Im checking out that site after i click reply. thanks for the link
im going to check that link in a few mins. thx
read how the court challenge that was at the bottom of the link i gave a few days ago. The parts that were under scrutiny are now shown to the public how each side, for and against, argued their points to put the bill into place. A lot of the sections were reached by considering statistics for the most part and examples that support their statistical argument, instead of logical and technical though. If there wasn’t heavier opposition given in the same way, that side “won” and it went into the bill.
CLEARLY the people who had a valuable enough say in this bill are by no means weapons experts or basing their argument on feasibility and ease of pulling off an action while in the middle of a mass shooting… if they were, definitions to explain what a valid “detachable magazine” is would be in place… and arguments like we are having here would have told them that there has to be a level of “disassembly” drawn for firearms that must be considered in the bill to validate the difference between “assembly” or “reattaching ammunition feeding device”.
Which the CA law seems to have thought and spelled this out wayyy better. Which is why their system is in place and still functional. Until NYS puts more detail in place like we are here, as its written now, it can be wide open for discussion full of valid points like you are making, and it can also be on the flip side as simple as I am putting it… and both sides are correct fighting for different results.