Cuomo: That gun law I signed turned out to be utterly unworkable, huh?

posted at 9:21 am on March 21, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

If Andrew Cuomo has truly had an epiphany about his approach to gun regulation, it’s not really evident from this admission.  The New York Times reports that Cuomo will now try to rush some changes into his banner gun-control legislation that forced New York gun owners to use magazines that no one manufactures, with even the one exception to the rule found to be unworkable (via Legal Insurrection):

In the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York pushed through the State Legislature gun control measures that included not only a tougher assault weapons ban but also a tighter restriction on the maximum legal capacity of gun magazines.

But after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15.

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.

Now, one might think that after having been embarrassed by his own ignorance — and in the face of a number of critics who pointed these issues out from the beginning — Cuomo would advise the legislature to repeal the bill and start over again.  One would be … wrong. This New York governor has decided to correct one idiocy with another, emphasis mine:

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

Er, what? Will the police be around to check how many bullets are loaded into each magazine?  And, by the way, will criminals be deterred from loading rounds 8, 9, and 10 into the magazine?  The whole idea of magazine limits is to limit those with criminal intent from firing too many bullets without having to reload, at which point the law expects the disarmed to rush the criminal rather than shoot back and hope he’s worse at reloading than they will be at beating someone into submission. How will Cuomo’s latest idea deter criminals, who will have zero fear of having a gun inspection before committing their crimes?

“Hey, let’s go rob that bank.  Get your guns ready, and — oh yeah, don’t load more than seven bullets into each magazine.”

Furthermore, if that kind of restriction was at all useful, then why pass a law forbidding 15-round or 30-round magazines at all? Just pass a law that says no one can load more than seven bullets into the magazine, and voila! Problem solved, right?

William Jacobson calls this new idea “irrational and arbitrary.” It’s also dumber than a box of rocks, and anyone with a hint of self-awareness would have realized it before the press release went out.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

NY, you people better fix this at the ballot box in the next elections, as well as recalls and court cases.

TX-96 on March 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM

If it’s any consolation at least he’s been unmasked as a bonafide gun grabber hence his chance for POTUS is slim and next to none.

AH_C on March 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM

William Jacobson calls this new idea “irrational and arbitrary.” It’s also dumber than a box of rocks, and anyone with a hint of self-awareness would have realized it before the press release went out.

Well? Look at the picture of Cuomo and tell me that’s not a candidate for one of the next Three Stooges movie character.

44Magnum on March 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

I really hope Hillary doesn’t run in 2016(or if she does, fails to win the nomination). Cuomo and Bite Me are next in line and both are so dumb and out-of-touch, even McCain would be able to beat them.

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

….anyone with a hint of self-awareness would have realized it before the press release went out.

Liberals are not self aware. They just want to spew out their dogma.

redguy on March 21, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Wait a minute!

Ed, are you telling us that Criminals don’t obey the law?

That’s inconceivable!

The whole idea of magazine limits is to limit those with criminal intent from firing too many bullets without having to reload, at which point the law expects the disarmed to rush the criminal rather than shoot back.

Too bad most politician haven’t heard of the concept of the Tactical reload….

NMRN123 on March 21, 2013 at 9:32 AM

And, by the way, will criminals be deterred from loading rounds 8, 9, and 10 into the magazine?

I would be willing to commit murder, but not be willing to load 8 rounds into a 10 round magazine? Just like I’d not be willing to pour two 16 oz. medium Gulps into a 32 oz. container.

Mock the nanny staters early and often.

rbj on March 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM

William Jacobson calls this new idea “irrational and arbitrary.” It’s also dumber than a box of rocks, and anyone with a hint of self-awareness would have realized it before the press release went out.

Ed, we’re talking about liberal politicians here. Self-awareness does not come standard.

Bitter Clinger on March 21, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Just like with shotguns (in some states hinting laws anyway) they’ll probably require you to block off capacity greater than seven rounds in the magazine. Having said that, it’s obvious that the whole law (including whatever ridiculous limitations the lawyers eventually settle on for magazine capacity) will only apply to law-abiding people; criminals and cops will either ignore it or be formally exempt.

Screw New York. It’s an unlive-able state anyway– economy sucks, government reigns supreme in all things great and small, and annoying moral superiority in its newspapers and politicos.

MTF on March 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM

I really hope Hillary doesn’t run in 2016(or if she does, fails to win the nomination). Cuomo and Bite Me are next in line and both are so dumb and out-of-touch, even McCain would be able to beat them.

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

God forbid.

Naturally Curly on March 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Cuomo looks crazier in each photograph…

workingclass artist on March 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM

NY, you people better fix this at the ballot box in the next elections, as well as recalls and court cases.

TX-96 on March 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Folks in upstate NY would largely be happy to do this. Unfortunately, NYC dominates the voting in the state and stupidity rules the day there. Exhibit A: Bloomberg being elected as mayor three times.

Bitter Clinger on March 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Stupid knows no bounds.

NotCoach on March 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Cuomo’s just flailing to find a political position that will set him up for a 2016 presidential run against Hillary.

He governed to the right of where people thought he would after being elected in 2010, when he saw the anti-big spending mood elsewhere and pushed back on the benefits and pensions given to New York’s public sector unions. Then after Obama won last November, he decided the Democratic electorate would be to the left of where he had positioned himself and decided to become Mr. Gun Grabber, and now finds himself shocked that even New York State voters don’t robotically follow the instructions of the editorial page of the New York Times (though he should have figured that out after the firestorm caused even in the suburban NYC area when the Westchester Journal-News published that map of where the gun permit owners were located).

jon1979 on March 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM

The sad thing is, in a comedic way, is that liberals still think this useless law is a great idea and should be a model for every other state and for Washington. Someone once said to never underestimate the power of stupid, and we’re seeing it live-as-it-happens. Just the added insult of exempting Hollywood from the entire law is enough to make any reasonable human being from voting in favor of this joke.

A truth which, of its nature, leaves liberals on outside looking in.

Liam on March 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Folks in upstate NY would largely be happy to do this. Unfortunately, NYC dominates the voting in the state and stupidity rules the day there. Exhibit A: Bloomberg being elected as mayor three times.

Bitter Clinger on March 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM

…this is why I moved to Texas back in 2001. I assumed it was mission impossible to change NY and I was right.

TX-96 on March 21, 2013 at 9:38 AM

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

Oh yeah! That’s enforceable.

Why not mandate that ammo has to be sold in seven-packs? That’d keep everybody honest.

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM

When Liberal Lawmakers Attack
“….still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those (10-round)magazines.”
He is now eligible to run for President.

NotEasilyFooled on March 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel, a Long Island Democrat

“This is still a robust bill,” she said, calling it “still a model for the rest of the country, without a doubt.”

Hee,Hee,Hee.

docflash on March 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

They’re probably basing this idea on the state law that prohibits more than five rounds in a mag or clip of a semi auto when hunting. State game officials randomly inspect hunters for compliance and the fine and penalties make for widespread compliance. Of course how you translate this hunting season rule into a state wide mandate and have the cops inspect over a million rifles on a continuing basis is an insane endeavor. Just the kind of stupidity you’d expect from statist Dems.

xkaydet65 on March 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Stupid knows no bounds.

NotCoach on March 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Stupidity is vast but is not boundless. At some point Darwinism takes over.

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

D’oh

cmsinaz on March 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Folks in upstate NY would largely be happy to do this. Unfortunately, NYC dominates the voting in the state and stupidity rules the day there. Exhibit A: Bloomberg being elected as mayor three times.

Bitter Clinger on March 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM

The sad/scary part is they elected Bloomberg three times because the official Democratic Party nominees in 2001, ’05 and ’09 were worse. And when the Dems get back in City Hall next January with Christine Quinn, John Liu or Bill de Blasio, odds are all the young hipsters in the city who have just heard about the nightmare period from 1966-93 will get a chance to experience it first-hand by around 2016 or so.

jon1979 on March 21, 2013 at 9:41 AM

You are misinterpreting Cuomo’s intent. The seven round limit was designed as a de facto ban on most modern handguns and autoloading rifles. The only guns that would be unaffected are the 1911 and sub compact pistols. However, He has figured out that the magazine restriction won’t stand up to the Heller precedent and it would likely result in the entire law being tossed.

jerryofva on March 21, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel, a Long Island Democrat

“This is still a robust bill,” she said, calling it “still a model for the rest of the country, without a doubt.”

Not all models are positive. Yes Assemblycritter Schimel your squirrel-in-a-hailstorm approach to legislation has been noted by the nation. And we are mocking you in utter disgust.

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I do NOT care if it’s irrational or arbitrary. I need to know if this ban will stand on it’s own in a court of law.

southsideironworks on March 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Cuomo and Bite Me are next in line and both are so dumb and out-of-touch, even McCain would be able to beat them.

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Remember when we said the exact same thing about Obama and Romney?

Don’t underestimate the power of the FSA.

Washington Nearsider on March 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM

There is no hope for the Empire State…

Khun Joe on March 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM

“Wow, schools will feel so much safer now with 3 less in the mag”..
(inside of a lib brain)…

hillsoftx on March 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Hey,

look at the bright side. At least you can abort a fetus at 8 months and 3 weeks. That’s quite an accomplishment even for
a pro-choice catholic like you.

acyl72 on March 21, 2013 at 9:50 AM

I wonder if they have considered vigorous enforcement of existing gun laws as an alternative? Or maybe even upping the penalty, with an onerous minimum penalty, for gun law violations. You know, criminal control, rather than gun control.

Nah.

iurockhead on March 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM

The seven round limit was designed as a de facto ban on most modern handguns and autoloading rifles.

jerryofva on March 21, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I think that was made pretty clear. But when a bunch of liberals who know nothing about firearms get together and try to be cute it never turns out well. The gun-grabbing morons who passed this legislation were very proud of their efforts even though it clearly violates not only Heller but essentially makes everybody who carries firearms (including law enforcement) into de facto criminals.

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM

People who have at most a peripheral knowledge about weapons, writing laws to oppress people they have complete distain for.
What could go wrong?

Open The Door on March 21, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I wonder if they have considered vigorous enforcement of existing gun laws as an alternative? Or maybe even upping the penalty, with an onerous minimum penalty, for gun law violations. You know, criminal control, rather than gun control.

Nah.

iurockhead on March 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Because that would be considered racist, what with accusations of profiling and disparate impact, and every other fantasy liberals keep swirling in their heads. That’s what NYC’s stop-and-frisk law is suspended and going to court.

Liam on March 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I wonder if they have considered vigorous enforcement of existing gun laws as an alternative? Or maybe even upping the penalty, with an onerous minimum penalty, for gun law violations. You know, criminal control, rather than gun control.

iurockhead on March 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM

This was never about enforcement. From the beginning this is about curtailing the Second Amendment and taking firearms out of private hands. Andrew Cuomo doesn’t give a rodent’s behind about protecting children or preventing another mass shooting. In fact people like Cuomo are secretly hoping that more children will be shot so that they can go in for another round of banning stuff.

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Sure they can make a law to order everyone to report to the train station for relocation but there are no brown shirts to shot people that refuse. No war no mater what is done will make people do that now like Executive Order 9066

But lets make a law for it anyways and sort it out later. Something must be done.

tjexcite on March 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

Er, what? Will the police be around to check how many bullets are loaded into each magazine? And, by the way, will criminals be deterred from loading rounds 8, 9, and 10 into the magazine?

This is the “big gulp” syndrome of New York politicians. Just like the multiple 16-ounce drinks Bloomy was forcing on the city-dwellers, these idiots in the Gov’s office have a serious problem—making honest gun owners felons by accidentally loading an eighth round into the clip, AND—this is the real stupid part—believing that criminals obey laws.

Rovin on March 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel, a Long Island Democrat

“This is still a robust bill,” she said, calling it “still a model for the rest of the country, without a doubt.”

Hee,Hee,Hee.

docflash on March 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Can’t wait to hear this same rhetoric when Obamacare blows up in their faces.

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM

NY, you people better fix this at the ballot box in the next elections, as well as recalls and court cases.

TX-96 on March 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM

For a super liberal state like New York there will be no fixing of anything… A majority of the population there is extremely liberal and will vote for Satan if he runs as a democrat… The same goes for at least 15 states in the Union…

mnjg on March 21, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Now, one might think that after having been embarrassed by his own ignorance…

Impossible.

petefrt on March 21, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Hmmmm. Where have I heard that before?

NavyMustang on March 21, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Hey! At least we Did Something! We checked the box. We care!

-Liberals in NY

ButterflyDragon on March 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM

They’re probably basing this idea on the state law that prohibits more than five rounds in a mag or clip of a semi auto when hunting. State game officials randomly inspect hunters for compliance and the fine and penalties make for widespread compliance. Of course how you translate this hunting season rule into a state wide mandate and have the cops inspect over a million rifles on a continuing basis is an insane endeavor. Just the kind of stupidity you’d expect from statist Dems.

In a hunting situation the limiting of rounds make perfect sense. Example, I duck hunt and am limited to 3 rounds in my shotgun. Mainly because the quarry once shot at is trying to put distance between themselves and the hunter. You only have so much time to cleanly kill the animal you are hunting before the range is so great that you end up only wounding and not recovering the game. On the other hand if the threat is advancing a limit of rounds available increases the risk of the threat Gaining ground on you and puttin your life at greater risk.

lakeman on March 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM

The sad/scary part is they elected Bloomberg three times because the official Democratic Party nominees in 2001, ’05 and ’09 were worse. And when the Dems get back in City Hall next January with Christine Quinn, John Liu or Bill de Blasio, odds are all the young hipsters in the city who have just heard about the nightmare period from 1966-93 will get a chance to experience it first-hand by around 2016 or so.

jon1979 on March 21, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Good… One great way to destroy liberalism is to have their different factions fight each others… And at the end they will fight each others…

mnjg on March 21, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Can’t wait to hear this same rhetoric when Obamacare blows up in their faces.

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Same principle is in play. You broke it, you bought it. Cuomo has one chance to get this right before absurd ramifications begin to crop up due to really dumb public policy. And he is doubling down on stupid.

The same will happen with the rat-eared devil and Obamacare.

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Folks in upstate NY would largely be happy to do this. Unfortunately, NYC dominates the voting in the state and stupidity rules the day there. Exhibit A: Bloomberg being elected as mayor three times.

Bitter Clinger on March 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM

The geography of liberalism really doesn’t change much clear across this nation. LA and SF counties also dominate the entire California voting, while the rest of the state still bleeds red. The results are a state-house majority of far left liberals who are in complete control of policy, and rubber-stamped by Moonbeam.

Rovin on March 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM

People writing laws about weapons when they themselves have at best a peripheral knowledge of the subject.

Writing laws that will impact only those the solons hold in high distain.
You know: “We the people…”

What could go wrong?

Open The Door on March 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Seven bullets would obviously be used for legitimate self-defense, hunting, and sports activities. However, eight bullets would clearly be used to commit violent crimes.

Got it.

Shump on March 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Now, one might think that after having been embarrassed by his own ignorance…..

See, this is the thing about politicians (and perhaps sociopaths, but I don’t know about that), I think the nature of their self-awareness is much different than the average human being. When you look at Cuomo, Anthony Weiner, Pelosi, Harry Reid they have some coping mechanism or something that allows them to say or behave in even the most bizarre manner many times and not bat an eyelash about it. And for some reason we allow these people who are mentally less developed than most of to represent our interests. Weird.

DaveDief on March 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM


New York state offers $500 reward for reporting gun owners
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/20/new-york-state-offers-500-reward-for-reporting-gun-owners/

For more than a year, New York state has maintained a tip line allowing people to report illegal gun owners and collect a $500 reward.

Next it will be a $100 reward for reporting purchasers of big gulps.

NMRN123 on March 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM

A smart Republican (if you can find one) should immediately offer a bill officially exempting criminals from all gun laws.

Oh, and…..

Troll free thread.

CurtZHP on March 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The Republicans in NY would have been much stronger if they didn’t go along with this stupid bill. First, they forgot to exempt law enforcement; Then they ignored the gun manufacturers who have decided to take their business out of the state. Cuomo shouts in his state of the state address that no one needs 10 rounds of bullets to shoot a deer…and we get this ridiculous magazine law.

If Republicans had stood firm and rational against this they would be able to capitalize on Cuomo’s falling approval numbers (54% – down 17%! especially among men, since this issue came up.)

The national GOP will look like NY Republicans if they become Dem-lite. NY passed gay marriage with support of 4 Republicans and Republicans lost the state senate in the next election.

monalisa on March 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

The only thing more stupid than these elected officials are the people that vote them in.

Too bad we can’t keep them penned in their own states and not allow them to migrate away so they can pass all the idiotic laws and regulations they want and suffer the consequences. That would be an interesting thing to watch. Trouble is, they always seem to escape and inflict their damage on the rest of us.

iamsaved on March 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

This sounds like Pennsylvania’s restriction to three shells in a shotgun while hunting. You can’t just have three shells, you have to put a plug into the shotgun. OF course you can also hunt with a bannana clip in any other gun showing how ludercious that 3 shell for a shotgun law is

LordDaMan on March 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Seven bullets would obviously be used for legitimate self-defense, hunting, and sports activities. However, eight bullets would clearly be used to commit violent crimes.

Got it.

Shump on March 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Seems an appropriate Dirty Harry quote:

I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire six shots or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?

Happy Nomad on March 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Smart people just don’t go into politics. We are governed by the dumbest.

MechanicalBill on March 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Of course how you translate this hunting season rule into a state wide mandate and have the cops inspect over a million rifles on a continuing basis is an insane endeavor. Just the kind of stupidity you’d expect from statist Dems.

xkaydet65 on March 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Exactly. Likely, this is the whole point. Its stop and frisk for gun owners or really anyone, at any time. Who really thinks that cops won’t use this to jam people up? Law abiding or the truly criminal dirtbags. Its their word against the police that they had only loaded 7 rounds.

For many magazines, it is rather easy to adjust the round limiter. For one pistol I have, it is cheaper and easier to find the 10 round mags that are sold for the states with the 10 round only limit instead of the 12 rounders for us in not so insane states. It takes 30 seconds or less to pull out the chunk of metal that prevents the spring from compressing enough for 12 rounds.

oryguncon on March 21, 2013 at 10:29 AM


A smart Republican (if you can find one) should immediately offer a bill officially exempting criminals from all gun laws.

Oh, and…..

Troll free thread.

CurtZHP on March 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

They are already exempt from registration.

Because that would be self-incrimination.

NMRN123 on March 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

Why not just pass a law that it’s illegal to use than 7 rounds in a crime?

Or even better, that it’s illegal to use a gun in any crime?

Problem solved!

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM

even McCain would be able to beat them.

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

By the time 2016 gets here, McVain will be drooling down the front of his PJs and won’t be able to tell you his name, BUT, he will be able to name a country the the US hasn’t bombed or invaded.

belad on March 21, 2013 at 10:37 AM

TX-96 on March 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM

When a majority of illiterates elects tyrannical morons, it’s not likely to change, except for the worse.

Eren on March 21, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Well? Look at the picture of Cuomo and tell me that’s not a candidate for one of the next Three Stooges movie character.

44Magnum

WRONG! Look up Chico Marx – the resemblance is striking!

Wander on March 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Dear Andrew “the Deer Hunter” Cuomo.

The entire law is arbitrary, capricious and will eventually found unconstitutional. But not until we’ve wasted tons of taxpayer dollars and people’s effort to do so.

Do us a favor NY Legislators who passed the bill without reading it. Save us some time and expense. Instead of amending the law, repeal it. Completely.

That includes Skelos, the Republican Leader without whom this bill would not have passed. It would be just as easy to repeal as amend it. All it takes is courage of conviction and leadership. Something you apparently lack.

Marcus Traianus on March 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Maybe they just need a few good Public Service Announcements, with a cute cartoon character explaining the limitation, and a catchy jingle. You know, like “Never load Eight, or you’ll be imprisoned Upstate!”

Yeah, better messaging should fix the problem.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM

P.S Ed.

Where’s the looping clip of a bugged eyed, crazy man Cuomo screaming “you don’t need 30 bullets to kill a deer”?

That is one of my top five all time favorites. Right next to Howard Dean’s “scream”.

Marcus Traianus on March 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM

That gun law I signed turned out to be utterly unworkable, huh?

You meant well, though. That’s what counts. The Left just has to put unenforceable laws on the books to show their low-info voters they are doing something, and to make themselves feel good.

hawkeye54 on March 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I do NOT care if it’s irrational or arbitrary. I need to know if this ban will stand on it’s own in a court of law.

southsideironworks on March 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Does it further the power of the state? Does it erode your personal liberties? Was it written and passed by liberals?

If ‘yes’, then… yeah, it’ll probably stand on it’s own in a court of law nowadays.

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Now, one might think that after having been embarrassed by his own ignorance — and in the face of a number of critics who pointed these issues out from the beginning — Cuomo would advise the legislature to repeal the bill and start over again.

You can’t fix liberal stupidity.

And when the next tragedy occurs, these same idiots will stand on the capitol steps with their thumbs up their collective asses, wondering “How did this happen, we passed a law?!”

GarandFan on March 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Where’s the looping clip of a bugged eyed, crazy man Cuomo screaming “you don’t need 30 bullets to kill a deer”?

Ah, but one may find such clips useful to have available to use on miscreant looters, pillagers and armed representatives of a rouge government in a worst case scenario.

hawkeye54 on March 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM

The only thing more stupid than these elected officials are the people that vote them in.

Too bad we can’t keep them penned in their own states and not allow them to migrate away so they can pass all the idiotic laws and regulations they want and suffer the consequences. That would be an interesting thing to watch. Trouble is, they always seem to escape and inflict their damage on the rest of us.

iamsaved on March 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

e.g. Colorado

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM

That includes Skelos, the Republican Leader without whom this bill would not have passed. It would be just as easy to repeal as amend it. All it takes is courage of conviction and leadership. Something you apparently lack.

Marcus Traianus on March 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM

This nonsense legislation should have ensured enough GOP Senators get elected in 2014 to take back the majority in the NY Senate. Instead, since the GOP is nominally “in control” despite being a minority in the Senate because of 5 Dem senators who do not trust the criminal element in the Dem Senate delegation, there will be GOP Senators who voted for this stuff in order to not alienate enough Dems that they lose control that will lose in primaries to people who cannot win a general election or because the issue of who supports what is muddied by nominal GOP control that we may well not be able to politically make the hay that should have been possible if the Dem majority was actually in complete control.

Nothing is ever as clear as it should be when your circus quality legislation is going through a circus quality legislature at the behest of a circus quality governor who is playing to his Dem base that vote in presidential primaries rather than serving the entire electorate.

KW64 on March 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Too bad we can’t keep them penned in their own states and not allow them to migrate away so they can pass all the idiotic laws and regulations they want and suffer the consequences. That would be an interesting thing to watch. Trouble is, they always seem to escape and inflict their damage on the rest of us.

One problem is, that the local and regional LSM within a state could have a tremendous influence in bringing up, criticizing and combating idiotic leftist politicians, laws and regs attempted to be foisted upon conservative states by leftist transplants as they move into and begin to outnumber the native conservative voters, especially in urban areas. Regretably, the LSM in conservatives states is more often than not usually infested with leftists ready to lend support to leftist transplants.

hawkeye54 on March 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Has Cuomo taken a stand on the legality of meat hooks?

Demonized on March 21, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Something good may come of Gunner Cuomo’s travesty. At last count, 42 of the 62 counties in NY have issued resolutions opposing the law, and the majority of LEOs have stated they will refuse to implement it. There are also several lawsuits pending.

Most of the opposition is upstate, where we live in the real (read conservative) world, largely unaffected by the liberal left.

So in your deserved criticisms, please don’t tar ALL of us, okay?

irongrampa on March 21, 2013 at 11:31 AM

If it’s any consolation at least he’s been unmasked as a bonafide gun grabber hence his chance for POTUS is slim and next to none.

AH_C on March 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Won’t stop him from trying, and it DEFINITELY won’t stop Democrats from both trying to portray him as The Next Big Thing™, and calling him a “moderate” on gun control if he’s the eventual nominee.

I mean, pretty much every Democrat in the field has been exposed as a gun-grabber but Cuomo’s the one with the record to prove it.

mintycrys on March 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM

e.g. Colorado

Midas on March 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Yup. I’m here and seeing it up close and personal right now.
We have the same problem as NY state – the big city is full of libtards and there’s enough of them to swing the statewide elections – so we all get screwed.

dentarthurdent on March 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Does the seven-count include one already in the chamber? Would any New York democratic understand that question?

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM

How will Cuomo’s latest idea deter criminals, who will have zero fear of having a gun inspection before committing their crimes?

“Hey, let’s go rob that bank. Get your guns ready, and — oh yeah, don’t load more than seven bullets into each magazine.”

This right here is exactly the problem with gun control that the gun grabber nuts don’t ever understand.

If the criminals are involved in committing a crime using guns, then the crim they are committing is already far worse than the crime of violating the gun control. Why would they care that they are violating a gun control law when they are about to rob a bank or commit a violent crime??

The only thing gun bans stop is the people that care about violating laws… by definition, the law abiding citizens.

And I say that as a person who has never owned a gun, fired a gun, or had any interest in guns. But it doesn’t take a card carrying member of the NRA to understand the 2nd Amendment, it’s purpose, or the general common sense that criminals don’t care about violating laws…. hence why they are criminals.

gravityman on March 21, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Does the seven-count include one already in the chamber? Would any New York democratic understand that question?

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM

I’d bet Romney’s $10K that not a single one of them understands that.

I can’t wait for Colorado to add language to our new magazine limit to say I’m only allowed to put 15 rounds into my 30 round mag. And then ask your question as well.

dentarthurdent on March 21, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Why would they care that they are violating a gun control law when they are about to rob a bank or commit a violent crime??
gravityman on March 21, 2013 at 11:55 AM

But that’s an additional charge that could add, ohh another 5 days to their 20 year sentence for murder / armed robbery. Of course that really only means getting released 2 hours later in the day from prison when they get out at 6 months for “good behavior”.

dentarthurdent on March 21, 2013 at 12:02 PM

But it doesn’t take a card carrying member of the NRA to understand the 2nd Amendment, it’s purpose, or the general common sense that criminals don’t care about violating laws…. hence why they are criminals.

The Left insist on making us all potential criminals with all the insane, inane, and practically unenforceable laws they continue to foist or try to foist on us.

Makes it easier to silence, neutralize and/or arrest the most vocal of any opposition. And by making highly public examples of some, they expect most to keep in line and reasonably compliant, fearing what law might they accidentally break that could result in the authorities come for them.

hawkeye54 on March 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM

liberals are simply stupid, aren’t they?

pat on March 21, 2013 at 12:09 PM

The gun/magazine limits would be a throwaway charge in the case of a criminal illegally owning or using a gun to commit a crime, when the DA looks to make a deal. But if it’s the only charge a person is facing, the prosecutor will stop at nothing to get the book thrown at him. The NY law will also be ignored if some MSM reporter violates it the way Washington ignored its own in January.

Liam on March 21, 2013 at 12:14 PM

The cure for political stupidity comes in a small brass cartridge.
The NY families had this figured out years ago…two .22LR to the back of the skull from a suppressed handgun, which is then disposed of in the NY channel.
Pols, judges, cops…the head of the FED…didn’t matter.
Bernanke steals the wealth of every working stiff every day; and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Who’s serving the food at his next speech?
III/0317

dirtengineer on March 21, 2013 at 12:15 PM

This is what happens when liberals “just have to do something” about anything, they pass stupid legislation that doesn’t accomplish what they want and gets in the way of accomplishing what they want. There’s little difference between this legislation, that was Rahmed through the NY Legislature and Obamacare, that was Rahmed through the House and Senate.

bflat879 on March 21, 2013 at 12:17 PM

This right here is exactly the problem with gun control that the gun grabber nuts don’t ever understand.

To the rank-and-file lofo voter, perhaps that statement is true. But for the libs that’r doin’ the screwin’, they understand perfectly. Reducing crime is not and never has been the goal. In fact, the purpose of these sorts of laws is to increase violent crime. The more lawless the landscape, the more the wanna-be dictator can have his way. The more people that become unintended criminals, the more control the state will have in every facet of life.

Most of these laws are designed to be uninforcible or ineffective. Thus are more crises created and more reason for the state to control our very beings.

The leftist sheep are indeed that clueless and stupid, but those at the top, pulling the strings, know exactly what they’re doing. Recall the smug comment by Rahm Emmanuel, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

Ace ODale on March 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Ace ODale on March 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Honestly, I don’t ascribe that much malice to them. That level of underhanded thinking would take more brains than I am willing to believe they have (our elected representatives, I mean). I think it comes down to the “Do Something Syndrome”. They have this utopian view of this world where if they just remove all the guns then people won’t do bad things, which any sane person recognizes is just complete fantasy. I would be willing to concede though that there are a few who actually are capable of that level of deviousness (Rahm Emanual springs to mind) who are likewise capable of herding their caucus into such stupid legislation by preying on their utopian fantasies.

I think too many of them don’t understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, or they don’t like to imagine in this day and age that it is needed. The 2nd Amendment was not about hunting or sport shooting, and it wasn’t even really about a traditional militia. Those are ancillary benefits behind it’s true purpose. It’s true purpose is to ensure the protection of every other aspect of the Constitution (and by extension the populace). It does that by ensuring that the federal government is not the only armed organization in the US, and therefore cannot violate the remaining articles of the Constitution through force of arms and thereby become a tyranny. The Democrats don’t seem to think this is possible simply because we are somehow more enlightened… that we have *mostly* followed the Constitution for over 200 years (at a minimum insofar as it allows for a peaceful transfer of power) and therefore we have no need to fear a tyrannical federal government anymore. But, just because the Constitution has worked to allow that peaceful transfer of power for 200+ years does not ensure that it will continue to do so in a hypothetical world where only the government is armed and so no longer fears an armed populace. The populace must remain armed in order to ensure that any thought of a tyrannical government will live in fear of that armed populace. And we all know that a “benevolent tyranny” is the worst kind of tyranny, because it comes in the guise of “for your own good”.

“People should not be afraid of their government. Government should be afraid of their people.”

gravityman on March 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM

If this crap sticks, might we see semiautomatic pistols sold with NON-removable 10 or 13-count magazines? A permanent magazine that would be loaded like a shotgun, or like the first repeating rifles? Cartridges would still go into an area in the handle, but you could only load it via the mainframe of the weapon.

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2013 at 1:11 PM

I voted for Carl Palladino. Just sayin’.

Iblis on March 21, 2013 at 1:12 PM

If this crap sticks, might we see semiautomatic pistols sold with NON-removable 10 or 13-count magazines? A permanent magazine that would be loaded like a shotgun, or like the first repeating rifles? Cartridges would still go into an area in the handle, but you could only load it via the mainframe of the weapon.

slickwillie2001 on March 21, 2013 at 1:11 PM

A possibility for newly manufactured weapons from here out, but there would certainly be an uproar on how to deal with existing weapons. And asking everyone to bring their weapons back to be retrofitted would be unrealistic and unworkable.

Of course, as I say that it occurs to me…

In order to ensure all weapons are retrofitted, you would need an inventory or registry of all weapons. Could that be their “in” to getting legislation passed for the recently discussed “federal registry” for weapons? Things that make you go “hmmmm”.

gravityman on March 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM

WRONG! Look up Chico Marx – the resemblance is striking!

Wander on March 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM

I stand corrected. Good call.

44Magnum on March 21, 2013 at 1:27 PM

In order to ensure all weapons are retrofitted, you would need an inventory or registry of all weapons. Could that be their “in” to getting legislation passed for the recently discussed “federal registry” for weapons? Things that make you go “hmmmm”.

gravityman on March 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM

THAT in my view is their ultimate goal. Even the new laws in Colorado cannot possibly be enforced without a government registry of ALL existing weapons and magazines. For Colorado, if lawsuits and recalls don’t overturn the new laws, some Demtard will eventually use the unenforceability to try to implement a registry. After which comes the confiscation……

dentarthurdent on March 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

William Jacobson calls this new idea “irrational and arbitrary.” It’s also dumber than a box of rocks, and anyone with a hint of self-awareness would have realized it before the press release went out.

No, it’s not dumb when your goal is to unarm the American people by making them criminals. It’s going to come down to the individual state’s constitution, and unless it overrides Federal agencies, even a picture of your kids holding a gun will be justification for DCFS getting involved. It has already happened in New Jersey.

lea on March 21, 2013 at 1:36 PM

liberals can never admit when they are wrong. they will do and say whatever it takes to make being wrong seem right.

you see cumo was right in his mind and this new bill will prove it ////

unseen on March 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM

The honorable thing for this tyrant to do is the resign from office and go directly to jail..but of course he is a crazy liberal and has no honor

sadsushi on March 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM

liberals can never admit when they are wrong. they will do and say whatever it takes to make being wrong seem right.

They can’t admit to being wrong, when in their minds they aren’t. What seems to be “wrong” was just something done with an approach that didn’t work out quite as hoped for, so the approach needs to be constantly honed and crafted a bit differently to achieve and perfect the correct outcome.

I mean, if Edison didn’t give up on the incandescent light bulb after thousands of trials, why should leftists ever give up on any of their schemes.

hawkeye54 on March 21, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Now that he’s a documented ignorant governor.

“…still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.”

He is going after the stupid governor crown.

WestTexasBirdDog on March 21, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Here in NH bird hunters are not allowed to have a shogun that holds more than 3 shells in its magazine. My shotgun came with a wooden dowel inserted in the magazine that prevented you from loading more than 3 shells. If you want to use it for something else (like shooting through the door when thugs come to invade your home ala Biden) you simply remove the dowel.

woodNfish on March 21, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I really hope Hillary doesn’t run in 2016(or if she does, fails to win the nomination). Cuomo and Bite Me are next in line and both are so dumb and out-of-touch, even McCain would be able to beat them.

Doughboy on March 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Cuomo might force Hillary to the left on the gun issue in the primaries, which would hurt her big time in the general. what’s important is that Cuomo does in fact run, and to think he once made me nervous.

Daemonocracy on March 21, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Oh boo-hoo-hoo-hoo. The Albany Times Union has its panties in a wad because its story about the turn-in-your-neighbor-for -gun-possession-collect-$500 story has gone viral.

“The story has gone viral on conservative websites, where headlines like “New York state offers $500 reward for reporting gun owners” and “Big Brother is bribing snitches” will give you a sense of the quality of the analysis.”

The lack of critical reasoning in the article is astounding. The reporter points out the law has been in effect for the past year without garnering controversy but fails to report that His-A$$hat-Majesty Governor Cuomo criminalized formerly legal gun owners with the stroke of a pen when he passed the SAFE Act.

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/182791/because-you-asked-more-on-illegal-guns-tipline/

wyntre on March 21, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2