Legality of "Featureless Rifles" in NYS

[GUNSICK]

Some registered from the get go.

But couldn't find the time to vote.

 

[Deplorable Me]

Some registered from the get go.

It's more like they agree that cosmetically impaired rifles are as evil as gubbiner asshole says they are. I personally can't wait to pass a bottle of bourbon on his grave.

 

[Deplorable Me]

But couldn't find the time to vote.

Don't get me started.

 

[GOYABEAN]

It's more like they agree that cosmetically impaired rifles are as evil as gubbiner asshole says they are. I personally can't wait to pass a bottle of bourbon on his grave.

Wouldn't waste it on him but would gladly take a Dump

 

[Mr. terzmo]

Until the crap act gets $hitcanned.....I've settled for a mini 30

 

[Deplorable Me]

Wouldn't waste it on him but would gladly take a Dump

Bourbon indirect.

 

[spat]

So, since what someone believes a fixed magazine rifle is or isn't years into the passage of the safe act, that begs the question about featureless rifles for me now; Especially the ugly ones with neutered stocks and prick grips.


This was taken directly from the safe act website. Judging by certain interpretation by someone, it looks like anything on a featureless rifle including prick grips, and neutered stocks are most definitely not legal if fixed magazines would not be not legal.


"If you modify your gun so that it is not an assault weapon, you do not have to register it. The modification must be permanent however. This includes, for example, removing the bayonet lug by cutting or grinding, grinding off the threads on the barrel, removing the foregrip so that it cannot be readily reattached, or any change that cannot be reversed through reasonable means."

So, if I use an allen key and take off a prick grip, is that reasonable means enough to swap for an illegal pistol grip? because it's very simple and easy to do that. And what about those neutered stocks, how hard is it to take one of those off and put a telescoping stock back on and a pistol grip along with it? Do those items require normal tools for on and off use or are they designed to permanently stay on once and forever? Do I fill a prick grip in with epoxy or something so it's less easy not to take off?

HAHAHAHA!

I can mount a bayonet easily on most accessory rails, does that mean you can't have a scope on a "featureless" rifle ?

 

[freddy]

Original draft.

Section 265.00 subdivision 24. "DETACHABLE MAGAZINE" means any ammunition feeding device, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

Here it is. See lines 38-41.
New York State Assembly | Bill Search and Legislative Information

 

[Uzi]

I can mount a bayonet easily on most accessory rails, does that mean you can't have a scope on a "featureless" rifle ?

I don't know what you're talking about, but if you're referring to the original post, it wasn't a serious inquiry.

 

[spat]

I don't know what you're talking about, but if you're referring to the original post, it wasn't a serious inquiry.

Just an illustration for those who seem to view the safe act through literal absolutes. If you follow their logic to its conclusion, virtually every semi-auto is illegal.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Just an illustration for those who seem to view the safe act through literal absolutes. If you follow their logic to its conclusion, virtually every semi-auto is illegal.

That's my point. I'm glad you got it. Just like they didn't take into consideration LEO's when they passed it, they didn't take this into consideration.

Same thing with the carry permit. They didn't take open carry into consideration for hunting or matches. As written when you do so since it's only a license to carry concealed, you are in violation of the law.

It doesn't make sense and no LEO will probably enforce it but that's how it's written.

 

[GUNSICK]

That's my point. I'm glad you got it. Just like they didn't take into consideration LEO's when they passed it, they didn't take this into consideration.

Same thing with the carry permit. They didn't take open carry into consideration for hunting or matches. As written when you do so since it's only a license to carry concealed, you are in violation of the law.

It doesn't make sense and no LEO will probably enforce it but that's how it's written.

Surprised they didn't catch that in the 1st draft.

 

[Jem45472]

You are a broken record asking the same question that has been answered already.

Here is goes again. It doesn't. It never once ever mentions the term "fixed" in regards to anything. All it says is that if a rifle is semi automatic and has the ABILITY to accept detachable magazines and has one feature, it is an AW.

That's it. That is all it says. That is the problem. Get it now? Putting in a lock that you can take off doesn't make the rifle magically not have the ABILITY to accept a detachable magazine.

What you fail to understand is had they defined what a fixed magazine is like California did, then you can make it that way. But they didn't. It isn't even acknowledged as existing.

The way I see it is this. When I installed my mag lock, I threw away the regular catch, spring, and button. My rifle is not capable of accepting a detachable magazine. Sure, I can fit a magazine in its place, but it does not accept it. I would have to hold it, or tape the magazine in place.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The way I see it is this. When I installed my mag lock, I threw away the regular catch, spring, and button. My rifle is not capable of accepting a detachable magazine. Sure, I can fit a magazine in its place, but it does not accept it. I would have to hold it, or tape the magazine in place.

Where does it say it has to lock or if you no longer have the parts it's no longer capable?

 

[Jem45472]

Where does it say it has to lock or if you no longer have the parts it's no longer capable?

Doesn't have to say it anywhere. To please the court I could fit my. 22 or. 45 mag in there also. They'll fit, but the rifle doesn't accept them.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Doesn't have to say it anywhere. To please the court I could fit my. 22 or. 45 mag in there also. They'll fit, but the rifle doesn't accept them.

Oh but they do. They may not work but they'll go in.

 

[spat]

Where does it say it has to lock or if you no longer have the parts it's no longer capable?

A determined prosecutor could make a case that your lunch fits the definition of an AW, we all have to play the odds about what will get you in trouble.

Once you end up in court you have already lost, the only question is how much.

So, if you want a 100% guarantee that you are SAFE compliant, get rid of *all* your guns, and be careful how you eat that pop tart. The rest of us will do enough that we feel we are covered *enough* to satisfy our personal threshold of acceptable risk.

Your arguments are based on an absolutism that would disarm us completely. Most of us will not accept that, and therefore will not accept the reasoning that leads there.

The fact that there are probably hundreds of thousands of rifles in NY with nothing more than a BB for compliance, and nobody has been convicted tells me that we are fairly safe.

 

[Jem45472]

I'm not trying to argue, we all know what the law was meant to do. One of my ar's is a paper puncher, the other hd, and hunting. They wanted to get rid of detachable mag rifles to do away with fast reloads. Do I want to end up in court? No, obviously not, but there is noway a da is going to prosecute somebody top loading, or taking their unepoxied mag lock off. You'll never see it in court because it'll be plead down every time.

 

[freddy]

Your arguments are based on an absolutism that would disarm us completely. Most of us will not accept that, and therefore will not accept the reasoning that leads there.

The fact that there are probably hundreds of thousands of rifles in NY with nothing more than a BB for compliance, and nobody has been convicted tells me that we are fairly safe.

Well said.

 

[Marine Cpl]

A determined prosecutor could make a case that your lunch fits the definition of an AW, we all have to play the odds about what will get you in trouble.

Once you end up in court you have already lost, the only question is how much.

So, if you want a 100% guarantee that you are SAFE compliant, get rid of *all* your guns, and be careful how you eat that pop tart. The rest of us will do enough that we feel we are covered *enough* to satisfy our personal threshold of acceptable risk.

Your arguments are based on an absolutism that would disarm us completely. Most of us will not accept that, and therefore will not accept the reasoning that leads there.

The fact that there are probably hundreds of thousands of rifles in NY with nothing more than a BB for compliance, and nobody has been convicted tells me that we are fairly safe.

I agree. I've mentioned non enforcement in previous posts. But that is not what the poorly written law says. That's the point. My only point. That's it's written poorly and it goes against what was intended. I'm not arguing enforcement.

 

[Jem45472]

It was mentioned in the other thread that the firearm owner is allowed to gunsmith, and the court is not allowed to. Does anybody know how true this is? If the court can't use tools to disassemble the mag lock this a slam dunk open-closed case. Magazine installed with a non epoxied mag lock definitely without a doubt does not "have the ability to accept a detachable magazine"

Who here can definitively answer this?

 

[NY Leatherneck]

It was mentioned in the other thread that the firearm owner is allowed to gunsmith, and the court is not allowed to. Does anybody know how true this is? If the court can't use tools to disassemble the mag lock this a slam dunk open-closed case. Magazine installed with a non epoxied mag lock definitely without a doubt does not "have the ability to accept a detachable magazine"

Who here can definitively answer this?

Good point...since they cant introduce tools no way to demonstrate removal. I can see a jury of snowflakes however handing down a conviction when a rear takedown pin is disengaged and a magazine drops. Not saying it is right but I can see it happening.

 

[gqllc007]

It works both ways. If someone ended up in NYS court over an epoxied fixed mag or a fixed mag that has not been epoxied like a prince 50 and the jury sided with the defendant instead of the State it would set a precedent case law that NYS does not want. Then there would be no more ambiguity. If they had wanted no ambiguity they would have written the law differently.

 

[gqllc007]

For sake of argument

Lets say in NYS your Jet Ski can not speed over 65mph and has a governor installed on it from the dealer to prevent it from going over 65mph.
The NYS Law states "if your Jet Ski have the ability to go over 65mph then your Jet Ski is illegal"
So now you import a Jet Ski from another state that can go over 65mph. That would be illegal. So to comply you or a dealer install a governor to prevent it from going over 65mph.
According to some people's logic this would still be illegal because if you REMOVE the bolted on governor with tools then you still have the ability to go over 65mph.

So why is this any different than the fixed mag scenario?

 

[Marine Cpl]

For sake of argument

Lets say in NYS your Jet Ski can not speed over 65mph and has a governor installed on it from the dealer to prevent it from going over 65mph.
The NYS Law states "if your Jet Ski have the ability to go over 65mph then your Jet Ski is illegal"
So now you import a Jet Ski from another state that can go over 65mph. That would be illegal. So to comply you or a dealer install a governor to prevent it from going over 65mph.
According to some people's logic this would still be illegal because if you REMOVE the bolted on governor with tools then you still have the ability to go over 65mph.

So why is this any different than the fixed mag scenario?

It isn't.

 

[freddy]

For sake of argument

Lets say in NYS your Jet Ski can not speed over 65mph and has a governor installed on it from the dealer to prevent it from going over 65mph.
The NYS Law states "if your Jet Ski have the ability to go over 65mph then your Jet Ski is illegal"
So now you import a Jet Ski from another state that can go over 65mph. That would be illegal. So to comply you or a dealer install a governor to prevent it from going over 65mph.
According to some people's logic this would still be illegal because if you REMOVE the bolted on governor with tools then you still have the ability to go over 65mph.

So why is this any different than the fixed mag scenario?

Nice example!

 

[freddy]

It isn't.

Are you saying you agree with gqllc007, but the courts may not since we are debating firearms in anti-gun NYS?

 

[gqllc007]

Are you saying you agree with gqllc007, but the courts may not since we are debating firearms in anti-gun NYS?

My thoughts are you are showing intent to comply with a law that is vague with either example and the only way to have the ability to accept a detachable magazine or to speed over 65mph is to use tools to remove the device to show intent now was not to comply. But hey only my father and sister are attorney's not me..LOL
If you planned on breaking the law you would care less about an epoxied fixed mag or a governor

 

[freddy]

My thoughts are you are showing intent to comply with a law that is vague with either example and the only way to have the ability to accept a detachable magazine or to speed over 65mph is to use tools to remove the device to show intent now was not to comply. But hey only my father and sister are attorney's not me..LOL
If you planned on breaking the law you would care less about an epoxied fixed mag or a governor

Agreed. What do you/dad/sis think of the un-epoxied bullet button? A definite no go? Or slightly less defensible than the prince 50 style mag lock?

 

[gqllc007]

Agreed. What do you/dad/sis think of the un-epoxied bullet button? A definite no go? Or slightly less defensible than the prince 50 style mag lock?

My father is now deceased. I never asked my sister...she doesn't care for guns...