What's happening
Writing a plain-English summary… Track this bill to get it by email.
Why it matters
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Sponsors
History
- Referred to codes
- Print number 2612a
- Amend (t) and recommit to codes
- Referred to codes
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Repeals provision of law prohibiting the possession of certain large capacity ammunition feeding devices; repealer
In Assembly Committee · Codes · Sponsor Anthony Brindisi
Full text
The text isn't available here yet. Check nysenate.gov.
Sponsor's memo
BILL NUMBER:S2612A
Title of bill
An act to repeal section 265.37 and paragraph 7-f of subdivision a of section 265.20 of the penal law, relating to unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices and the exemption of certain ammunition feeding devices at firing ranges
Purpose
To repeal the provision of the SAFE Act that limits the number of legally permissible cartridges in a semi-automatic firearm's magazine to seven, so that state law conforms to a federal court ruling.
Summary of provisions
Section 1 repeals a section of the SAFE Act which limits the number of legally permissible cartridges in a ten round magazine to seven, thus conforming state law to a federal court's decision finding this provision an unwarranted burden on the exercise of one's Second Amendment rights. Section 2 repeals the exemptions authorized for use of ten round magazines at specific locations or events. Section 3 provides for the effective date,
Existing law
Current law inexplicably limits the number of legally permissible cartridges in a ten round firearm magazine to seven, except at a shooting range or sanctioned firearm match. It imposes harsh penalties for violations of the law, including fines and imprisonment.
Justification
This section of Governor Cuomo's SAFE Act poses an untenable and undemonstrated theory that public safety is enhanced when lawful gun owners are denied by law from loading more than seven cartridges in firearm magazines manufactured for ten; and that criminals will observe the law and limit the discharge of their weapons in firearm-related crimes to the legal cap of seven in each of their magazines Because no firearm manufacturer or company producing "after market" gun parts makes replacement magazines that hold only seven cartridges for the most widely used long guns and handguns, and because ten rounds may be loaded in a magazine in certain other locations, the law invites violations due to oversight, travel between a range and home, or miscounting; and further imposes harsh penalties when a gun owner has more than seven cartridges in a magazine in a government decreed forbidden location. In addition, the law is vague in that a police officer might presume that a firearm with one cartridge in its chamber and seven in its magazine would have impermissibly had a total of eight (8) cartridges in the firearm in the first instance before the owner pulled the slide to place one cartridge in the chamber and thereby cocked the gun. Government has no special insight into how many cartridges a homeowner may need to protect his or her dwelling or family, and the provision impermissibly infringes on the rights of gun owners to secure their homes and persons.
In addition, the law allows more than seven cartridges in a magazine at a shooting range, but not in the house of the gun owner, where he or she is more likely to rely on a firearm for personal protection or defense against a home invasion. This dichotomy defies logic and is ludicrous in the extreme.
Last, and to the point, this provision of the governor's signature gun control law was struck down by federal district court Judge William Skretny on December 31, 2013 (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, et al v Andrew M Cuomo), when he ruled that the provision was arbitrary and could not survive intermediate scrutiny. Although that decision is being appealed, it is unlikely to be overturned and the legislature should simply acknowledge the obvious and repeal the arbitrary limit.
This bill simply conforms state law to the federal decision.
Legislative history
New bill
Fiscal implications
None to the state
Effective date
Immediate
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.