1994 Assault Weapon Ban -vs- SAFE act

[freddy]

Looking at the NYS SAFE act compared to the federal Assault weapons ban of 1994-2004. Several questions are arising.

Can any of our more knowledgeable members recall if there were workarounds (like the bullet button or any type of mag lock) used during the national ban from 1994-2004?

Was top loading a fixed mag not created until after the national ban? Or were people fixing mags back then too?

 

[spat]

Looking at the NYS SAFE act compared to the federal Assault weapons ban of 1994-2004. Several questions are arising.

Can any of our more knowledgeable members recall if there were workarounds (like the bullet button or any type of mag lock) used during the national ban from 1994-2004?

Was top loading a fixed mag not created until after the national ban? Or were people fixing mags back then too?

The chief workaround for '94 was the thumb hole stock.

 

[freddy]

The chief workaround for '94 was the thumb hole stock.

Got it, thanks.

So it sounds like the bullet button, mag locks, and top loading were all in response to the post-2004 legislation from NY and CA (primarily), correct?

 

[spat]

Got it, thanks.

So it sounds like the bullet button, mag locks, and top loading were all in response to the post-2004 legislation from NY and CA (primarily), correct?

They may have been around, but thumb hole stocks were pretty much a response to the 94 ban, so it never included them. That made that the obvious compliance choice for the vast majority of people and manufacturers.

 

[freddy]

They may have been around, but thumb hole stocks were pretty much a response to the 94 ban, so it never included them. That made that the obvious compliance choice for the vast majority of people and manufacturers.

Now I get it. Thanks for that.

As I'm sure you know the 1994 AWB included that hotly contested phrase 'ability to accept a detachable magazine' that is now in the unSAFE act of 2013.

 

[Vantrepes]

The bid difference was one feature vr. none.
Under the AWB, if you got rid of the bayonet lug, flash hider, and collapsible stock, you could still have a functional weapon with a pistol grip, and a detachable mag. Most people chose to live without the other parts to keep the grip, and detachable mags. You could also opt for a pinned muzzle brake instead of a crowned muzzle. Also, because thumb-hole stocks were not a banned feature, keeping a thumb-hole stock allowed for one other banned feature to be present, and keep the gun legal.
Under the SAFE Act, none of the features can be used with a detachable mag, so people had to find different solutions. Either lock the mag in place, and keep the features, or use a grip that doesn't "protrude conspicuously below" and keep the detachable mag. SAFE also made thumb-hole stocks a banned feature, removing another form of compliance. That's what spurred all the new stocks and grips.
Once it became the "none of the above" in CA, and NY, the mag locks, and other compliance parts started coming out. The bullet button was a direct reply to the working of the CA law that banned detachable mags that could be removed without the use of a tool with other features.
From my recollection, most of the thumb-hole stocks were more for import weapons that couldn't have pistol grips because of the "sporting use" criteria to get them into the country.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Now I get it. Thanks for that.

As I'm sure you know the 1994 AWB included that hotly contested phrase 'ability to accept a detachable magazine' that is now in the unSAFE act of 2013.

Correct except nobody did that nonsense. They just removed one feature and kept the rifle with the ability to accept as designed.

The phrase didn't mean anything until California passed their law. Their lawmakers had foresight and added into their law that a magazine is considered fixed if it required tools to remove it. So the bullet button was born as a workaround.

That wasn't the case with our law though. They didn't want us to use the bullet button workaround so they omitted that part of the law from the final draft not knowing that they would ban all fixed magazine rifles.

Then California passed a 2.0 AWB to to get rid of the bullet button workaround and changed their law to say that fixed magazines are rifles that require tools and have the actions disassembled to remove the magazine. They didn't just omit the definition like NY did because it would ban all fixed magazine rifles.

 

[freddy]

...
That wasn't the case with our law though. They didn't want us to use the bullet button workaround so they omitted that part of the law from the final draft not knowing that they would ban all fixed magazine rifles.
...
They didn't just omit the definition like NY did because it would ban all fixed magazine rifles.

Is this solely your interpretation Will? Or do you have case law or other backup to this? Did an attorney advise you in regards to this specific phrase/keyword: 'ability to accept a detachable magazine'?

 

[Phauxtoe]

well dont forget the magazine limits! 10 round mags! my dads Hi-power had a 10 rounder.
I think you could have and keep any preban mags, but part of the slippery slope!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Is this solely your interpretation Will? Or do you have case law or other backup to this? Did an attorney advise you in regards to this specific phrase/keyword: 'ability to accept a detachable magazine'?

Let's not start this again here. I'm tired today. But to answer your question, my attorney aka the "english language" told me. It told the lawmaker in California too so that's why he decided to include it in his law.

We can debate that issue at the other thread again if you like.

 

[nortatoga]

Before the Un-Safe I put this cool looking muzzle-brake on my Mini-14 which grave me one evil feature! After the Un-Safe I had to remove it, fortunately it was only mounted with a roll-pin and loctite.

 

[freddy]

It told the lawmaker in California too so that's why he decided to include it in his law.

I don't understand. What exactly does this mean? What did California include in their law?... not the phrase 'ability to accept' - correct?

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't understand. What exactly does this mean? What did California include in their law?... not the phrase 'ability to accept' - correct?

No. That was left as originally written. They then went ahead and added a separate definition stating that fixed magazine is a magazine that yada, yada, yada.

I see what you are getting at.

 

[freddy]

No. That was left as originally written. They then went ahead and added a separate definition stating that fixed magazine is a magazine that yada, yada, yada.

I see what you are getting at.

So that it is perfectly clear, the phrase 'ability to accept a detachable magazine' is only in the 1994 AWB and the SAFE act, and not anywhere else (like California laws). Are we all in agreement on this?

Is there anywhere else this phrase is used in a law?

 

[Marine Cpl]

So that it is perfectly clear, the phrase 'ability to accept a detachable magazine' is only in the 1994 AWB and the SAFE act, and not anywhere else (like California laws). Are we all in agreement on this?

No. It is in California's law too. I already explained that in a previous post. Even so with a fixed magazine definition, it still doesn't take the word ABILITY away. No other law has the word "Ability" used in the same way.

Is that the angle you are trying to get at?

 

[freddy]

No. It is in California's law too. I already explained that in a previous post. Even so with a fixed magazine definition, it still doesn't take the word ABILITY away. No other law has the word "Ability" used in the same way.

Is that the angle you are trying to get at?

My google-fu must be off today. I am not finding this phrase in California law. Only 'capacity' to accept a detachable mag. Is this what you mean? 'Ability' and 'capacity' are equivalent as you see it?

 

[Marine Cpl]

My google-fu must be off today. I am not finding this phrase in California law. Only 'capacity' to accept a detachable mag. Is this what you mean? 'Ability' and 'capacity' are equivalent as you see it?

Let me look at it. I may be incorrect. It happens at times.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You are correct and I was incorrect.

30515.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

They wrote the law correct in a way that does not ban fixed magazine rifles.

 

[freddy]

Hmmm, capacity seems like nearly the same definition as abilty.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Hmmm, capacity seems like nearly the same definition as abilty.

Where does it say capacity? The one I posted above is their most recent one.

 

[freddy]

You are correct and I was incorrect.

30515.
....
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

They wrote the law correct in a way that does not ban fixed magazine rifles.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So that is saying that the fixed magazine cannot have a capacity to accept over 10 rounds. What is the question? Sounds to me like it is just saying that the actual fixed magazine cannot accept more than 10 rounds ever.

 

[freddy]

So that is saying that the fixed magazine cannot have a capacity to accept over 10 rounds. What is the question? Sounds to me like it is just saying that the actual fixed magazine cannot accept more than 10 rounds ever.

No issue. Just looking for other examples of how 'ability to accept' is treated in court.

But now I am curious how CA handles pinned 10/30 mags. Any idea?

 

[Marine Cpl]

No issue. Just looking for other examples of how 'ability to accept' is treated in court.

But now I am curious how CA handles pinned 10/30 mags. Any idea?

No. I haven't looked.

 

[freddy]

No. I haven't looked.

Do you know if the '94 AWB handled pinned (eg 10/30) mags?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Do you know if the '94 AWB handled pinned (eg 10/30) mags?

I think there was no mention to it. The law was first written to ban new magazines over 10. Preban mags were grandfathered so no one concerned themselves with pinning magazines.

 

[freddy]

I think there was no mention to it. The law was first written to ban new magazines over 10. Preban mags were grandfathered so no one concerned themselves with pinning magazines.

Got it. Thanks Will.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Got it. Thanks Will.

In all reality the poorly written law says one thing. Whether a DA takes the language literal after seeing that you made an attempt and convicts you is another. So far what we have seen is plea bargains.

 

[nortatoga]

Let me look at it. I may be incorrect. It happens at times.

I had to save this!! LOL!!!!

 

[gqllc007]

I had to save this!! LOL!!!!

ROFLMAO I DID THE SAME THING!!!!!!!