Bullet button legality in NYS

[freddy]

What is the reason the bullet button may not pass the muster in NYS?

Written statements from LE?
Case law?
Is it solely our interpretation of the statute?​

Please be specific.

 

[Phazer]

What is the reason the bullet button may not pass the muster in NYS?

Written statements from LE?​

​

Yasureright.

Case law?

LOL!

Is it solely our interpretation of the statute?
Please be specific.

Ha! Specifics? In the unSAFE Act? Ha, Ha Ha!

Remember, this is the same legislation that scared away most online ammunition vendors from selling legal products legally into New York outside of New York City.

 

[freddy]

For some reason I thought the old site declared the BB was a definite no go.

 

[Phazer]

For some reason I thought the old site declared the BB was a definite no go.

What a site says is irrelevant.

The unSAFE Act refers to rifles with the ability to "accept a detachable magazine."

Once you have removed the magazine from a rifle with a bullet button installed, the rifle is still a semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine. It would be a simple, and convincing, demonstration in court.

This same logic pertains to the Mag-Lock device, too.

That said, I've never seen any cases mentioned where anything related to these moronic restrictions has been challenged in court.

 

[freddy]

What a site says is irrelevant.

The unSAFE Act refers to rifles with the ability to "accept a detachable magazine."

Once you have removed the magazine from a rifle with a bullet button installed, the rifle is still a semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine. It would be a simple, and convincing, demonstration in court.

This same logic pertains to the Mag-Lock device, too.

That said, I've never seen any cases mentioned where anything related to these moronic restrictions has been challenged in court.

Allow me to play devils advocate... In order to remove the magazine it requires a tool (allen key, bullet tip, or similar). So could this not be argued as partial disassembly? Similar to California prior to this year?

 

[Uzi]

Allow me to play devils advocate... In order to remove the magazine it requires a tool (allen key, bullet tip, or similar). So could this not be argued as partial disassembly? Similar to California prior to this year?

Doubt it. Just because it inconveniences the user, doesn't mean it qualifies as legal. Nothing even states anything needs to be disassembled. The idea is that if you're able to feed a magazine once it's pulled out, it is quite literally and obviously able to accept a detachable magazine as already stated. This is why very few people will consider using an ar maglock, because regardless of splitting the rifle, once it's closed it will expect any detachable magazine.

 

[Saltwater60]

Allow me to play devils advocate... In order to remove the magazine it requires a tool (allen key, bullet tip, or similar). So could this not be argued as partial disassembly? Similar to California prior to this year?

No because your not taking apart the riffle. Pushing a button with a tool does not constitute taking apart the gun. Remember to be legal you have to epoxy over the screw hole on your mag lock.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Allow me to play devils advocate... In order to remove the magazine it requires a tool (allen key, bullet tip, or similar). So could this not be argued as partial disassembly? Similar to California prior to this year?

No. The rifle is still functional at that point and still has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

 

[dsdmmat]

Allow me to play devils advocate... In order to remove the magazine it requires a tool (allen key, bullet tip, or similar). So could this not be argued as partial disassembly? Similar to California prior to this year?

So if I recall correctly, there is precedence on this already (not judicial but, practical). There was a store in Western NY that was selling ARs with the bullet button. The police and DAs office in that area decided if the people that bought them epoxied over the bullet button the ARs they bought would meet the criteria to not be considered an AW. Cannot remember which gun dealer was involved at the time.

 

[freddy]

No because your not taking apart the riffle. Pushing a button with a tool does not constitute taking apart the gun. Remember to be legal you have to epoxy over the screw hole on your mag lock.

How can epoxy make it legal? If the epoxy is scraped, cut, or gouged away then a magazine can be inserted.

 

[Marine Cpl]

How can epoxy make it legal? If the epoxy is scraped, cut, or gouged away then a magazine can be inserted.

I agree with that therefore it isn't legal as per the laws as written.

 

[freddy]

No. The rifle is still functional at that point and still has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

If a bolt and t-nut hold the mag in place securely, and then they are unbolted with a wrench - it is still functional, and therefore illegal?

Epoxy, bolts, even welding could all conceivably allow the rifle to continue functioning while the epoxy, bolts or welding were disabled. So how can any fixed mag be legal?

 

[freddy]

So if I recall correctly, there is precedence on this already (not judicial but, practical). There was a store in Western NY that was selling ARs with the bullet button. The police and DAs office in that area decided if the people that bought them epoxied over the bullet button the ARs they bought would meet the criteria to not be considered an AW. Cannot remember which gun dealer was involved at the time.

This was the bb or the mr2?

 

[Marine Cpl]

If a bolt and t-nut hold the mag in place securely, and then they are unbolted with a wrench - it is still functional, and therefore illegal?

Epoxy, bolts, even welding could all conceivably allow the rifle to continue functioning while the epoxy, bolts or welding were disabled. So how can any fixed mag be legal?

I would say those methods are illegal as well only based on how the law is written.

Whether you get arrested and convicted is an entirely different matter though.

 

[Marine Cpl]

This was the bb or the mr2?

BB

 

[Marine Cpl]

One thing to mention here, in NYS, in order to be convicted of Penal Law 265, the firearm has to be operable. So one cannot argue that removing a fixed magazine tube from a Mossberg 500 is accepting a detachable magazine. It can only accept one in an inoperable state.

 

[freddy]

I would say those methods are illegal as well only based on how the law is written.

Whether you get arrested and convicted is an entirely different matter though.

So is there any method of mag fixing you see as NY legal?

 

[MilesTeg]

Wait you do realize there is no permanence in the law. The epoxy over the bullet button was only to disable the BB function.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So is there any method of mag fixing you see as NY legal?

As written... No. Unless you get one of those fixed magazined lowers or you somehow weld a magazine in place. I say welding works because at that point 2 pieces chemically become one.

Vagueness is our enemy contrary to what some say here.

In California, they like to define everything down to the letter so that is the reason they have so many workarounds.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Wait you do realize there is no permanence in the law. The epoxy over the bullet button was only to disable the BB function.

Correct. No permanence mentioned. But how can you make an AR incapable of accepting a magazine unless the magazine is in there permanently. If it isn't in there permanently, the AR is capable of accepting a magazine.

 

[freddy]

Wait you do realize there is no permanence in the law. The epoxy over the bullet button was only to disable the BB function.

Yes, I understand this. My question then is how does disablement of the bb function make it compliant? And can we site anything that demonstrates that it is compliant.

 

[Phazer]

Yes, I understand this. My question then is how does disablement of the bb function make it compliant?

Because once the magazine is inserted and the bullet-button is disabled, the magazine is not removable....and "fixed." In that case, the rifle cannot accept a detachable magazine any longer.

If you should decided to go with a fixed magazine option, be sure that the magazine that you put in the rifle has an easily removable base plate (like a PMag) so that you can more easily handle jams.

And can we site anything that demonstrates that it is compliant.

No.

 

[MilesTeg]

Correct. No permanence mentioned. But how can you make an AR incapable of accepting a magazine unless the magazine is in there permanently. If it isn't in there permanently, the AR is capable of accepting a magazine.

I disagree with you and we have been down this song and dance before and I'm not biting. My comment was towards freddy and his comments about the epoxy over the BB hole that is all.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I disagree with you and we have been down this song and dance before and I'm not biting. My comment was towards freddy and his comments about the epoxy over the BB hole that is all.

Ok. Sure. Ignore the fact that if it can somehow detach, it can accept. A sharp pin or nail and a whack can detach the magazine in the epoxied state.

 

[MilesTeg]

Ok. Sure. Ignore the fact that if it can somehow detach, it can accept. A sharp pin or nail and a whack can detach the magazine in the epoxied state.

what if I cut a welded magazine out with a saw? I see no difference.

 

[Phazer]

what if I cut a welded magazine out with a saw? I see no difference.

Sure. I carry the tools to do that with me on my belt whenever I go to the range.

 

[Marine Cpl]

what if I cut a welded magazine out with a saw? I see no difference.

No. You'll be destroy the rifle since it would be welded onto the lower. You'd have to cut the magwell too.

 

[dsdmmat]

The law does not mention the word permanent. so therefore you have all the work arounds you need. the state also did not define detachable.

Correct. No permanence mentioned. But how can you make an AR incapable of accepting a magazine unless the magazine is in there permanently. If it isn't in there permanently, the AR is capable of accepting a magazine.

 

[MilesTeg]

No. You'll be destroy the rifle since it would be welded onto the lower. You'd have to cut the magwell too.

I very well could cut welded magazine out of a lower and not ruin the lower. It would take me less than 5 minutes with a dremel and 15 or so with a hand saw.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The law does not mention the word permanent.

See my previous post on that subject. Post # 20.

Then respond to that post.