new york penal code 265 37 unlawful possession of certain ammuni
Contents
New York Penal Code 265.37: Unlawful Possession of Certain Ammunition Feeding Devices
New York Penal Code 265.37 makes it illegal for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition feeding device that contains more than seven rounds of ammunition. This law has been controversial, with proponents arguing it improves public safety and opponents claiming it infringes on Second Amendment rights.
Overview of the Law
Penal Code 265.37 states: It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition feeding device where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.
This effectively bans the possession of magazines or clips that hold more than seven rounds, with some exceptions.
The law was passed as part of the NY SAFE Act in 2013 following the Sandy Hook school shooting. Supporters said restricting magazine capacity would reduce casualties in mass shootings. Critics argued the limit arbitrarily restricts law-abiding gun owners.
Violating 265.37 is a misdemeanor offense. Possession of a magazine able to hold up to 10 rounds is punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $1000. Possession of a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a fine of up to $1000 [2].
Exemptions and Defenses
There are some exemptions and defenses to 265.37 charges:
- Possession at an authorized shooting range or competition
- Possession by active or retired law enforcement officers
- Antique feeding devices possessed as curiosities or relics
- Devices possessed prior to the law’s enactment in 2013
For the pre-ban exemption, the feeding device must have been lawfully possessed prior to the law’s enactment. The defendant also must have notified authorities they possessed the banned device [3].
Debates Around the Law
Penal Code 265.37 has been controversial since its passage. Supporters argue it improves public safety:
- Restricts access to equipment that increases shooting capacity
- Could reduce casualties in mass shootings by forcing reloading
- Still allows self-defense with lower capacity magazines
Opponents counter the law burdens lawful gun owners while doing little to prevent violence:
- Arbitrarily limits magazine capacity based on false safety claims
- Millions of pre-ban magazines still in circulation
- Criminals can obtain larger magazines through theft or the black market
- Reloading takes only seconds for a trained shooter
Pro-gun groups like the NRA argued the law infringes on Second Amendment rights. Gun control groups counter that restrictions on dangerous equipment are constitutional.
Legal Challenges
Soon after 265.37 was passed, pro-gun groups filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. However, courts have consistently upheld the law:
- NY State Supreme Court rejected a challenge in 2013, ruling the law “bears a substantial relationship to the achievement of an important governmental interest”
- The 2nd Circuit upheld the law in 2015, finding it did not violate the Second Amendment
- The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in 2013 and 2015, leaving the law in place
While attempts to overturn 265.37 have failed, some provisions of the NY SAFE Act have been struck down in court rulings. This includes restrictions on loading more than 7 rounds in a magazine.
Analysis and Implications
The effects of New York’s magazine capacity restriction remain debated. Proponents argue it reduces lethality in mass shootings. For example, they cite the 2019 Dayton shooter being forced to pause and reload. However, others counter mass shooters work around limits by bringing multiple magazines.
Studies on the impact of magazine restrictions have been inconclusive. [1] There is mixed evidence on whether they reduce mass shooting deaths. Limits on magazine capacity primarily affect lawful gun owners rather than criminals.
The fate of New York’s law remains uncertain. It faces renewed legal challenges arguing it violates the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The decision established broader Second Amendment protections which could threaten ammunition restrictions.
For now, Penal Code 265.37 remains in effect. Gun owners must comply with the 7-round magazine limit or face criminal charges. However, it seems likely the law will continue facing legal opposition from pro-gun groups.