Legality of "Featureless Rifles" in NYS

[spat]

It says bayonet mount. It doesn't ban bayonets. It bans the mount. A rail isn't a mount.

Really ? A rail isn't a mount ? Why is that ? It can be used to attach a bayonet.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Really ? A rail isn't a mount ? Why is that ? It can be used to attach a bayonet.

No. A bayonet cannot attach to the rail by itself. It needs to be put in a mount and the mount attaches to the rail.

You already knew that and are being ridiculous.

 

[spat]

No. A bayonet cannot attach to the rail by itself. It needs to be put in a mount and the mount attaches to the rail.

You already knew that and are being ridiculous.

The magazine cannot attach to the rifle if the magazine catch was replaced by a fixed version either.

Why do you have one set of logic for a magazine and another for a bayonet ?


Is an AR with the magazine catch removed such that you just load each round single shot compliant ? Or is the fact that you can just put the parts back enough to make it an AW ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

The magazine cannot attach to the rifle if the magazine catch was replaced by a fixed version either.

Why do you have one set of logic for a magazine and another for a bayonet ?

Because the law doesn't say the ability to accept a bayonet mount.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Is an AR with the magazine catch removed such that you just load each round single shot compliant ? Or is the fact that you can just put the parts back enough to make it an AW ?

No because it still has the ability to accept a magazine. Why do you keep asking the same thing over and over?

 

[spat]

Because the law doesn't say the ability to accept a bayonet mount.

They don't have the ability to accept a bayonet mount, they *have* a bayonet mount. I.e. the ability to accept a bayonet.

 

[Marine Cpl]

They don't have the ability to accept a bayonet mount, they *have* a bayonet mount. I.e. the ability to accept a bayonet.

I'm done with the bayonet mount argument. It's been explained already. A rail is not mount.

 

[GUNSICK]

I'm done with the bayonet mount argument. It's been explained already. A rail is not mount.

Product Details

 

[spat]

Maybe it would be easier @Willjr75 if you gave us an example of a semi auto rifle you think *is* compliant, and we can try to find out why it's special.....

 

[Marine Cpl]

Product Details

That's a mount built into the blade. Next.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It's amazing how you guys take things personal as if I wrote an illogical law because you have fixed magazines.

I didn't write it. I'm just telling you what it says.

 

[spat]

It's amazing how you guys take things personal as if I wrote an illogical law because you have fixed magazines.

I didn't write it. I'm just telling you what it says.

Well, it *seems* like you are saying every semi auto rifle is illegal, but then you claim that isn't what you're saying. We're just trying to figure our what you *are* saying.

If you're right, then we all need to rethink our compliance options. So far you haven't been very convincing though.

So, what semi auto rifle would you feel comfortable showing up with at "range day with the NYSP" ?

 

[spat]

That's a mount built into the blade. Next.

Can I claim that my magazine accepts the rifle and not the other way around then ?

 

[GUNSICK]

It's amazing how you guys take things personal as if I wrote an illogical law because you have fixed magazines.

I didn't write it. I'm just telling you what it says.

Now we are getting somewhere! You didn't write it so all you can do is interpret what you think it says. Good for you man. Now if you wrote it that would be another conversation.

 

[Uzi]

Will, I think most people would agree that if an individual were to secure in place a magazine lock like the prince 50, allstar tactical, or dd's lock, that you would not be able to put in another magazine, since you cannot take anything out in the first place. The safe act law doesn't pertain to a future non existent reconstruction of a configuration. You still want to ignore that so you can feel like you're right, but it's just plain and simply not right. Not only is your interpretation still flawed, but you also want to ignore the fact that "ability" is listed into the law and not "capability" which is undeniably important considering they mean two different things which even further reinforce why a fixed and locked magazine would be legal, and which is why a "from the ground up build" is no different if you want to talk about irrelavant reconstruction and the use of tools. If you want to pretend that it says capabilities and how a rifle can be reconstructed (which doesn't exist) then you would be 100% correct, but in reality that's just not the case.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well, it *seems* like you are saying every semi auto rifle is illegal, but then you claim that isn't what you're saying. We're just trying to figure our what you *are* saying.

If you're right, then we all need to rethink our compliance options. So far you haven't been very convincing though.

So, what semi auto rifle would you feel comfortable showing up with at "range day with the NYSP" ?

Any semi auto rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has no banned features. You pick one.

 

[spat]

Any semi auto rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has no banned features. You pick one.

OK, now what if you've got a pocket knife and a roll of duct tape ? Bayonet mount ?

 

[spat]

Any semi auto rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has no banned features. You pick one.

Are you conceding the point that you don't believe any rifle can have a fixed *enough* magazine to satisfy SAFE ? .

 

[Marine Cpl]

OK, now what if you've got a pocket knife and a roll of duct tape ? Bayonet mount ?

In that case the tape would be the mount.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Are you conceding the point that you don't believe any rifle can have a fixed *enough* magazine to satisfy SAFE ? .

No. I already explained that.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Will, I think most people would agree that if an individual were to secure in place a magazine lock like the prince 50, allstar tactical, or dd's lock, that you would not be able to put in another magazine, since you cannot take anything out in the first place. The safe act law doesn't pertain to a future non existent reconstruction of a configuration. You still want to ignore that so you can feel like you're right, but it's just plain and simply not right. Not only is your interpretation still flawed, but you also want to ignore the fact that "ability" is listed into the law and not "capability" which is undeniably important considering they mean two different things which even further reinforce why a fixed and locked magazine would be legal, and which is why a "from the ground up build" is no different if you want to talk about irrelavant reconstruction and the use of tools. If you want to pretend that it says capabilities and how a rifle can be reconstructed (which doesn't exist) then you would be 100% correct, but in reality that's just not the case.

It doesn't matter what most people agree. It matters what's written and if a DA will prosecute.

 

[spat]

No. I already explained that.

You keep saying that, but obviously not well enough for us to understand. What does it take for a magazine to be "fixed" in your opinion ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Now we are getting somewhere! You didn't write it so all you can do is interpret what you think it says. Good for you man. Now if you wrote it that would be another conversation.

It says what it says. Basic english.

 

[spat]

It doesn't matter what most people agree. It matters what's written and if a DA will prosecute.

Well, in that case, since nobody has been prosecuted in years for this, and there are tens or hundreds of thousands of rifles out there with just a BB, can we conclude that it is GTG ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

You keep saying that, but obviously not well enough for us to understand. What does it take for a magazine to be "fixed" in your opinion ?

When the rifle cannot accept a detachable magazine at all. This was explained already.

 

[Uzi]

It says what it says. Basic english.

You're saying what you're saying, not what the law is saying.

 

[spat]

When the right cannot accept a detachable magazine at all. This was explained already.

Well, I think a rifle with a BB installed and a magazine inserted can't accept another magazine at all.

You are using circular reasoning and it is keeping us from getting anywhere. "This was explained already" just means that you are repeating yourself, obviously it wasn't explained very well.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well, in that case, since nobody has been prosecuted in years for this, and there are tens or hundreds of thousands of rifles out there with just a BB, can we conclude that it is GTG ?

No. Just because they haven't been prosecuted, that doesn't mean it's legal. It just means that a plea was taken, the DA never prosecuted, or no one got arrested and took it to the end.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well, I think a rifle with a BB installed and a magazine inserted can't accept another magazine at all.

You are using circular reasoning and it is keeping us from getting anywhere. "This was explained already" just means that you are repeating yourself, obviously it wasn't explained very well.

What is is that you want to know? Be specific.

 

[Uzi]