Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Is there a “David Gregory Clause” in the New York Gun Law?

Is there a “David Gregory Clause” in the New York Gun Law?

We have a Gun Class Project ongoing to try to unravel the 39-page gun law passed and signed into law this week.  It is a very complicated Bill, to put it mildly.

One thing I just noticed.

There is a provision in the law which sounds a lot like it was a reaction to David Gregory’s possession of a 30-round ammunition magazine after the D.C. police had told NBC News that such possession was against the law.  One of the defenses, rejected by the prosecutor as “feeble,” was that NBC did not intend to violate the law and was confused:

On the other hand, no specific intent is required for this violation, and ignorance of the law or even confusion about it is no defense. We therefore did not rely in making our judgment on the feeble and unsatisfactory efforts that NBC made to determine whether or not it was lawful to possess, display and broadcast this large capacity magazine as a means of fostering the public policy debate. Although there appears to have been some misinformation provided initially, NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity-magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any federal official.

Gregory and NBC News walked free because of prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute.

The NY law adds Section 265.36 to the Penal Law, outlawing possession of a magazine which accommodates more than 10 rounds regardless of when it was manufactured.  Previously, the law grandfathered magazines manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.  As explained in the legislative Memorandum accompanying the bill (h/t reader gs):

The state’s previous ban against high capacity magazines faltered because it was impossible to tell the difference between magazines manufactured before or after the effective date of the ban. This bill prohibits possession of all magazines with the capacity to contain more than ten rounds, regardless of the date of manufacture. Going forward, individuals will only be able to obtain magazines that can contain up to seven rounds. Those who currently possess magazines that can contain more than seven rounds will only be permitted to maintain up to seven rounds in such magazines.

The new law sets up a misdemeanor for people who possessed previously grandfathered magazines which could accomodate more than 10 rounds (e.g., those manufactured prior to September 13, 1994).  It remains a Class D felony under Section 265.02(8) to possess “a large capacity ammunition feeding device” with this narrow misdemeanor carve-out.

Nonetheless, there likely are a large number of these previously grandfatherd 10+ round magazines in the state, and the new law severely limites the ability of persons possessing such magazines from using alleged confusion as to the law as a defense.

I have highlighted the relevant language in red:

19    § 46-a. The penal law is amended by adding two new sections 265.36 and

20  265.37 to read as follows:

21  § 265.36 Unlawful possession of  a  large  capacity  ammunition  feeding

22             device.

23    It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capaci-

24  ty  ammunition  feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth,

25  nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such

26  large capacity feeding device before the effective date of  the  chapter

27  of  the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has

28  a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted  to  accept,

29  more than ten rounds of ammunition.

30    An  individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such

31  a character that it may lawfully be  possessed  and  who  surrenders  or

32  lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by

33  law  enforcement  or  county licensing officials that such possession is

34  unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be  a  rebuttable

35  presumption  that  such person knows that such large capacity ammunition

36  feeding device may not be lawfully possessed  if  he  or  she  has  been

37  contacted  by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed

38  that such device may not be lawfully possessed.

39    Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a

40  class A misdemeanor.

What’s interesting is that the new section creates a “rebuttable presumption” that possession is knowing if law enforcement has previously informed the defendant that the magazine was illegal.  The person avoids criminal charges if he or she then turns it in.

It’s possible this language was added in for some other reason, but it does sound like it was meant to address the next David Gregory.

The language could serve to limit prosecutorial discretion in a case similar to David Gregory where someone claims confusion as to whether that the 30-round magazine could be lawfully possessed.

Once that presumption is violated by virtue of law enforcement advice, it’s harder for a prosecutor to give the defendant a David Gregory.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

TrooperJohnSmith | January 17, 2013 at 3:58 pm

Wow, in Nuh Yoik State, I’d be a mast’a crimb’l wit all dem magazines I gots.

However, in Free America, I’m just another guy with some guns, some hi-cap magazines, and several slightly odd pets, who loves God, Country, honest work and freedom!

Maybe getting a gregory should enter popular usage along with getting a mulligan.

What a shame. Parts of New York are really worth visiting.

Oh, well…

Well the new law also made it illegal for police and military to possess hi-cap magazines. Naturally the fraternal order of concerned cops union is upset. On America Farm all animals are equal some more than others.

Is that the sanity clause? I don’t believe in sanity clause.

Sounds more like the “you-flaunt-it-and-go-directly-to-jail” clause. The “Flaunty Clause.”

Pretty on topic…AND a scandal…

[NRA director of federal affairs Jim] Baker, [NRA president David] Keene says, told Biden that in 2009, “77,000 people tried to get through the NICS system to illegally buy a firearm. That is a crime, and only 70 of them have been prosecuted.”

But there wasn’t interest in changing the prosecution rates.

“And the attorney general [Eric Holder] interrupted and said, ‘We don’t have the time or the resources to be going after these people,’” Keene recounts. But there are apparently resources, Keene remarks, “to go after innocent gun owners.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/338010/nra-holder-said-he-lacked-resources-prosecute-most-those-who-tried-buy-gun-illegally-k

I guess there will be lots of magazines available on eBay and gunsamerica very soon.

    TugboatPhil in reply to markinct. | January 17, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    Exactly! The only thing that was accomplished with the 94 ban was that my $12 magazines became $120 magazines overnight.

and it makes criminals of honest citizens.
it something is illegal to own or possess, how can it be legal to sell or ship?
they want to get these turned in and destroyed I bet.

    Good point. From the point in time this law becomes effective, it makes lawbreakers out of uncounted thousands of law-abiding citizens who only want the ability to defend themselves, while the real criminals still remain criminals.

    Possession of one of these Evil Devices may have been lightly brushed with Legality Pixiedust, but the moment you place one into your car, or in the mail/UPS, or even let somebody else pick it up to transport it, *bam*, they’ve got you. Anybody want to bet the only Legal way of moving one of these Evil Devices is to *pay* to have an agent of Law Enforcement visit your house to pick it up?

There is some analysis of the NY law that suggests they made a major mistake — didn’t update the existing parts of the statutes that say “but this is OK for police” to apply to the new parts.

At least one NY state dealer has refused to deliver 10+ round magazines to police departments because of this apparent oversight.

Seems to me that this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment in addition to the Second Amendment.

Subotai Bahadur | January 17, 2013 at 6:39 pm

1. Regardless of how they write the law, there is no possible doubt that members of the Nomenklatura, their favored rent-seekers, organized crime, and politically correct criminal groups will not be prosecuted without public outcry. Ain’t gonna happen. Be ready to create that outcry.

2. Speaking as a retired Peace Officer, if the law is so poorly drafted as to include law enforcement; someone needs to file charges against every agency in New York carrying weapons capable of carrying more than 7 rounds. Alinsky them. Create schisms between the local cops and the politicians who put them at risk.

3. New York state has a newspaper that likes to “out” legal gun owners. In the process, they have outed a number of reporters [being hypocritical; surprise, surprise] and others who normally are protected. Some effort needs to be made to find out if they carry weapons with >7 round magazines. Turn them in. Make them either disarm or go to jail.

Subotai Bahadur

gee… New York state considers my brand new high capacity magazines a felony offense.

I am in Arizona. Come and take them, Cuomo.

[…] HE HAS A 21ST CENTURY TITLE OF NOBILITY: Is there a “David Gregory Clause” in the New York Gun Law? […]

Of course; there’s a “David Gregory clause” in every law. That’s precisely why the a balanced budget amendment people continue to harp on would be waste of time. It’s why FOIA laws are meaningless. It’s why Eric Holder is still in office, Charlie Rangel has never been to jail, Elizabeth Warren never had to pay her professional dues or renew her license, NBC got a pass with its magazine show after being told not to do it by the Metro Police, and Obama’s drunk uncle and “Auntie” are still in the country. From sea to shining sea, big or small, the “Gregory Clause” covers them all.

Why do you ask?

“To give the defendant a David Gregory.” Is that kind of like giving someone a Wedgie?” Shouldn’t that be a felony?

Yes, I think it precedes the “Chuck Todd Clause”.
Chuck Todd (Official NBC WH Correspondent) latest tweet.
———————————
Chuck Todd

@chucktodd

To understand the gun debate, one must understand who owns guns and where they live. More on @nbcnightlynews #nbcwsjpoll

To understand media, one must understand who they are and where they live.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend