on those is well known: I pay my dues to the ACLU and Amnesty International, as well as participate in their various actions. I welcome Republicans and people like James Yeager to join me (but I don’t hold my breath).

  18. You say “The Second Amendment alone is not adequate” how about the First Amendment how do you feel about that?

  19. Nuttin but a little money, or a whole lot of it…. I think I need protection from electric databases, never know when I might encounter one…

  20. So these people should be praising the new law:

    the statewide database of pistol permits would not be subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

  21. So if “anti-gun crowd” has to take responsibility for what Donald Kaul said, the pro-gun crowd will certainly take equal responsibility for what James Yeager said. OK, got it.

  22. Except Yeager retracted and apologized, haven’t heard much from Kaul yet. If you read where the reply was, you would have seen it was in response to Lisaane’s post a few above.

  23. I pulled the Second Amendment from this discussion as a argument because the differences in its interpretation have been well discussed, here and elsewhere. Besides, the lack of agreement on its intent dilutes its persuasive value.

    As for the first amendment, your right to free expression is not contingent upon your possession of a firearm.

  24. Mr. Yeager retracted by saying that he does not advocate killings “except when necessary”… That’s some retraction! I will find a link when I get to the real computer.

  25. Well over 2/3s of all murders were committed with firearms. Less than 20% with knives and other cutting instruments, such as scissors and McCormick reapers.

    The idea of arming our youth is dangerous. Many teenagers are not mature enough to be allowed unsupervised access to weapons.

  26. Point is how many deaths by rifles compared to other objects. Its so low why would anyone care about banning them. The whole AWB show is bullshit.

  27. If I’m anti-gun, then I preclude myself from the thought of doing bodily harm to others because it is a consequence of gun ownership I find troubling.

    As to your “story” find me a more reliable source than the World News Daily.

  28. “As for the first amendment, your right to free expression is not contingent upon your possession of a firearm.” This is a very ignorant statement.

  29. How so? My personal right to a firearm is not implied by the 1st Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not contain language which defines gun ownership as an exercise of free expressioin.

    Additionally, your pronouncement that a statement is ignorant carries no authoritative weight.

  30. I haven’t come across a link yet, where he says “except when necessary”, which could mean almost anything. I have also not come across a Kaul retraction, or apology, for 50 years of vitriol, and his current KKK suggestion to solving problems.

  31. Without the 2nd there would not be a 1st. Its just my opinion of what you said. This country got its freedom with a gun and continues to protect those freedoms with a gun. If some politician wants to take my gun i want him to get rid of all his security. Why are their lives more important than yours or mine?
    this guy gets off by doing something illegal by using the 1st Amendment

  32. When the constitution was drawn there were no assault guns. And yes this country was fought for with guns. Balls and powder. This sort of personal guns (that can take down a classroom) people want to own is way over the line.

  33. This law is the example of liberal stupidity taken to it’s logical conclusion.

    The problem is homicidal maniacs (almost always suicidal as well) committing mass murder. So….if we limit magazines to seven rounds and make it a misdemeanor to have more than seven rounds, the average mass murderer will be compelled to forget his plans because he would not want to run afoul of the 7 round rule.

    It shocks me that people cannot realize that no matter how many laws you pass, by definition the only people who will follow them are law abiding citizens. How does this fact escape the liberal brain? Is there some type of mental defect you people suffer from?

  34. I see you watch the news “take down a classroom”. Yeah and they didnt have cars or computers either. With these types of comments i dont know why i even bother responding.

  35. Same simple question i asked a couple weeks back. How are an of these laws going to prevent bad people from doing bad things???

  36. You fail to recognize that guns were, in the 18th century, part of the tools for survival. Lots of people hunted for food, and the French would come down from Canada from time to cause trouble. But the general citizenry did not keep the communities safe, it was local militia and the King’s Army.

    The French became too much of a nuisance and had to be dealt with.decidedly. The aftermath was the usual, a lot of debt on both sides. The British expected the colonies to split the cost of the war. Members of the taxed class wanted numerous rights in return. The British were being evasive about granting these requests. However, they were not adverse to making very specific demands upon the colonists.

    When war came the forces of the revolution came in some large part from the state militias, whose members joined the cause, Without their expertise this country would not exist today. The second amendment is an acknowledgment of that debt, and of the recognition that such bodies are needed to protect the nation from attack from any threat to its continuance.


    But I don’t, I don’t retract any of my statements.


    I do not condone anybody committing any kind of felonies up to and including any aggravated assaults or murders, unless it’s necessary


    Right now it is not necessary.

    Is he not merciful?

  38. Deploying satire can be risky (Donald Kaul column)

    Let me say this about that: That wasn’t a suggestion to be taken literally. I don’t believe Boehner and McConnell should be dragged. I was using it as a metaphor for making politicians pay a price for their inability to confront the gun lobby. It’s a literary device.

    Neither do I really want to repeal the Second Amendment. I merely wanted to point out that it’s being misinterpreted and misused.

    Back to square one with our Yeager/Kaul comparison.

  39. Yeah, they stole that from me! I don’t copy, I originate.
    The discussion is not about cars nor computers. Silly you.
    I like the idea of commenting without a response. Works for me.
    In the mean time the laws will be passed regardless.

  40. Not true. More people die every year from deer-related automobile accidents, then mass shootouts. Firearms are used 4:1 (ratio) in the prevention of crimes, then in the commitence of crime. 74% of firearm violence is gang related. Knives are responsible for much, much more death than guns.

  41. Wrong. You cannot own the majority of semiauto rifles in both NYC, and NYS. All AR-15 type rifles are banned, even Ruger10/22s.

  42. All able bodies males over 18 are the militia. The existence of a well regulated (regulated by the citizens “We The People”) militia is NECESSARY for the security of a FREE state (protect patriots against our criminal occupied government and commi scum like you). We own firearms, so that the militia can perform these duties. Thomas Jefferson said firearms are like canaries in the coal mine, you might not need them all the time, but when you need them, it will be sure as hell urgently.

  43. You can’t understand the Second Amendment without understanding that militias were state sanctioned, first by the Colonial governments and then by the states,

    To explain further, militias could enlist citizens as the need arrived. Citizens with their own weapons would be in a more immediate state of readiness. The Second Amendment encourages citizens to be thusly prepared.

    These are not First Amendment concerns.

  44. LB how does ANY law prevent ‘bad people’ from doing any bad things? if we take your comment to its natural conclusion we should recind ALL laws on the grounds that bad people will continue to break them.

  45. So you are a seditionist. Thusly. I believe that it is quite the other way round from what you have just spewed, it is people like yourself who are the true threat to liberty.

  46. where, in the constitution, does it say that you have a right to own a rapid repeat fire assault rifle? let me save you the time of looking… nowhere. Do you define ‘right to bare arms’ as the right to own ANY weapons… ? drones? nuclear bombs? cannons? where does this right stop? can you own a private arsenal?

  47. You missed my point. What i am saying is without the protection of the 2nd (gun) you will lose the 1st (speech, religion).

  48. The numbers were for homicides. More people die from car accidents by far but no one wants to do anything about that. Why do we need cars with turbo chargers that can go 150 mph right off the car lot when the highest limit in the country is 85mph only in a handful of places?

  49. Fact is, a lot of people do want to make changes that will result in less fatalities. There are obvious cures in some cases. Others either are difficult because of infrastructure problems or because human behavior is erratic.

    I think we are lucky in that we do have a lot of extremely competent drivers on the road. Were that not so the accident rate would be far higher.

    In many areas city planners have designed street patterns that actually decrease accidents. Street design can be very precise with noticeable safety improvements. Unfortunately, our grid system predates cars. And other places copied it, believing it had various efficiencies.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here