New York Senate Bill S02014

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Relates to removing the maximum age limit for firearms instruction exemptions; removes upper age limits of sixteen and twenty-one.

Summary

S02014 amends several provisions of the New York Penal Law that create exemptions from firearms possession restrictions for supervised instruction and training at shooting ranges or similar venues. Under current law, these exemptions apply only to minors below specified age thresholds; this bill lowers those thresholds by removing the upper age limits of 16 and 21 in three related paragraphs, while keeping the minimum ages and supervision requirements in place. As a result, the bill would allow individuals who are at least 12 years old in certain rifle/shotgun and air gun settings, and at least 14 years old in pistol/revolver range settings, to qualify for the exemptions so long as they are otherwise supervised and meet the statutory conditions. The bill does not create a new firearms right generally; rather, it expands who may lawfully possess and use certain firearms or related weapons for instruction, loading, firing, and target practice under tightly controlled circumstances. The affected statutes are Penal Law section 265.20 subdivisions a(7), a(7-c), and a(7-e), which list exceptions to criminal possession offenses. The measure would therefore reduce the risk that older teens and young adults participating in supervised shooting sports, hunter education, or range instruction could be prosecuted under the general firearms possession prohibitions when they are engaged in those activities. The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and caption is permissive toward supervised youth and young-adult firearms training, with the stated purpose of removing maximum age limits rather than changing the supervision framework. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests an intent to preserve safety controls while broadening eligibility for training exemptions. The main point of contention is likely to be whether removing the upper age limits is necessary or appropriate, especially for pistol/revolver range activity and other firearms instruction involving young adults. Supporters would likely emphasize access to hunter education, marksmanship training, and organized shooting sports for older teens and young adults. Opponents would likely focus on public safety concerns, the risk of expanding firearms access, and whether the existing age caps serve as an important safeguard. No specific stakeholder positions are included in the provided materials.

Impact

This bill would amend Penal Law section 265.20 to expand exemptions from New York’s criminal possession laws for supervised firearms instruction and range use by removing the maximum age limits currently tied to those exemptions. It would affect minors and young adults participating in shooting sports, hunter education, and supervised target practice, while leaving intact the requirements for immediate supervision, approved instructors, and other eligibility conditions.

Sentiment

The available materials suggest a generally supportive or permissive intent toward supervised firearms training, since the bill is framed as a technical change to remove age ceilings rather than to loosen supervision or licensing rules. However, no committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative consensus or opposition in the supplied context.

Contention

The likely controversy centers on whether the state should continue to limit these firearms instruction exemptions by age. Supporters may argue that older teens and young adults should be able to participate in supervised shooting instruction and hunting education without unnecessary legal barriers. Critics may argue that removing the upper age limits broadens firearms access too far and could undermine public safety, particularly in pistol and revolver range settings. No named opponents or supporters are identified in the provided record.