Man charged with safe act violation.

[Marine Cpl]

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

ETA: Like... "permanent" for instance?

Permanent. It doesn't say permanent. But how else do you take away the ability to accept unless you modify it in a way that it cannot accept ever?

Answer that.

 

[Robin]

The only thing permanent,
Even that is only temporary.
Robin Sassoon

 

[Marine Cpl]

I found this from the Willjr75 dictionary of law.

Permanent. Adjective. Installed in a way that the police cannot remove the existing magazine so that the rifle does not have the ability to accept another one so that they cannot charge you with having an AW.

Example in a sentence.

The popo tried to fuck him and remove the clip from the Glock 15 but could not even with the use of tools. A court appointed expert tried as well in front of a jury and also couldn't get the clip to come out so that the rifle could accept another one. The clip was in there in a manner that was PERMANENT.

 

[Bigfoot]

OK I am confused... Understanding Cuomo's NY UNSAFE Act usually does have that effect on me though.

So far what I am getting out of this thread is that a mag locking device is a no go.
I am not saying if that is indeed true or false, that's not the point of this post

The point of this post is I am confused about what the law(s) actually say and mean.
Do you guys remember the Albion gun shop that was raided back in 2014 ?
The owner of the gun shop sold approximatley 170 AR's with the bullet button installed. The NYSP then wanted the owner to
turn over the records of anyone who bought an AR with the bullet button from the gun shop.

Anyways, If you guys remember the local DA said that as long as the bullet buttons are epoxied on the AR's
that were sold in this configuration. The rifles ( are ) NY UNSAFE Act compliant and no charges will be brought.
LINK ----> DA says no charges will be filed against Albion Gun Shop, customers | Orleans Hub

So it seems to me that a epoxied mag locking device is compliant and it is also not compliant... Yep, you read that right.
One DA says if it's epoxied your good to go. Another DA will say that even if it is epoxied it's a no go and you are going to jail... Cuomo's NY UNSAFE Act is being enforced arbitrarily on a case by case basis.
And therefore, The NY UNSAFE Act should be repealed in it's entirety...

WTF? the DA's don't even know what the NY UNSAFE Act wording is supposed to mean.
This situation is dangerous for law abiding people here in NY and thanks to our state politicians
NY state is the village idiot of the United States of America.



FUAC !!! you fucking piece of shit... you fucking piece of shit !!!, Look at what you fucking did you fucking piece of shit !!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

OK I am confused... Understanding Cuomo's NY UNSAFE Act usually does have that effect on me though.

So far what I am getting out of this thread is that a mag locking device is a no go.
I am not saying if that is indeed true or false, that's not the point of this post

The point of this post is I am confused about what the law(s) actually say and mean.
Do you guys remember the Albion gun shop that was raided back in 2014 ?
The owner of the gun shop sold approximatley 170 AR's with the bullet button installed. The NYSP then wanted the owner to
turn over the records of anyone who bought an AR with the bullet button from the gun shop.

Anyways, If you guys remember the local DA said that as long as the bullet buttons are epoxied on the AR's
that were sold in this configuration. The rifles ( are ) NY UNSAFE Act compliant and no charges will be brought.
LINK ----> DA says no charges will be filed against Albion Gun Shop, customers | Orleans Hub

So it seems to me that a epoxied mag locking device is compliant and it is also not compliant... Yep, you read that right.
One DA says if it's epoxied your good to go. Another DA will say that even if it is epoxied it's a no go and you are going to jail... Cuomo's NY UNSAFE Act is being enforced arbitrarily on a case by case basis.
And therefore, The NY UNSAFE Act should be repealed in it's entirety...

WTF? the DA's don't even know what the NY UNSAFE Act wording is supposed to mean.
This situation is dangerous for law abiding people here in NY and thanks to our state politicians
NY state is the village idiot of the United States of America.



FUAC !!! you fucking piece of shit... you fucking piece of shit !!!, Look at what you fucking did you fucking piece of shit !!!

The Law Firm of Will & Jr agrees.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You aren't confused. A DA in an anti gun county may take the letter of the law literal. Another one in a pro gun county may take the letter of the law more liberally because it makes no sense if taken literal.

That's what I get out of it too.

 

[ManrisFrack]

It accepted a detachable magazine... I am so fucked...

 

[spat]

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.

I'd love it if they really banned all semi autos the way you suggest. It would be a slam dunk at SCOTUS that it's an overreach, and it would wake up every FUDD when he found out his trap gun was banned.

 

[spat]

Permanent. It doesn't say permanent. But how else do you take away the ability to accept unless you modify it in a way that it cannot accept ever?

Answer that.

You take away the ability to accept right now ?

I'd read it as any gun with a magazine already attached cannot accept *another* magazine

Which would mean they would all be legal, until you remove the magazine.

Somehow I don't want to bet on the courts agreeing with either of us though. You're not going to see people prosecuted for a stock SKS despite the fact that a magazine can be swapped in a minute, and I'm not going to see someone get their case thrown out because you can't attach a second magazine.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You take away the ability to accept right now ?

I'd read it as any gun with a magazine already attached cannot accept *another* magazine

Which would mean they would all be legal, until you remove the magazine.

Somehow I don't want to bet on the courts agreeing with either of us though. You're not going to see people prosecuted for a stock SKS despite the fact that a magazine can be swapped in a minute, and I'm not going to see someone get their case thrown out because you can't attach a second magazine.

I've always took the ability to ACCEPT away. That's what the law says and because that is what the law says it has always been my argument. Not that I want it to be that way.

Under your logic, a standard mag catch is sufficient as long as a magazine is already in there since it cannot accept another one.

Yet if you press that button or remove it with a tool, it can accept another one.

We'll never agree with this because you have a vested interest in it working for you. I just read the law as it stands. Nevermind the SKS. As it is written, those also have that ability. It's an unintended consequence of striking the definition of a fixed magazine away from the final draft to prevent the use of bullet buttons when they copied and pasted California's old law.

I know a slight part of you knows this but you'll never admit it because it doesn't serve your purposes.

Whether a cop arrests or not or a DA prosecutes or not is an entirely different matter. There are many laws on the books that aren't currently enforced until one day they are.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'd love it if they really banned all semi autos the way you suggest. It would be a slam dunk at SCOTUS that it's an overreach, and it would wake up every FUDD when he found out his trap gun was banned.

It wouldn't be all semi autos. You keep saying this in every thread on this subject. It's only semi autos that have the ability to accept another magazine AND have an additional feature.

 

[spat]

It wouldn't be all semi autos. You keep saying this in every thread on this subject. It's only semi autos that have the ability to accept another magazine AND have an additional feature.

I can put a detachable magazine on *any* semi if you allow the use of tools.

You are right about otherwise featureless rifles though, but then again, if tools are allowed I can collapse any stock too......

And even if you discount the stock thing, a clamp on bayonet will fit any rifle too, does that make the barrel itself a bayonet mount ?

All I'm saying is that many many FUDDS would suddenly find themselves in possession of an evil black rifle if your definition holds.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I can put a detachable magazine on *any* semi if you allow the use of tools.

You are right about otherwise featureless rifles though, but then again, if tools are allowed I can collapse any stock too......

And even if you discount the stock thing, a clamp on bayonet will fit any rifle too, does that make the barrel itself a bayonet mount ?

All I'm saying is that many many FUDDS would suddenly find themselves in possession of an evil black rifle if your definition holds.

The law doesn't say the ABILITY to ACCEPT features. It only says it in regards to detachable magazines.

 

[spat]

The law doesn't say the ABILITY to ACCEPT features. It only says it in regards to detachable magazines.

It *implies* the ABILITY to ACCEPT a bayonet (what other definition of a bayonet mount is there).

If you are going to read it so broadly with respect to magazines, why read it narrowly for other features .

 

[Marine Cpl]

It *implies* the ABILITY to ACCEPT a bayonet (what other definition of a bayonet mount is there).

If you are going to read it so broadly with respect to magazines, why read it narrowly for other features .

Imply isn't in the law. In regards to the bayonet. all it says is...

22. "Assault weapon" means (a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

(v) a bayonet mount;

Nowhere does it say the ability accept a bayonet mount. It either has a feature or it doesn't. Only in regards to magazines does it say "the ability to accept." Laws can only be read as they are written to the letter. If implication was a factor, you wouldn't be able to buy an AR at all. That was the intention when this law was written.

Implications have never been a factor when it comes to laws (unless a corrupt judge renders a decision saying so) otherwise there would never be loopholes or work arounds.

 

[spat]

Imply isn't in the law. In regards to the bayonet. all it says is...

22. "Assault weapon" means (a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

(v) a bayonet mount;

Nowhere does it say the ability accept a bayonet mount. It either has a feature or it doesn't. Only in regards to magazines does it say "the ability to accept." Laws can only be read as they are written to the letter. If implication was a factor, you wouldn't be able to buy an AR at all. That was the intention when this law was written.

Implications have never been a factor when it comes to laws (unless a corrupt judge renders a decision saying so) otherwise there would never be loopholes or work arounds.

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

 

[freddy]

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

100%

 

[kev74]

 

[freddy]

...We'll never agree with this because you have a vested interest in it working for you. I just read the law as it stands. Nevermind the SKS. As it is written, those also have that ability. It's an unintended consequence of striking the definition of a fixed magazine away from the final draft to prevent the use of bullet buttons when they copied and pasted California's old law.

I know a slight part of you knows this but you'll never admit it because it doesn't serve your purposes.

Whether a cop arrests or not or a DA prosecutes or not is an entirely different matter. There are many laws on the books that aren't currently enforced until one day they are.

Since you have committed to the thordsen do you not have a vested interest in that approach?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Since you have commited to the thordsen do you not have a vested interest in that approach?

No. I only go by what the law says.

 

[Marine Cpl]

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

It's a mount. Nothing more. Nothing less. They are calling a mount a prohibited feature. That's what the law says in black and white.

 

[Acer-m14]

i don't they can use any special tools or call in a gunsmith to remove the mag; if that is not true then any gun with a any mag converted to fixed mag with a mod would fail ..

 

[freddy]

...Hittin' the sauce, man?

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

...Hittin' the sauce, man?

Always! This law is annoying but we gotta at least try to abide by it.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Always! This law is annoying but we gotta at least try to abide by it.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

 

[speedkills27]

Always! This law is annoying but we gotta at least try to abide by it.

 

[zerohedge]

Anyone know if there have been updates on this case?

 

[spat]

It's a mount. Nothing more. Nothing less. They are calling a mount a prohibited feature. That's what the law says in black and white.

So, as long as you don't have the word "mount" printed on the gun it's OK ?

If a mount is banned, there *must* be a definition for it. I submit that the definition of a bayonet mount is a feature that allows you to attach a bayonet. What would your definition be ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

So, as long as you don't have the word "mount" printed on the gun it's OK ?

If a mount is banned, there *must* be a definition for it. I submit that the definition of a bayonet mount is a feature that allows you to attach a bayonet. What would your definition be ?

But there isn't. That's the problem. My problem is how the law is written. I didn't write it.

Why the problem with me? I'm just reading it as written. I wouldn't write any law if given the power.

 

[spat]

But there isn't. That's the problem. My problem is how the law is written. I didn't write it.

Why the problem with me? I'm just reading it as written. I wouldn't write any law if given the power.

Neither "detachable" nor "accept" is defined in the law either. Why do you read "detachable" and "accept" in the broadest possible sense, and "mount" in the narrowest ?

I don't have a problem with you, we agree about most things. I just have a disagreement about this particular point of law. Neither of us are lawyers, let alone judges, so it is completely an academic discussion at this point anyway.