A questionable provision within the "SAFE Act"

[Another D.O.M.]

The following is a copy of a correspondence I've sent to Gov. Cuomo and my state legislators.  I've also forwarded a copy to the Albany Times Union, the Schenectady Gazette, the Troy Record and the Queensbury Post Star.

I have a question relating to the NY 'SAFE Act'.

Part of the new provisions of this act relates to possession of a large
capacity ammunition feeding device:

"S 265.37 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF CERTAIN AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

     IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS  AN  AMMUNITION
FEEDING  DEVICE THAT SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO  THOUSAND  THIRTEEN  WHICH  ADDED
THIS SECTION, THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR
CONVERTED  TO ACCEPT MORE THAN SEVEN BUT LESS THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI-
TION, WHERE SUCH DEVICE CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.

     IF SUCH DEVICE CONTAINING MORE THAN  SEVEN  ROUNDS  OF  AMMUNITION  IS
POSSESSED WITHIN THE HOME OF THE POSSESSOR, THE PERSON SO POSSESSING THE
DEVICE  SHALL, FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, BE GUILTY OF A VIOLATION AND SUBJECT
TO A FINE OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS, AND FOR A SECOND OFFENSE, BE GUILTY OF
A CLASS B MISDEMEANOR AND SUBJECT TO A FINE OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS AND A
TERM OF UP TO THREE MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.

     IF SUCH DEVICE CONTAINING MORE THAN  SEVEN  ROUNDS  OF  AMMUNITION  IS
POSSESSED  IN  ANY  LOCATION  OTHER  THAN THE HOME OF THE POSSESSOR, THE
PERSON SO POSSESSING THE DEVICE SHALL, FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, BE GUILTY OF
A CLASS B MISDEMEANOR AND SUBJECT TO A FINE OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS AND A
TERM OF UP TO SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT, AND  FOR  A  SECOND  OFFENSE,  BE
GUILTY OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR."

I note that in paragraph two of § 265.37 it states specifically that it
is a crime for someone to possess a magazine containing more than seven
rounds within their own home.

The governor and our state legislature have told us that the specific
reason for passing such restrictions on firearms is to 'fight back'
against mass shootings in schools, theaters, shopping malls, etc.  If this
is the case, why would they go out their way to specifically outlaw
possession of a fully loaded magazine within the confines of your own
home?  Have there been mass shopping mall shootings that have occurred in
folks' living rooms that the public is unaware of?

I think the reasonable person would question the wisdom of this provision.
You have labeled this legislation the "SAFE Act", and yet the act of
specifically disarming a homeowner within the confines of their home does
not seem very SAFE to me.

Consider the case of a homeowner who lives in a rural area of New York.
It may take up to an hour for a member of law enforcement to arrive at
their home should they need help.  If someone breaks into their home with
the intent of killing or harming the homeowner, how many rounds of
ammunition is 'enough' to defend oneself?

More importantly, who is in a better position to make that determination -
the governor or a state legislator who is provided with 24/7 armed state
police protection on the taxpayers' dime, or the young woman who is about
to be raped and strangled to death with her own undergarment?

I believe these are important questions, and I believe you owe the
citizens of New York an explanation for your irrational and irresponsible
actions.

Sincerely,


Mark J Anspacher