The nevermind. Just delete it mods.

[Marine Cpl]

Delete

 

[meketrefe]

Why is a 16" rifle upper illegal in NY state with a registered pistol lower?
I don't see anywhere in the law that registered pistols cannot be used with other uppers given the uppers are legal with federal regulations.

 

[meketrefe]

Once you put the upper with a stock on the pistol frame, it becomes a semi automatic rifle with a pistol grip.

yes. still it is your registered pistol in your permit.
They do not say you cannot do this with your pistol.

 

[meketrefe]

I don't get what you are trying to say.

What I'm saying is that now you have a rifle that is subject to Unsafe Act regulations. It's not a pistol anymore.

I am not getting what you are saying neither.
In the so called "assault weapon" definition the safe act doesn't say the definition applies to your legally owned pistol too if you put
a rifle upper on it. If you check the serial number it is registered.

 

[meketrefe]

I am not saying building a rifle, I am saying the SAFE doesn't say your pistol lower becomes a so called assault weapon by adding
a 16" upper. We are making the assumption the SAFE act relies on the ATF definition of what constitutes a lawful conversion of
your pistol under federal law but they do not say you cannot do that under safe.
The lower is a legal pistol lower (including in NYS) with a legal upper and stock by the ATF.
I don't see where SAFE says this combination is considered an assault weapon.

 

[meketrefe]

Will,
I am aware.
Forget about pistols. This is a 16" upper or longer.
SAFE doesn't even say it becomes a rifle at all.
The ATF does but SAFE doesn't say they consider the ATF classification of adding a 16" upper to a pistol
lower valid nor invalid regarding SAFE.
This is not a made or remade, the lower and upper are both legal for anyone to order and own.

 

[meketrefe]

Oh brother.
I have to read all this again? I don't see I will find anything that excludes a legal pistol lower
from a legal 16" or longer upper.

 

[Uzi]

Interesting idea.

 

[meketrefe]

I think there is a lot here that is left to arbitrary interpretation.
One can interpreter as AW because of association but the same way one
might find such association to be obvious. It is not specifically defined in the written law.

I think the same way in the picture you posted one should not assume the magazine becomes a pistol grip
because one uses the magazine as a pistol grip. One thing is a grip and the other a magazine. In a general
context we all know those are different.
We don't even have clear definitions for those alone under safe act.

 

[meketrefe]

The "flexible" version could go many ways, right?

View attachment 5369

 

[meketrefe]

Nobody is assuming the magazine is a grip. It's a magazine. Since the pistol has no grip and it's turned into a rifle, it becomes a rifle with no grip that is perfectly legal under Unsafe as far as definitions go.

It wouldn't have a pistol grip, it wouldn't have a muzzle device, and it wouldn't have a collapsible stock.

Where are the magazine and grip definitions under safe act?
I am not saying they are not there. I could not find them though.

 

[Gunner57]

I just tried to read through this thread quickly. Holy fuck was that a mistake!

 

[meketrefe]

I just tried to read through this thread quickly. Holy fuck was that a mistake!

View attachment 5371

That is like reading the safe act itself. lol

 

[meketrefe]

There seems to be a serious disconnect in communication here Meke. We aren't riding on the same tracks.

1st. A law doesn't say what's legal. It says what's illegal. If what you have fits a certain description as an illegal item, it is illegal.

2nd. Penal Law 264 lists the definitions of certain things. It defines what a rifle is. That definittion states that a rifle is

11. "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and
intended to be fired from the shoulder.

The Safe Act is under Penal Law 265 as well with definitions on what are AW's, large capacities magazine, sellers of ammunition, ect.

So if you have a legal pistol and you add a threaded barrel, you've created an AW. If you have a legal semi auto rifle like a Ranch Mini and you add a pistol grip to it, you now have an AW.

If you have a semi auto pistol and add a stock to it, you now have made a semi auto rifle. That rifle must not fit the definition of what an AW is.

Does that make sense?

As your personal opinion on the matter I understand it.
But what I am looking for is the definition, exclusion or inclusion written in the law.
Where they say a cut and or short version of the magazine well that happens to be the grip is not considered a grip anymore.

Let me give you another example (see pics below):

A) In your own personal opinion, are these options SAFE compliant or not? this includes the bottom two with cut grips and nylon
straps attached to it. These attach to your rifle sling or the sling could be directly screwed into the bottom of the action
where the full grip was originally located.


B) Aside from your personal opinion where does SAFE says what is considered compliant or not, or at least a definition for what might constitute
a grip w/o assumption nor interpretation in our part.


Lets make clear if these were used to build they would be all ATF legal with 16" barrels or longer and SAFE compliant with fixed or pinned stocks, target crowns and obviously will only use 10 rounds magazines maximum. Lets take out everythin gthat could be considered non compliant of BS SAFE.

By the way, one could also bolt a flashlight or even a dildo. The grip is cut flush.

I have to go install some Christmas lights. I will check later.

 

[Magnus]

lol I have no idea what meke is talking about but I agree with him, FU coumo. As for the pistol into rifle, either way it's against the safe act. I believe you can't have a stock on a pistol or a rifle with a pistol grip. That's the kind of stuff people who believe in the boogey act have to deal with.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I give up. I'm starting a new thread on the same subject for those that understand that a pistol with no grip whatsoever can be turned into a rifle with no grip.

I take no offense to anyone here but this beyond ridiculous and the constant back and forth with explanations on the subject that if a pistol is turned into a rifle, that rifle must be legal feature-wise and the explanations that Penal laws do not say what's legal but rather what is illegal is adding confusion to the thread.

Again. No offense.

 

[meketrefe]

ok Will. no offense man. Not at all. Sorry you got frustrated.

As I said, I understand your opinion from your own interpretation.

I was hopping you or someone could make reference to actual written law somewhere.

The ATF regulations for what constitutes legal conversion from pistol to carbine or viceversa are not bidding.
The same for 922r that is treated completely apart. We have clear definitions for auto-loading
vs selective fire and full automatic along with a few others. Even those are not officially adopted by BS SAFE.
Same way some of the grandfathered features are not specifically excluded like the pinned threads that continues to be a permanent fix although some people believe is not.

I went to the NYP educations sessions, talk to Mr. hogan from NYSP, talked to Mike green and some of the lawyers
and while there is confirmation in some features, not in many others. IMO the law was done in a hurry and open ended in many
sections therefore is really open to arbitrary interpretation. Perhaps that is why many things are falling apart by
themselves including not having the budget for doing half of the things the state said they were going to do.

I would say do whatever you feel comfortable. You are a smart man.

For some other alternatives like PRS, exile, etc... we have this otherwise many things are in the air up for grabs.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You still aren't getting it. Turning a pistol into a rifle doesn't need to be explained in any Penal Laws.

If any firearm has a stock it is a rifle or shotgun. That is not opinion.

You cannot take a stripped pistol lower, add a stock to it and say it's still a pistol no matter what state you live in. That's Federal Law.

If that were the case, SBR's wouldn't exist. Why do you think Sign Braces are so popular?

 

[meketrefe]

I Might not be getting this but also think about the possibility that you are not getting my point
neither.

You are right. The federal law is very clear. What is not clear is the SAFE ACT.

It is clear that under federal law I cannot put a stock on my pistol. I never implied that.

The confusion is with SAFE, specifically that your Carry Pistol fitted with a 16" upper w/o threads and fixed stock
becomes a so called AW nor such conversion should bind to ATF rules nor that such conversion becomes a rifle or baseline for a
so called AW under BS SAFE.
The pistol is registered and in your permit already and NY Legal. The assembly is over 16" with a stock and ATF ready.
You are putting one and the other compliance together, not the SAFE ACT.

If the upper was not legal in NYS I could not order one. But the upper doesn't make the firearm. the Lower is the firearm.
The upper is another set of features on with ATF. SAFE does not bind. Ask a lawyer.

They don't tell you a cut grip is not considered a grip specially after you put a magazine in there and grab the magazine instead.
They don't tell you neither you cannot do that.

You are making the decision to do it. There is no information about this decision in BS SAFE.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Meke, if you get a complete pistol lower and add a stock and barrel, is it still a pistol in any state? Yes or no.

 

[meketrefe]

Meke, if you get a complete pistol lower and add a stock and barrel, is it still a pistol in any state? Yes or no.

I don't know. They say CT and CA laws are as bad as NY.
I am going to guess it is a rifle by ATF but it is not a candidate for the so called AW in NYS anymore
since it is a pistol by its serial number and registered already.
again no binding in the law.

By ATF is a rilfe
By unSAFE is pistol with ATF legal uppers ????? .. something compliant.

 

[meketrefe]

Sorry Will. I should let you rest.
I know you had a rough time last night with Darths trick logic. lol

 

[meketrefe]

I guess one can navigate through SAFE with a set of assumptions.
Say... whatever I think is clear, is clear.
But also... what if they left all this confusion like this on purpose and that gives them an advantage
to use these gaps for arbitrary interpretation?
I don't think anyone is out to get you and this is just a disaster piece of bull crap legislation (many lawyers agree)
And that is why when it has been challenged many things have started to fall through the cracks.

BTW I fell from the roof into the snow when putting some Christmas lights. LOL
Good thing the snow was a soft landing.

 

[Marine Cpl]

OK. We are getting somewhere. It is a rifle by Federal defintion.

Ny Penal Law 265 states....

11. "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore.

Now, is a registered pistol that has been made to be fired from the shoulder still a pistol? This question isn't Safe related. It's NYS Penal Law related.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't mind. I'm passing the time at work. There is a reason for these questions.

 

[meketrefe]

OK. We are getting somewhere. It is a rifle by Federal defintion.

Now according to Penal Law 265 which states

11. "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore.

Now, is a registered pistol that has been made to be fired from the shoulder still a pistol?

Not by the statement above. We did not designed nor redesigned anything. We did not made nor remade anything.

 

[meketrefe]

Btw this is probably the section where they should explain the conversions and also state if they were biding by ATF.
But they don't

 

[Marine Cpl]

Not by the statement above. We did not designed nor redesigned anything. We did not made nor remade anything.

Therein lies your problem. It is a weapon made into a rifle by adding a stock intended to be fired by the shoulder.

That goes by the federal and state definitions.

Unless of course you at saying that a pistol is not a weapon.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Penal Law 265 disagrees with you as well because they also define what a weapon is in the charges of criminal possession of a weapon is in the 4th degree, on school grounds, ect.

It always states that a weapon in those cases are shotguns, rifles, pistols, knives, ect.

So this isn't a Safe related thing. It is a Penal Law related thing. If it is a weapon that has been made to fire from the shoulder, it is a rifle.

And since it is a rifle and it is also defined to have certain banned features, it is an AW by their definitions.

 

[meketrefe]

Therein lies your problem. It is a weapon made into a rifle by adding a stock intended to be fired by the shoulder.

That goes by the federal and state definitions.

Unless of course you at saying that a pistol is not a weapon.

According to that statement we didn't make a rifle because we did not make nor designed anything.
A pistol conversion or upgrade is not defined neither and nothing said about ATF adoption for this formula.

WE are left with:
A) One pistol lower NYS legal.
B) One rifle upper ATF legal.
C) Those put together nobody knows what it is in terms of SAFE act. We didn't make nor design anything.

Yet if you look up the serial number it is a registered pistol and it is in ones permit as a pistol that is legal.
And by the ATF it is also legal. Safe doesn't say that your pistol conversion has to be registered as a so called
assault weapon after being registered as a pistol.

Same thing happens with the old ban regarding permanent muzzle brakes. There is no sunset provision for that
including exceptions.
So what it was permanent before continues to be as permanent today as it was before safe, unless they make
an amendment that says otherwise.