freddy
.308 Win
I don't understand. Isn't the x0 26 r2 non-nfa per franklin armory? It has the vertical grip. Am I missing something?
Legal non-NFA short barrel "other" or "firearm"
- Thread starter freddy
- Start date
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
In my opinion, they do not. Where they are sold in gunshops, they are being labeled as "Other" but later incorrectly
put on pistol permits which are for pistols only. The Mare's Leg was the same.
In those cases, they are treating them as pistol and not going by the Federal definition. Why? Because the Federal definitions do not pertain to NY Penal Laws.
If the federal definition is not used why are either of those guns considered pistols?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
S
stuck in ny
Guest
It is 26+ and never was a pistol.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Why is the Mare's Leg somehow reclassified as a pistol by NYS and not instead classified via Federal Definition? Because Federal definition has no revelance to NY Penal Laws.
Edit. The ATF has reclassified it as a pistol yet NY has still banned it from sale by the NYSP Pistol License Section.
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
By Federal or NY defintion?
From what I recall and what a quick Google search showed, you are wrong on all counts, but I haven't looked the the mares leg that much. What I found is that the mares leg is a pistol under federal law, but nys considers it to be a short barreled rifle. Short barreled rifle is defined in the penal code, and nys is applying that definition to the mares leg. As far as I am aware, the mares leg wad never considered an "other" or ruled to not be a pistol under federal law.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I just edited it as you posted this. NYS has banned it after reclassification.
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So back to the topic at hand. NYS will do what NYS will do. Even though the Feds have reclassified the Mare's Leg as a pistol, NY considers it an SBR. Who are we to say otherwise? Right?
So if they classify the Franklin Armory Firearm as a pistol since it cannot be a rifle or shotgun, who are we to say otherwise? That was my point all along.
Good luck defending that it isn't a pistol since obviously, Federal definitions do not apply to NY Penal Law charges.
So if they classify the Franklin Armory Firearm as a pistol since it cannot be a rifle or shotgun, who are we to say otherwise? That was my point all along.
Good luck defending that it isn't a pistol since obviously, Federal definitions do not apply to NY Penal Law charges.
Yes, but it is banned as a short barreled rifle. Short barreled rifle is defined within the nys penal code, so this arguement doesn't really have anything to do with using the federal definition of pistol because nys failed to provide one.
Back to my question. If nys does not use the federal definition of a pistol, what definition does it use.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
None. It'll just classify it as a pistol since it can do what it wants. Just like it classified the Mare's Leg as an SBR when it was never designed to be fired from the shoulder.
I get your point and agree with it but NY does what NY does. That's what I've been trying to convey. When they tell the uninformed Jury that you have an Assault Pistol and to count the features, they will do so.
The mars leg was found meet the definition found within state law of a banned firearm.
Under what definition would the xo-26 fall to be considered a pistol by the state of ny?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Nys used a legal definition found within the penal code to determine that the mares leg was a rifle with a barrel length less then 16" and banned it as a short barreled rifle.
What definition would be used to make the determination that the xo-26 is a pistol.
Nys claims (rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter for this discussion) that the mares leg is a rifle as defined under Pl 265.00.11, and because it has a barrel length of less then 16" is a firearm pursuant to the definition found in Pl 265.00.3.
What section of the law would be referenced when claiming that the xo-26 is a pistol?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
How many times do you want to go around this circle. I already told you that I agree on it's classification via Federal definition. We both agree.
But NY does what it does. The Mare's Leg doesn't even meet NY's definition of an SBR yet they classify it as such. If they can do that even though it isn't or never was intended to be fired from the shoulder, why can't they call the Franklin a pistol?
That's my point. Are we going to go around in another circle or will you agree that NY does whatever it likes?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And since it does whatever it likes, it's up to you to defend your build. That'll cost you freedom, time, and money.
My point in all this was to show that it isn't just a build or purchase and you are in the clear because it isn't defined for those who want to go that route. You have to know what you are getting yourself into. Most don't know.
My point in all this was to show that it isn't just a build or purchase and you are in the clear because it isn't defined for those who want to go that route. You have to know what you are getting yourself into. Most don't know.
No, new York does not do what ever it likes. Ny will try and apply the law (often in a situational manner) to get the outcome that it wants, but that is a far stretching from doing what ever it likes.
If ny did what ever it liked, the state police would be going door to door confiscating guns, and putting liberty loving individuals into containment camps.
I have asked a simple question, and you have repeatedly refused to provide an answer, and instead changed your arguement and tried to take the conversation a different way.
I'll ask again. If you claim nys does not revert to the federal definition of pistol, because the state failed to do so in the penal code, what definition is being used.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I'm done playing the circle game with you. I already said that you'll have to defend it. That's irrefutable. Just the same as you would have to defend that the Mare's leg is not an SBR even though they say it is.
What definition they will quote is irrelevant when you are standing there in a court room.
It's not really go in a circle when you choose to ignore the question that is at the heart of the issue. You have continued to bring up irrelevant topics, and dragged what was a pretty straight forward question in a bunch of different directions.
The definition of a pistol is the only thing that matters to this arguement.
By your logic it doesn't matter what you do, you are at risk of ending up in court trying to defend your self, but even if that is the case, don't you owe it to yourself to be as versed as possible in the law.
If the state will do what ever it wants as you claim, what better defense do you have in court then being versed in the law.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Did you miss the posts where I said that I agreed with you that it isn't a pistol? We all know it isn't. But that doesn't mean that after arrested, they will not say it is and you will not be in a courtroom. You will have to convince them to go by the Federal definition. That doesn't erase the fact that Officer Slappy saw an AR with a pistol brace on it and charged you as such.
So if you ask the question again, I will say the same thing. It isn't a pistol. You will have to prove that it isn't via Federal definition in a courtroom and not at the traffic stop.
You are missing the point. I am not arguing that I would have to convince them to use the federal definition of a pistol, I am stating that they do use it.
I wouldn't have to prove anything, they would have to prove that it is a pistol. With no definition of "pistol" in nys law, what will they use to prove that it is a pistol.
You are arguing from the stand point that one is guilty until proven innocent, and placing the burden of proof on the defendant. The defendant has no burden of proof, the government must prove guilt.
In order to be convicted of illegal possesion of a firearm, the state must first prove that you were actually in possesion of a firearm (firearm as defined by nys law, not the common definition). Given that the gun in question does not meet the federal definition of "pistol" and the fact that there is no definition contained within nys law of pistol, how would the state prove that you were illegally in possesion of a firearm?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Eddie Gunks
.338 Win Mag
Non -nfa.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Fine. You see it as innocent until proven guilty. I see it as guilty until proven innocent. When I get arrested, they aren't going to issue me a citation with a court appearance that I could take a day off of work to attend.
What will happen is that I'll get detained, booked, and fingerprinted. I'll spend time in jail awaiting a hearing where I will have to provide bail or get released on own recognizance. Then I will have to prove that the firearm in question isn't an SBR or a pistol at the cost of legal council and termination from my employer. The ADA will have their stance on what I have and my lawyer or public defender will have to make them prove that I didn't have what they said I had.
That doesn't sound like I'm innocent until proven guilty to me.
Eddie Gunks
.338 Win Mag
Exactly. New York State does not define pistol. So that makes it very difficult. It would have to fall in the fit definition. They would have to use some definition.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Okay. So assuming the judge states that the Federal definition will be used and it is now labeled as a "Firearm", you are still not exempted from having a firearm.
You don't have to prove anything, you just have to provide a reason for the jury to doubt what the prosecutor is saying. When the prosecutor says the gun is a pistol, with nothing to fall back on, and you say it's not a pistol and point to codified federal law that says it isnt, there will be doubt.
I never said you couldn't be arrested for having the gun, you can be arrested for damn near any reason, but that doesn't mean you will be convicted, and it doesn't mean the gun is illegal.
You can be arrested for lots of grey areas, but it doesn't make everything illegal. You can be arrested for your fixed magazine pistol, if the officer doesn't think it is fixed well enough, he'll I could make the arguement that since no law defines what "removable magazine" means, or what methods would make a magazine non-removeable that you are at equal risk for fixed magazine ar, be it a rifle or pistol.
At least with this you have something definative to point to as a counter point. If the cops say your mag lock, or mr2, or any other device isn't compliant, what can you point to and claim to be compliant?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Jesus this again. Now who is going in circles. Because nys provides a definition of "firearm" within the penal code, that is more restictive then the federal definition, the definition provided within the nys penal code is used. You would only fall back to the federal definition of a word or term when the nys penal code had failed to define it.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
freddy
.308 Win
Fascinating! I am very interested to hear all sides of this debate.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Who says it is more restrictive? The Federal definition says any weapon that uses an explosive charge is more restrictive.
Now as per the Supremacy Clause argument that you referred to earlier when a state law is in conflict with a Federal law, the Federal law reigns supreme.
So now that it is a firearm, you are in illegally in possession of it since you have no exemption for it.
Last edited:
Do now your fall back position is that every gun is illegal in ny. That makes a lot of sense. I'm all for having an intelligent debate but this isn't turning out to be one.
Nys penal code defines "firearm", we both agree to that. For purposes of nys penal code, that is the only definition that matters.
Nys fails to define "pistol", but federal law does. My assertion is that because nys fails to define the term "pistol" the federal definition is used. I assert this because nys does recognize that some guns are pistols, while others are not indicating that some guns meet the definition of "pistol" while others do not.
Given the fact that nys recognizes that not every gun is a pistol, and that nys penal code does not define the term pistol there are only three choice.
1. Nys falls back to the federal definition, in which case the xo-26 is not a pistol and there for legal.
2. Nys uses a definition found outside of nys penal code and outside of federal law. Possible, but I do not see it as likely.
3. Nys uses the pornography approach of, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".
Given the fact that what is a pistol has been largely unquestioned for years, I would argue that option 3 is not the correct option. If that was in place, what is considered a pistol would be subject to wide variation based on someone's (I'm not sure whos) interpretation of the law, and there would have been lots of questions over the years as to is it or isn't it a pistol.
This leaves options 1 and 2 as the possibilities. I am asserting that option one is the most likely scenario, for the simple reason that no one has been able to point to any other source and say this is where to look if ny doesn't provide the definition of a term.
If option two is in fact correct weather the xo-26 is considered a pistol by the state of ny, for purposes of interpreting nys penal code, depends on what the definition of a pistol is in that source.
Given that, I would assert that the xo-26 and guns meeting the same parameters including the new mossberg shockwave, and the standard pistol grip only shotgun sold are legal in the state of ny, because they are neither a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, and there for can not be a firearm.
If you can provide a definition of "pistol", that a pgo shotgun does not meet, but that the xo-26 does meet I would love to see it, but I doubt you will because up until this point, you haven't provided any evidence to support that these guns would not be legal in ny.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk