Here's the Full List of Gun Control Bills Coming to New York

Longer waiting periods, red flag laws, disarming teachers, and banning 3D printed guns are all on the list

Published Monday, January 28, 2019 11:30 pm

Tomorrow, on Tuesday, January 29th, the state legislature in New York is expected to vote on (and almost certainly pass) eight major gun control bills in the Empire State, despite some very vocal opposition. Apparently, the 2013 passage of the SAFE Act didn't go far enough for them, so now they're taking it much further while they still can.

Governor Andrew Cuomo was quoted last Thursday saying, "We have proven that gun safety laws are needed and I think we've also proven that gun safety laws can exist without the jeopardized or dreaded fear of a slippery slope: 'Really, they’re trying to take away our guns.' Nobody’s trying to take away guns from legal people who are mentally healthy." 

The full list of gun control measures about to be passed:

  • S 2451A 2689, and A 396: A Red Flag Bill
    Allows police, family, household members, and senior school staff to formally request a court order to force any person to hand over their firearms. It requires the court to find that there is probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others, as defined in the mental hygiene law. The accused can petition to have the order dropped, but this is New York and we suspect that it would be unlikely to succeed. If the petition to drop the order fails, the person would have their guns confiscated for one year, during which time they would also be on a prohibited persons list and be unable to buy another firearm anywhere in the state. Worse, the original petitioner may re-file within 60 days of the order expiring and may be granted an additional year of the guns being confiscated from the accused. Presumably, this can happen over and over without limit. The accuser does get to appeal each time, for whatever that's worth.

  • S 101A: Outlaws The Arming of Teachers
    The bill would prohibit schools from authorizing anyone other than a security officer, school resource officer, or law enforcement officer to carry a firearm on school grounds. As of now, schools can give written permission to allow anyone to carry, which is usually used only for field trips or for teachers with significant firearms experience with to be armed. That will no longer be possible.

  • A 890: Extended Background Check Period of Up To 30 Days
    This bill would allow up to one month for a background check to clear before a gun can be picked up by the buyer. As of now, the background check period os maxed out at 3 days if the background check is returned as inconclusive. In most other states, "inconclusive" would simply mean that the applicant passed, as no prohibitive information about them was found. The sponsors of the bill point to the Charleston, South Carolina 2015 shooting by Dylann Roof, when he was sold a gun and received it before the background check had cleared. In that case, his prior arrest for narcotics was on the report, but the order to prohibit him from buying firearms because of it wasn't. It should be pointed out though that since no one picked up on the mistake, 30 days or 30 years wouldn't have made any difference since no one was actively trying to fix it.

  • A 451S 1414, and A 763: The Banning of 3D Printed Firearms
    Some constitutionality and feasibility issues may arise from this bill, as it seeks to prohibit the possession, manufacturing, sale, and distribution of any firearms that are undetectable by standard metal detectors, obviously aimed squarely at 3D printed guns. This bill apparently contains several pages of other legal gobbledygook about committing other felonies while in the possession of such a firearm — if a lawyer would care to explain that to us, we'd love to hear about it.
    In any event, the feasibility of such a law may come in question within the next few years as new technology may make it possible to detect all firearms, whether supposedly undetectable or not.
    • Additionally, a separate bill coming soon attempts to make it a felony to disseminate information online about how to construct an undetectable firearm.

  • A 8717 and S 1337: The Obvious Bump Stock Ban
    Q: How could this package of bills be complete without a bump stock ban?
    A: It can't. Every gun control bill has to include a bump stock ban. Otherwise, we're pretty sure it's racist.
    We note that it's already illegal to attach a bump stock to a weapon; this bill just takes it that extra step of making it illegal to make, own, buy, give, or sell them.

  • A 2685 and S 2449: Mandates a Gun Buyback Program
    Or, "Uh-Oh, That Sounds Like Confiscation."
    It isn't (yet), but it certainly sets the stones in place for that to happen if they ever actually succeed in simply outlawing guns.
    Thankfully, that probably won't ever happen. What it does do is to instruct the State Police to author methodology, rules, and regulations for gun buyback programs happening anywhere in the state and to create a fund for those buybacks.

  • A 506A 2686, and S 2450 Mandate Safe Storage Practices
    This enacts criminal penalties for failing to safely store firearms and mandates that gun retailers inform customers of the law with every purchase of a firearm and post a sign. It looks like this bill applies (for now) only to parents of children age 15 or below, or people with a prohibited person living in their household.
    For now, it has fairly loose language and only requires an appropriate safe storage depository or having the weapon rendered it incapable of being fired by the use of a gun locking device.

  • S 2438 Requires Out of State Mental Health Records to Get a Gun Permit
    Possibly the most alarming item on this list is a bill requiring out of state applicants for gun permits to surrender their mental health records. While this seems reasonable on the surface, it's worth questioning how they would even know if there were any mental health records for the applicant? What if none exist for the applicant, having never needed counseling? What if the state suspects for some reason that there are mental health records that exist, and then demands them — which the applicant would never be able to provide? Would the applicant simply be forever bureaucratically prohibited from getting the permit, whether accidentally or intentionally?