Man charged with safe act violation.

[freddy]

Ability to accept are the key words. I'm not a dummy after according to some who think I was. (Not you.)

This could happen to any one of us. I mean not the dog thing. That's stupid and the guy put himself on that situation but it could easily be us in a car accident on the way to the range, concerned liberal neighbor, vindictive ex, ECT
.

Let us see what happens. So far we have nothing.

 

[SomeSoldier]

As per usual the public has no idea of what really happened and we are left with the word of the police and our own mixed thoughts. Where is the body cam footage? That would end all debate and guessing.

 

[zerohedge]

Relevant very recent Safe Act case law. As you might guess, the courts are going to great lengths to ignore modifications that might reasonably make a rifle compliant.

This also makes it very clear that the courts will not allow a magazine to be removable, period! The MR2 / Maglock / Bullet Button or any other 'removable with tools or disassembly' setup is a clear no-go now. I doubt they care about arguments regarding the SKS magazine situation. The court does not seem at all interested in understanding the nuances or vagueness nor are they interested in providing guidance.

People vs Devin Gray
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2017/107570.pdf

From the NYF discussion, this might be the recent 3rd Dept. decision that the Washington County ADA is using to support the Devin Pratt case:

"Contrary to defendant's assertion, the term "repeating rifle," which appears in the portion of the statute defining the term "semiautomatic" (see Penal Law § 265.00 [21]), refers to the weapon's design and capabilities – not the specific manner in which it was operated at a particular point in time. Thus, the mere fact that defendant may have only fired one round from his rifle on the morning in question neither precludes nor negates a finding that the subject firearm was a "repeating rifle" within the meaning of Penal Law § 265.00 (21). Stated another way, nothing on the face of the statute requires that a weapon be fired multiple times in order to qualify as a repeating rifle, shotgun or pistol. Similarly, although the testimony revealed that the rifle's magazine was broken and inoperable at the time of the shooting, again, the statute only requires that the weapon "has an ability to accept a detachable magazine" (Penal Law § 265.00 [22] [a]) – not that such magazine be utilized each and every time that the weapon is fired. Finally, although defendant makes much of the fact that a spring was a component of the process by which new rounds were chambered in the weapon, the presence of the spring in the magazine does not take defendant's rifle outside of the definition of a semiautomatic rifle."​

Who knows what the ADA is planning in Devin Pratt's case, but if it's building on this decision, it seems like it might be some stretched reasoning along the lines of "Devin Pratt's rifle was designed to accept a detachable magazine despite that epoxy prevented the magazine release from functioning..."


Another recent appeals decision in Rochester (Henrietta) arising form the Jackson Gun shop case:
People vs Joshua Perkins
People v Perkins (2017 NY Slip Op 27296)

"To meet the statutory criteria of an assault weapon, a semi-automatic rifle (rifle) must, at a minimum, have the "ability to accept a detachable magazine" (PL § 265.00 [22] [a] [emphasis added]); however, the Legislature has not further defined this term. Defendant's paramount contention concerns the absence of a definition for "detachable magazine" as it applies to 9 of the 18 rifles at issue in this case that he alleges have been modified by an MR2 Kit (MR2).[FN2] In sum, defendant asserts that without statutory clarification, the ambiguity permits an interpretation that the installation of an MR2 converts a detachable magazine to a fixed magazine, thereby disqualifying MR2-modified rifles from classification as assault weapons.[FN3] Accordingly, defendant seeks a decrease in the total number of rifles which currently constitute the bases of counts 6, 7 and 27, which would result in dismissal or reduction thereof.

In support of his position, defendant implores the Court to seek guidance from the Legislatures of other states that have further defined "detachable magazine" as an ammunition feeding device that cannot be removed without disassembly of the weapon (see Conn Gen Stat Ann § 53-202a [2] [F] [4];[FN4] Cal Penal Code § 30515 ; Md Code Crim Law § 4-301 [f]). He further relies upon a firearms examiner's report — not presented to the grand jury — finding an MR2-modified Bushmaster rifle to have a fixed magazine as authoritative in establishing that such a modification transforms an assault weapon into a lawful rifle. The Court disagrees. Defendant's contentions fall outside the scope of the Court's authority to review grand jury proceedings as he requests that the Court consider evidence not presented therein (see CPL §§ 210.20; 210. 25; 210.30; 210.35; see also People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 115 [1986] ["the inquiry of the reviewing court is limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence since that [*4]inquiry is exclusively the province of the Grand Jury"] [emphasis added]).[FN5]

Here, as part of their grand jury presentation, the People called a firearms examiner who testified — after establishing his credentials — that he inspected all of the weapons at issue in this case, including the Bushmaster, and concluded that each was capable of accepting a detachable magazine (see PL § 265.00 [22]). Significantly, there was no testimony whatsoever as to the modification of any rifle by means of an MR2.

Even if the Court were to consider the firearm examiner's report relied upon by defendant and conclude that the Bushmaster was not an assault rifle, thereby excluding it from consideration in count 6, the integrity of the indictment would not be impaired as the remaining evidence presented to the grand jury still satisfies the required minimum number of unlawful transactions to constitute the charge.[FN6] Additionally, defendant's tenuous extrapolation of the [*5]conclusion from the firearm examiner's report that the affixing of an MR2 converts a detachable magazine to a fixed magazine is unsupported by the document itself; the report merely indicates that the magazine is fixed but does not set forth a basis for that conclusion. Rather, it is defendant's unsupported and self-interested assertion that the Bushmaster was modified by an MR2.


Footnote 5 :Though CPL § 210.25 (3) provides a vehicle for challenging the constitutionality or otherwise validity of a statute, defendant merely alludes to, but has not specifically raised, a constitutional challenge to the statute. Nevertheless, were the Court to render a decision in that vein, it is not persuaded that the statute does not pass constitutional muster.

In assessing vagueness challenges, courts have developed a two-part test: first, to ensure that no person is punished for conduct not reasonably understood to be prohibited, the Court must determine whether the statute in question is sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute; second, the Court must determine whether the enactment provides officials with clear standards for enforcement (People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 420-421 [2003] [citations and quotations omitted]).
With these principles in mind, the Court turns to defendant's attack on the words "detachable magazine." He suggests that the ambiguity of this phrase does not place a person on notice of proscribed conduct, as detachable magazines can be modified by an MR2 to be fixed magazines, even if that modification is only temporary and reversible by means of disassembly. In essence, defendant's contention attempts to create varying degrees of detachability; however, it does not appear that such a reading was contemplated by the Legislature. Courts are constitutionally bound to give effect to the expressed will of the Legislature and the plain and obvious meaning of a statute is always preferred to any curious, narrow or hidden sense that nothing but a strained interpretation of legislative intent would discern (Finger Lakes Racing Ass'n v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 45 NY2d 471 [1978] [citations omitted]). A plain reading of "detachable" — without further modifiers or instruction — is absolute in its meaning. The Court is satisfied that the ordinary understanding of "detachable magazine" furnishes defendant and officials alike with adequate notice. Perhaps further clarification would assist those attempting to navigate their way through the labyrinth of gun regulation; however, the Court cannot conclude, based upon the plain meaning of the statute, that it is unconstitutionally vague. The Court further notes that, though considered in different contexts, this statute has withstood previous constitutional challenges (see Schultz v State of NY Exec., 134 AD3d 52 [3d Dept 2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 1139 [2016], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 1047 [2016]; New York State Rifle, 804 F3d 242). Finally, to the extent defendant relies upon other state Legislatures that have further defined "detachable magazine," he declined to acknowledge those that have not (see Haw Rev Stat Ann § 134-1 [2] ; Colo Rev Stat Ann § 18-1.3-406 [7] ; Minn Stat Ann § 624.712 [7] [xii]; Idaho Code Ann § 18-3302 [1] [e] [3]). "​

 

[ManrisFrack]

People vs Devin Gray just states that removing the spring from a magazine or making the magazine inoperable doesn't change the rifle it's attached to into a legal rifle.

Wonder if that could have implications on magazines modified from 20 or 30 round to 10 round magazines?



People vs Perkins is a decision rendered concerning a motion to dismiss or reduce the charges and suppress evidence. Footnote 3 of this decision says, "The Court recognizes that the People's interpretation of the impact of an MR2 on the lawfulness of a semi-automatic rifle is opposite to that of defendant, and declines to make a determination as to whether the installation of an MR2 renders a rifle inside or outside the scope of the definition of assault rifle. In this Court's view, such a determination should be left to the trier of fact." This is NOT case law determining MR2 devices to be insufficient.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I've been saying this over and over. The law says "a semi automatic rifle that had the ability to accept a detachable magazine" rather than "a semi automatic rifle that does not have a fixed magazine."

But what do I know? I'm an idiot for thinking that with this device it can still accept a detachable magazine.

So now there is case law that there says even with an MR2/ ARMaglock, it still has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Which it does. Not that I don't want it to. Just saying.

 

[Marine Cpl]

People vs Perkins is a decision rendered concerning a motion to dismiss or reduce the charges and suppress evidence. Footnote 3 of this decision says, "The Court recognizes that the People's interpretation of the impact of an MR2 on the lawfulness of a semi-automatic rifle is opposite to that of defendant, and declines to make a determination as to whether the installation of an MR2 renders a rifle inside or outside the scope of the definition of assault rifle. In this Court's view, such a determination should be left to the trier of fact." This is NOT case law determining MR2 devices to be insufficient.

It was a motion to dismiss some charges for some rifles that had the MR2. The Court chose not to entertain it.

So was he charged for those rifles with an MR2 or were the charges for those particular rifles dismissed?

If he was charged for those rifles with the MR2, then that's case law.

 

[freddy]

Relevant very recent Safe Act case law. As you might guess, the courts are going to great lengths to ignore modifications that might reasonably make a rifle compliant.

This also makes it very clear that the courts will not allow a magazine to be removable, period! The MR2 / Maglock / Bullet Button or any other 'removable with tools or disassembly' setup is a clear no-go now. I doubt they care about arguments regarding the SKS magazine situation. The court does not seem at all interested in understanding the nuances or vagueness nor are they interested in providing guidance.

People vs Devin Gray
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2017/107570.pdf

From the NYF discussion, this might be the recent 3rd Dept. decision that the Washington County ADA is using to support the Devin Pratt case:

"Contrary to defendant's assertion, the term "repeating rifle," which appears in the portion of the statute defining the term "semiautomatic" (see Penal Law § 265.00 [21]), refers to the weapon's design and capabilities – not the specific manner in which it was operated at a particular point in time. Thus, the mere fact that defendant may have only fired one round from his rifle on the morning in question neither precludes nor negates a finding that the subject firearm was a "repeating rifle" within the meaning of Penal Law § 265.00 (21). Stated another way, nothing on the face of the statute requires that a weapon be fired multiple times in order to qualify as a repeating rifle, shotgun or pistol. Similarly, although the testimony revealed that the rifle's magazine was broken and inoperable at the time of the shooting, again, the statute only requires that the weapon "has an ability to accept a detachable magazine" (Penal Law § 265.00 [22] [a]) – not that such magazine be utilized each and every time that the weapon is fired. Finally, although defendant makes much of the fact that a spring was a component of the process by which new rounds were chambered in the weapon, the presence of the spring in the magazine does not take defendant's rifle outside of the definition of a semiautomatic rifle."​

Who knows what the ADA is planning in Devin Pratt's case, but if it's building on this decision, it seems like it might be some stretched reasoning along the lines of "Devin Pratt's rifle was designed to accept a detachable magazine despite that epoxy prevented the magazine release from functioning..."


Another recent appeals decision in Rochester (Henrietta) arising form the Jackson Gun shop case:
People vs Joshua Perkins
People v Perkins (2017 NY Slip Op 27296)

"To meet the statutory criteria of an assault weapon, a semi-automatic rifle (rifle) must, at a minimum, have the "ability to accept a detachable magazine" (PL § 265.00 [22] [a] [emphasis added]); however, the Legislature has not further defined this term. Defendant's paramount contention concerns the absence of a definition for "detachable magazine" as it applies to 9 of the 18 rifles at issue in this case that he alleges have been modified by an MR2 Kit (MR2).[FN2] In sum, defendant asserts that without statutory clarification, the ambiguity permits an interpretation that the installation of an MR2 converts a detachable magazine to a fixed magazine, thereby disqualifying MR2-modified rifles from classification as assault weapons.[FN3] Accordingly, defendant seeks a decrease in the total number of rifles which currently constitute the bases of counts 6, 7 and 27, which would result in dismissal or reduction thereof.

In support of his position, defendant implores the Court to seek guidance from the Legislatures of other states that have further defined "detachable magazine" as an ammunition feeding device that cannot be removed without disassembly of the weapon (see Conn Gen Stat Ann § 53-202a [2] [F] [4];[FN4] Cal Penal Code § 30515 ; Md Code Crim Law § 4-301 [f]). He further relies upon a firearms examiner's report — not presented to the grand jury — finding an MR2-modified Bushmaster rifle to have a fixed magazine as authoritative in establishing that such a modification transforms an assault weapon into a lawful rifle. The Court disagrees. Defendant's contentions fall outside the scope of the Court's authority to review grand jury proceedings as he requests that the Court consider evidence not presented therein (see CPL §§ 210.20; 210. 25; 210.30; 210.35; see also People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103, 115 [1986] ["the inquiry of the reviewing court is limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence since that [*4]inquiry is exclusively the province of the Grand Jury"] [emphasis added]).[FN5]

Here, as part of their grand jury presentation, the People called a firearms examiner who testified — after establishing his credentials — that he inspected all of the weapons at issue in this case, including the Bushmaster, and concluded that each was capable of accepting a detachable magazine (see PL § 265.00 [22]). Significantly, there was no testimony whatsoever as to the modification of any rifle by means of an MR2.

Even if the Court were to consider the firearm examiner's report relied upon by defendant and conclude that the Bushmaster was not an assault rifle, thereby excluding it from consideration in count 6, the integrity of the indictment would not be impaired as the remaining evidence presented to the grand jury still satisfies the required minimum number of unlawful transactions to constitute the charge.[FN6] Additionally, defendant's tenuous extrapolation of the [*5]conclusion from the firearm examiner's report that the affixing of an MR2 converts a detachable magazine to a fixed magazine is unsupported by the document itself; the report merely indicates that the magazine is fixed but does not set forth a basis for that conclusion. Rather, it is defendant's unsupported and self-interested assertion that the Bushmaster was modified by an MR2.


Footnote 5 :Though CPL § 210.25 (3) provides a vehicle for challenging the constitutionality or otherwise validity of a statute, defendant merely alludes to, but has not specifically raised, a constitutional challenge to the statute. Nevertheless, were the Court to render a decision in that vein, it is not persuaded that the statute does not pass constitutional muster.

In assessing vagueness challenges, courts have developed a two-part test: first, to ensure that no person is punished for conduct not reasonably understood to be prohibited, the Court must determine whether the statute in question is sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute; second, the Court must determine whether the enactment provides officials with clear standards for enforcement (People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 420-421 [2003] [citations and quotations omitted]).
With these principles in mind, the Court turns to defendant's attack on the words "detachable magazine." He suggests that the ambiguity of this phrase does not place a person on notice of proscribed conduct, as detachable magazines can be modified by an MR2 to be fixed magazines, even if that modification is only temporary and reversible by means of disassembly. In essence, defendant's contention attempts to create varying degrees of detachability; however, it does not appear that such a reading was contemplated by the Legislature. Courts are constitutionally bound to give effect to the expressed will of the Legislature and the plain and obvious meaning of a statute is always preferred to any curious, narrow or hidden sense that nothing but a strained interpretation of legislative intent would discern (Finger Lakes Racing Ass'n v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 45 NY2d 471 [1978] [citations omitted]). A plain reading of "detachable" — without further modifiers or instruction — is absolute in its meaning. The Court is satisfied that the ordinary understanding of "detachable magazine" furnishes defendant and officials alike with adequate notice. Perhaps further clarification would assist those attempting to navigate their way through the labyrinth of gun regulation; however, the Court cannot conclude, based upon the plain meaning of the statute, that it is unconstitutionally vague. The Court further notes that, though considered in different contexts, this statute has withstood previous constitutional challenges (see Schultz v State of NY Exec., 134 AD3d 52 [3d Dept 2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 1139 [2016], reconsideration denied 27 NY3d 1047 [2016]; New York State Rifle, 804 F3d 242). Finally, to the extent defendant relies upon other state Legislatures that have further defined "detachable magazine," he declined to acknowledge those that have not (see Haw Rev Stat Ann § 134-1 [2] ; Colo Rev Stat Ann § 18-1.3-406 [7] ; Minn Stat Ann § 624.712 [7] [xii]; Idaho Code Ann § 18-3302 [1] [e] [3]). "​

Not true. No statement that tools being used to remove mag is not legal.

 

[Uzi]

I've been saying this over and over. The law says "a semi automatic rifle that had the ability to accept a detachable magazine" rather than "a semi automatic rifle that does not have a fixed magazine."

But what do I know? I'm an idiot for thinking that with this device it can still accept a detachable magazine.

So now there is case law that there says even with an MR2/ ARMaglock, it still has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Which it does. Not that I don't want it to. Just saying.

Well of course an MR2 and AR maglock will accept a detachable magazine. That is ancient news. They were both made specifically to allow magazines to detach. They're still buttons/levers that release magazines as to accept them.

 

[freddy]

It was a motion to dismiss some charges for some rifles that had the MR2. The Court chose not to entertain it.

So was he charged for those rifles with an MR2 or were the charges for those particular rifles dismissed?

If he was charged for those rifles with the MR2, then that's case law.

"ORDERED that defendant's motion to suppress the tangible evidence recovered from the premises of Auramar Drive is granted."

 

[freddy]

Well of course an MR2 and AR maglock will accept a detachable magazine. That is ancient news. They were both made specifically to allow magazines to detach. They're still buttons/levers that release magazines as to accept them.

100%

 

[Marine Cpl]

"ORDERED that defendant's motion to suppress the tangible evidence recovered from the premises of Auramar Drive is granted."

So it was suppressed? Charges were dropped for those rifles?

 

[freddy]

So it was suppressed? Charges were dropped for those rifles?

How do you interpret that statement from the court?

 

[Marine Cpl]

How do you interpret that statement from the court?

I know what it says. I'm just asking where it came from.

Nevermind. I found it. It was suppressed because it was an illegal search.

 

[ManrisFrack]

The charges were not dismissed. Some evidence was suppressed. I didn't read the suppressed portion of the decision so I don't know details - it may be that one or more MR2 equipped rifles are among the suppressed evidence.

The decision basically says that evidence to support the defendent's claim that the MR2 converts the magazine to a fixed magazine was not presented to the grand jury. Since it wasn't presented to the grand jury, a ruling on that contention is beyond the scope of the Court's authority in deciding this motion. Again, Footnote 3 of the decision says, "The Court... declines to make a determination as to whether the installation of an MR2 renders a rifle inside or outside the scope of the definition of assault rifle. In this Court's view, such a determination should be left to the trier of fact."

If this case is tried, it will be the one to watch for MR2 users.

 

[Robin]

FUAC! POS!!
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

To avoid any of this nonsense, if I were in the market for a fixed mag rifle, I'd get a real fixed mag lower like a NY10 or something.

That lower would be for range/plinking use and another regular, standard lower would be sitting on a pump rifle.

SHTF, the lowers get switched. You can't get any faster than that.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I've been saying this over and over. The law says "a semi automatic rifle that had the ability to accept a detachable magazine".

By this line of reasoning this would include any AK, AR rifle no matter the modification. Because all AKs, ARs had / have the ability to accept a detachable magazine and still are technically. Because a "detachable mag" was / is accepted into the rifle.

 

[Marine Cpl]

By this line of reasoning this would include any AK, AR rifle no matter the modification. Because all AKs, ARs had / have the ability to accept a detachable magazine and still are technically. Because a "detachable mag" was / is accepted into the rifle.

Don't try to put logic into it. It says what it says whether they meant it that way or not.

You have to remember that this law was written by people who don't know guns that just copied and pasted different sections from previous gun laws.

If you look at California's law, they specifically define what a fixed magazine is to avoid this confusion with legitimate fixed magazine fed rifles. NY did not. Their original draft included language that a magazine was considered fixed if it required a tool to remove it but was taken out for some reason on the final draft.

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

You'd think they'd have consulted with Leo's or someone else who regularly uses firearms before writing these crazy laws.

The worst part is short of welding the mag to the lower we're all unsure of what is legal.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Don't try to put logic into it. It says what it says whether they meant it that way or not.

You have to remember that this law was written by people who don't know guns that just copied and pasted different sections from previous gun laws.

If you look at California's law, they specifically define what a fixed magazine is to avoid this confusion with legitimate fixed magazine fed rifles. NY did not. Their original draft included language that a magazine was considered fixed if it required a tool to remove it but was taken out for some reason on the final draft.

My point is based on if they are using that logic to try someone. Then we are all in trouble no matter what, and could be grounds to get the law tossed on vagueness.

 

[zerohedge]

Exactly my point. I agree, the court made it clear that they were not the "trier of fact" in this appeal, nor would they rule on what was compliant or not.

However, the court did made it very clear that they would read the word detachable to mean "detachable" in the plainest meaning of the word.

A few dictionary searches:
Oxford, detachable = "Able to be removed or separated from something."
Oxford, detach = "Disengage (something or part of something) and remove it."
Cambridge, detach = "to separate or remove something from something else that it is connected to"
Merriam Webster, detach = "to separate especially from a larger mass and usually without violence or damage"

I pity any poor SOB that finds himself before a court when the prosecutor reads the law and these dictionary definitions to the jury and then demonstrates by any means short of damage that your magazine has been removed. Devoid of all this Safe Act context, I would also agree that in common usage the word detachable means: 'something can be taken apart without damaging it or was designed to come apart'. Perhaps this is why the NYSP interpret a compliant modification to mean 'permanent' (aka, you need to damage it to detach it)?

Based on this, my feeling is, if you need a drill, saw, torch, etc to remove it, then you'd be ok and a jury might agree with you.

Damn, is all I can say. How ironic that the modifications necessary to make you compliance (no pistol grip or a mag you can't remove) only truly serve to make the rifle more dangerous to the user and those around them. How awesome is it to now have a rifle that is harder to safely hold and more prone to have errant round (spur). And better yet, when it's time to render that rifle safe, unloading that fixed magazine will be fun, especially if a malfunction occurs.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Because it's not about safety. It's about making it unsafe or unwanted. To make them illegal to own period. It's about control period. To end the constitution period.

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

The only easy way to clear the fixed mag is if you can remove the bottom of it like on a pmag. However you can't weld that into the receiver.

But yea nothing to do with safety of the operator or law abiding citizens. It's about control and perceived safety.

I just wish the bill to make safe only apply in NYC and some surrounding counties would pass and not just be sitting idle.

 

[ManrisFrack]

Logically, the problem with using that definition of detachable it that is applies to a HUGE portion of guns and their parts. Even if two parts are silver soldered together, you can still separate them if you have a torch. The court chastised the defendant for attempting to create different "degrees of detachability" but degrees of detachability are part of the very nature of mechanical assemblies.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Now you are starting to get it. We start with scary guns, use vague words. Then we use the vague wording and case law to apply it to all firearms. Then the Dems win.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Logically, the problem with using that definition of detachable it that is applies to a HUGE portion of guns and their parts. Even if two parts are silver soldered together, you can still separate them if you have a torch. The court chastised the defendant for attempting to create different "degrees of detachability" but degrees of detachability are part of the very nature of mechanical assemblies.

That's what happens when you copy and paste California's law but realize that bullet buttons circumvent it so you strike the definition of fixed magazine from the final draft.

The people that wrote this law had no idea. It's an unintended consequence. They just wanted AK's and AR's gone.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Then you have guys arguing with the law and lying to themselves because it isn't logical and they want their fixed mag to be legal after they built it and thought it was legal.

It isn't according to exactly how the law is written unless it cannot without a doubt have the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

The only way to do that is to have a lower like a NY10 or similar or to make it permanent.

 

[ManrisFrack]

Then you have guys arguing with the law and lying to themselves because it isn't logical and they want their fixed mag to be legal after they built it and thought it was legal.

It isn't according to exactly how the law is written unless it cannot without a doubt have the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

The only way to do that is to have a lower like a NY10 or similar or to make it permanent.

Thank you Your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, Judge Will has just blessed us with the applicable case law. Throw out all your non-permanent fixed mag guns! Wait... what exactly to you mean by "permanent" Your Honor? Cause I can grind off a tack weld and still have usable parts if I'm careful.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Thank you Your Honor.

Ladies and gentlemen, Judge Will has just blessed us with the applicable case law. Throw out all your non-permanent fixed mag guns! Wait... what exactly to you mean by "permanent" Your Honor? Cause I can grind off a tack weld and still have usable parts if I'm careful.

Then you have people that call me "Your Honor" because they don't like what the law says in plain English because they want it to say something it doesn't.

Don't read into it. It says what it says. It doesn't have to make sense. Permanent is what permanent is.

 

[ManrisFrack]

Lol, I knew you couldn't resist. But we've been on this merry-go-round before. I ain't doin it again.

ETA:

...call me your honor because they don't like what the law says in plain English because they want it to say something it doesn't

Like... "permanent" for instance?