Video about one of the new NY laws that took effect yesterday and changing a P365 frame because of it!
- Thread starter mosquito
- Start date
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
shouldn't the most important part be at the front of the video ?? .. Skeeter beater .. there's a skeeter on my peeter wack it off ..
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
The key he glosses over, and is quite important, is “designed and intended”. Intent has to be proven making this quite difficult to prove especially if any person doesn’t view it as a toy as well.
So even if you change the color, if the design was not clearly an attempt to make it look like a toy, even if the color isn’t the same as the manufacturer then it should be kosher or extremely hard to prove.
So even if you change the color, if the design was not clearly an attempt to make it look like a toy, even if the color isn’t the same as the manufacturer then it should be kosher or extremely hard to prove.
mosquito
.40 S&W
By the way the law is written, I would disagree!! Again, only my personal interpretation BUT, it says that you can not change the color of the gun from what it was manufactured in, period!
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Well there are a few key parts the law mentions that are critical you mentioned.
First, it has to be concealable. In theory as long as you have a full sized rifle by ATF standards, it's not and SBR so it's not concealable. That should mean that rifles themselves are automatically exempt how it it is written.
But the key is intended. "Designed and intended" as you said before it goes down the path of the "wonkiness." So even if someone is slammned with this charge, you have to prove it somehow to a judge. If it has "NERF" on the side, yeah it's pretty obviously going to be easy to prove.
In the case of orange, I could see that being a problem maybe because orange is used in a lot of toy guns. In your case, I would agree moving from the orange is "wise."
However, if you're changing to gun's color to FDE from black, it still looks clearly like a gun especially if it has basic colors. You can also point to other models with the same color being common as proof that the color is consistent with non-toy guns. That is where the "designed and intended" clause is the fatal flaw of any DA trying to charge you.
I agree it's vague as fuck, but I think the wording is quite favorable due to that clause of "designed and intended" making it difficult to prove in court for colors that are commonly used like black, FDE, etc on real rifles and pistols. That's what I'm getting at.
mosquito
.40 S&W
Every sentence says: but not limited to: I’m not arguing with you, and I sincerely hope that your interpretation is correct BUT, I do not see it that way. I was in a meeting with a lot of very knowledgeable people yesterday about this law and every one of us would disagree with your interpretation. Like everything else, it’s going to take someone to get arrested and litigate this to get clarification. I’m not willing to be that test case! And.......again: it says you can not change the color that the gun was originally manufactured in!
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
The more vague it is the easier it will get struck down like past bullshit. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of the people you met with about the “designed and intended” clause @mosquito
mosquito
.40 S&W
Actually, in Law.......the more vague it is, the easier it is for them to enforce! If it gets specific, then every little detail is spelled out! Not so, in this case OR, in most “vague” laws!
The "designed and intended" language isn't as comforting when you remove personal notions of what a toy gun is. The legislature told us what it is for the purposes of this law in their definition. Amongst other things, it is ANY RIFLE, PISTOL, SHOTGUN OR MACHINE-GUN DISPLAYING A COLOR FINISH OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURE COLOR.
If you read the law with their definition, which IS a toy gun according to them, it reads differently:
20. "Disguised gun" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive and is designed and intended to appear to be ANY RIFLE, PISTOL, SHOTGUN OR MACHINE- GUN DISPLAYING A COLOR FINISH OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURE COLOR...
Did you pick the new color? Then you designed it. Did you do the work yourself or have someone do it at your request? Then you intended it.
Regarding the concealability point, unless you are very small person, a rifle or shotgun is concealable under a trench coat.
In the end, I think they shot themselves in the foot by using the term toy gun. In court I suspect it would be argued that their intention was to prevent "nerf" guns and such, including pink rifles, orange pistols, etc. They are going to have a harder time prosecuting a guy who changed his black glock to FDE. The states definition would be challenged as overbroad, and that particular situation as not being in the spirit of the law.
If you read the law with their definition, which IS a toy gun according to them, it reads differently:
20. "Disguised gun" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive and is designed and intended to appear to be ANY RIFLE, PISTOL, SHOTGUN OR MACHINE- GUN DISPLAYING A COLOR FINISH OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURE COLOR...
Did you pick the new color? Then you designed it. Did you do the work yourself or have someone do it at your request? Then you intended it.
Regarding the concealability point, unless you are very small person, a rifle or shotgun is concealable under a trench coat.
In the end, I think they shot themselves in the foot by using the term toy gun. In court I suspect it would be argued that their intention was to prevent "nerf" guns and such, including pink rifles, orange pistols, etc. They are going to have a harder time prosecuting a guy who changed his black glock to FDE. The states definition would be challenged as overbroad, and that particular situation as not being in the spirit of the law.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Could you not easily defend your "intent" by saying that there are far more non-toy firearms that are colored in FDE, green, etc, than there are toys?
In the case of orange, you could potentially get in trouble. @mosquito made I think the right call here. For orange or pink, etc, far more toys are colored that way than real firearms.
However, if the overwhelming majority of firearms carry black, FDE, green, etc, finishes over toys, then your intent is harder to prove as trying to create a mistakeable firearm when many legitimate firearms are manufactured that way.
Hell, you could even point to the fact glocks come in every color probably imaginable from the manufacturer themselves at this point as proof they are made with such colors. Colors like orange, pink, etc may even be provable if they are made from the manufacturer with those colors commonly (although it would be harder of a case to make.)
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
I think the guy is over reacting. I get it, this is NY after all where dumbfuckery rules.
Robin
Robin
mosquito
.40 S&W
Ok.......like I said, do with it what you may. I’m just trying to do my due diligence to inform my fellow gun owners of what‘s going on and that this law and 2 other ones, went into effect.....2 days ago. As I said above, I was in a meeting about these laws with a lot of very smart, well informed legal minds AND, this is what they/we all believe to be the correct interpretation of the law based upon how vague it was written.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
".........................based upon how vague it was written."
And purposefully so!
FUNY!
Robin
And purposefully so!
FUNY!
Robin
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
Also to be clear the text reads:
So that's what I'm referencing here. Where the threshold lies for when a gun is "designed and intended" to not look like a firearms is going to be a wide area.
It still has to "appear" to be a toy, obviously. If many non-toy / real guns are colored that way, it's hard to make that case. You have to prove the color chosen is obviously that of a toy. A toy gun definition can include a different color than the manufacturer, but you could fight it on the ground that the color chosen (if not orange, pink, or bright) is commonly used on real guns so it wasn't trying to be disguised.
My reading is, it has to be interpreted as a toy.
In my last paragraph I mentioned how the definition in the new law may be challenged as overbroad. What you've written would all be part of that. Challenging broadness is challenging the law itself, saying in effect that the lawmakers did it wrong. That's all legal gymnastics way beyond my knowledge.
As far as intent goes, I see that more of a yes/no question. Did you intend to change the color, etc., or not? All of the rest- what a manufacturer does, more are real than fake, etc - have nothing to do with your intent to change the color. Those "excuses" you present, as logical and reasonable as they may be, don't change your intent. What you are doing instead is challenging the validity of the definition of the law, rather than defending your intent to alter the gun.
Hopefully no "otherwise law abiding" person finds themselves defending something as stupid as a color change in a court of law.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I spoke to someone I know outside of this forum. Actually, a former member. He mentioned, and a good point as well, that FDE, Green, etc, are all camouflage colors for hunting as well -- you could argue. So you could attack it from that angle, too.
Good thing I design and manufacture my own guns. I think I will do a neon green and orange AR15 just for shits.
this could get interesting as changing the stock on your bench rest rifle from the flimsy gray and black 700 SPS to a black and red spattered Bell and Carlson stock could fall into the not legal realm.
Cant wait to leave this state.
That_FNG
6.5 Creedmoor
Things cut both ways. As easy it would be to convict someone of violating this law, it would be just as easy to find someone not guilty of this law / nullify it by jury. The intent is to scare people into not doing something due to fear of it. The more vague it is the more successful it is at that. If it goes to a trial then exactly what does and does not count then gets spelled out exactly. Look at the safe act, which is one of the most vaguest pieces of law I know of. It has everybody scared about what to put or not to put on a gun. Look how many stand alone court cases we have had only for safe act violations. It is almost always a tag along charge. What if there was to be a court case that forced the state to spell out what exactly does and does not constitute detachable magazine, front grip, pistol grip? The state runs the risk of this making it explicitly legal to attach certain accessories to a gun.
repete
.338 Win Mag
You've said this a couple times now and I'm curious, What meeting? Are you a lawyer or state legislator, DA? It seems odd that a normal off the street Joe would attend a meeting on this.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Simple.
In NY toy guns are required to have a conspicuous orange marking on the end of the barrel.
No marking, then it's not legal to sell as a toy.
So your neon green glock with a super soaker tank glued to the slide doesn't look like a toy, because that would not be legal to sell as a toy even if it was a super soaker.
In NY toy guns are required to have a conspicuous orange marking on the end of the barrel.
No marking, then it's not legal to sell as a toy.
So your neon green glock with a super soaker tank glued to the slide doesn't look like a toy, because that would not be legal to sell as a toy even if it was a super soaker.