Legality of "Featureless Rifles" in NYS

[spat]

No I'm not. I'm staying on the narrative. There are fixed mag lowers built from the ground up that cannot accept a detachable magazine.

I've got a milling machine and a TIG welder that say they can.

Your logic leads to ALL semi auto rifles being AWs

 

[Marine Cpl]

I've got an 80% lower sitting downstairs waiting to be finished. Are you saying that is an AW, because after I use enough tools, and add some more parts, it will be An AR that can accept a magazine ?

If at the end of the build, it can accept one and has at least one banned feature....yes.

 

[Marine Cpl]

This can absolutely be converted to a detachable magazine. And this guy can do that My Guns Firearms Manufacturing - Talent, OR
It's just like when I dealt with class 3 weapons. There were rewelds etc. Receivers were cut up with saws and torches. They were then rewelded back together.
Now mind you it will take tools to do it but it does have the ability to accept a detachable magazine. Just not in the state it is right now...which is no different than the fixed magazines discussed here. It will take longer but still doable.

Then that particular one wouldn't pass muster then would it?

 

[Marine Cpl]

I've got a milling machine and a TIG welder that say they can.

Your logic leads to ALL semi auto rifles being AWs

Not if they don't have features.

 

[spat]

If at the end of the build, it can accept one and has at least one banned feature....yes.

Why not now ? The only difference is some tool use and a couple more parts, same as converting most fixed magazine schemes back ?

 

[spat]

Not if they don't have features.

You can get a bayonet to clamp to any barrel, there's your feature....

 

[spat]

Then that particular one wouldn't pass muster then would it?

The point is that you could bring that guy an AR with a mag well that was never machined, i.e. that whole part of the rifle was a solid brick of aluminum, and h me could attach a mag to it after a little work.

By your reasoning there is *no such thing* as a rifle that can't accept a detachable mag.

 

[MikeyCNY]

So why is this any different than the fixed mag scenario?

There is no Constitutional Right to Jet Skis.

The city speed limit (depending on locale) is 30-40 MPH, the highways are 65-75 MPH... yet 99% of cars on the road are capable of almost twice that... So why aren't cars speed limited from the factory?

 

[gqllc007]

There is no Constitutional Right to Jet Skis.

The city speed limit (depending on locale) is 30-40 MPH, the highways are 65-75 MPH... yet 99% of cars on the road are capable of almost twice that... So why aren't cars speed limited from the factory?

Apparently there is no constitutional right to bear arms in NY either.
There are speed limits set up on the lakes. You also must take a course to operate a jet ski in NY It was a hypothetical question. It was merely about using tools and parts to comply with being legal. They can be removed. Anything can be altered and modified
If we had constitutional rights here in NY we wouldn't be having this conversation

 

[Marine Cpl]

You can get a bayonet to clamp to any barrel, there's your feature....

The law doesn't say ability to accept a bayonet.

 

[gqllc007]

The law doesn't say ability to accept a bayonet.

What does the law say in regards to bayonet?
Pistol Grip? Collapsible stock?

 

[Marine Cpl]

The point is that you could bring that guy an AR with a mag well that was never machined, i.e. that whole part of the rifle was a solid brick of aluminum, and h me could attach a mag to it after a little work.

By your reasoning there is *no such thing* as a rifle that can't accept a detachable mag.

It's not my reasoning. It's what the poorly written law says.

 

[Marine Cpl]

What does the law say in regards to bayonet?
Pistol Grip? Collapsible stock?

It just says that it cannot have those features. It doesn't say that the rifle cannot have the ability to accept those features.

 

[gqllc007]

So how do you interpret? So you are saying that has the ability to accept a Grande Launcher isn't what it says?
If so then what do all these features mean?
If you don't have a military characteristic of a Pistol Grip then it doesn't have the ability to accept one?
Or do you mean just because it doesn't say the ability to have these characteristics it doesn't matter?

has at least one of the following military characteristics:

a. Folding or Telescoping Stock
b. Protruding Pistol Grip
c. Thumbhole Stock
d. Second Handgrip or Protruding Grip that can be held by non-shooting hand
e. Bayonet Mount
f. Flash Suppressor g. Muzzle Brake
h. Muzzle Compensator
i. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate the above
j. Grenade Launcher

 

[gqllc007]

It just says that it cannot have those features. It doesn't say that the rifle cannot have the ability to accept those features.

Virtually every semi automatic or any rifle can have those features using tools just like every semi automatic can be altered to have a fixed magazine.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So how do you interpret? So you are saying that has the ability to accept a Grande Launcher isn't what it says?
If so then what do all these features mean?
If you don't have a military characteristic of a Pistol Grip then it doesn't have the ability to accept one?
Or do you mean just because it doesn't say the ability to have these characteristics it doesn't matter?

has at least one of the following military characteristics:

a. Folding or Telescoping Stock
b. Protruding Pistol Grip
c. Thumbhole Stock
d. Second Handgrip or Protruding Grip that can be held by non-shooting hand
e. Bayonet Mount
f. Flash Suppressor g. Muzzle Brake
h. Muzzle Compensator
i. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate the above
j. Grenade Launcher

Correct.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Virtually every semi automatic or any rifle can have those features using tools just like every semi automatic can be altered to have a fixed magazine.

Again. The law doesn't say the ability to accept a grip or collapsible stock.

 

[spat]

The law doesn't say ability to accept a bayonet.

The bayonet mount is a forbidden feature. There are bayonets that will mount right to a barrel.

By your logic, a featureless rifle is therefore impossible to build.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The bayonet mount is a forbidden feature. There are bayonets that will mount right to a barrel.

By your logic, a featureless rifle is therefore impossible to build.

No. The law doesn't say the ability to accept a bayonet. What aren't you understanding about that?

 

[spat]

It's not my reasoning. It's what the poorly written law says.

You are claiming that all semi auto rifles are AWs according to that law.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You are claiming that all semi auto rifles are AWs according to that law.

Only the ones that can accept a detachable magazine and have one feature.

 

[spat]

No. The law doesn't say the ability to accept a bayonet. What aren't you understanding about that?

What is a bayonet mount if not a feature with the ability to accept a bayonet ?

 

[spat]

Only the ones that can accept a detachable magazine and have one feature.

But, you have essentially said that they can all accept a detachable magazine, so you are saying they all meet that definition.

I pointed out that they all have a bayonet mount using similar logic.

 

[Marine Cpl]

What is a bayonet mount if not a feature with the ability to accept a bayonet ?

Ok. Now you are being playful to see if it bothers me by bringing up nonsense that's been debated already.

It doesn't bother me. I'm at work doing this.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But, you have essentially said that they can all accept a detachable magazine, so you are saying they all meet that definition.

I pointed out that they all have a bayonet mount using similar logic.

Not if they don't have one banned feature. I've said that already multiple times.

It doesn't say ability to accept a feature.

 

[GUNSICK]

Ok. Now you are being playful to see if it bothers me by bringing up nonsense that's been debated already.

It doesn't bother me. I'm at work doing this.

View attachment 13572

I always wondered what the other side of a glory hole looked like.

 

[spat]

Not if they don't have one banned feature. I've said that already multiple times.

It doesn't say ability to accept a feature.

It says a bayonet mount, not a bayonet.

A bayonet mount *is* the ability to accept a bayonet. That makes it different than the other features.

It explicitly says you have to have the pistol grip actually present, not just the ability to attach one, but for the bayonet, it is the ability to accept one that is the feature, just like the ability to accept the magazine.

 

[spat]

Ok. Now you are being playful to see if it bothers me by bringing up nonsense that's been debated already.

It doesn't bother me. I'm at work doing this.

View attachment 13572

Really, I must have missed the bayonet thread. That seems to be the one feature that nobody really misses.....

 

[Marine Cpl]

It says a bayonet mount, not a bayonet.

A bayonet mount *is* the ability to accept a bayonet. That makes it different than the other features.

It explicitly says you have to have the pistol grip actually present, not just the ability to attach one, but for the bayonet, it is the ability to accept one that is the feature, just like the ability to accept the magazine.

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

 

[Marine Cpl]

I always wondered what the other side of a glory hole looked like.