REMOVE THE FIXED MAG

[Edwardteach72]

Sure it does, if your definition of "allow" that includes the use of power tools applies.

With several hours and appropriate tools I can make *any* semi auto take a magazine, then detach that magazine.

In fact, give me a day in my shop and I can probably make most bolt action rifles into full autos that take a "detachable" magazine. It wouldn't be pretty, but one press of the "trigger" would empty the magazine.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Take any rifle with a magazine inserted (as they would be when found by an officer investigating any of the "fixed magazine" rifles we are discussing), then demonstrate it's ability to "accept" another magazine.

I'll wait.

See. There you go trying to use logic for an illogical law. I mean according to the law, they banned the threads that allowed a muzzle brake, flash suppressor, ect on a pistol and not the actual devices on the barrel like they did with the rifle.

See my point? The law is written wrong from a factual perspective and the intent of it and there you are trying to make sense of it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

They aren't going to go after any of those things but it's written in the actual law. The same goes with open carry but you'll try to make sense of that too. They inadvertently banned that as well for security guards but they won't go after them and they won't go after you in your own property or hunting either but the way it was written it makes it illegal to do so.

 

[Uzi]

As

As the law is written, the SKS if it has another feature, is an AW.

It's a rifle. Check.
It's semi automatic. Check
It has the ABILITY to accept a detachable magazine. Check. We all know it does. I can make one accept it. The key word is ABILITY. It doesn't say ability in it's current configuration. It doesn't say ability after it's altered to a different configuration. It just says, "ABILITY."

You're still confusing two different words with different meanings and allowing your confirmation biased interpretation to come up with the same incorrect conclusion time and time again. ABILITY and CAPABILITY are not interchangeable at all in this instance and that's what you're doing. You're using the word "ability" in place of what should be "capability" to describe your reasoning. "I can make one accept it" you mention; Yes, yes you can. Any rifle is capable of getting changes, but its ability to actually perform them is limited by its actual configuration, and it's ability is what is being regulated here. That's what you don't quite seem to grasp.

If a rifle were to have the ability to do something, that action would require nothing whatsoever but the action itself because it would be able to perform the task already. Now, conversely If it were NOT to have the ability to do an action like accepting detachable magazines, it may be CAPABLE of such an action, however not within the present state of functionality, or "current configuration" as I've stated myself before. That IS what it means, dude. The ability to perform the action does not exist, and so it does NOT have the ability to perform it.

Just because some part is easy and convenient to a degree to change or disassemble, doesn't change or define it differently by simple logic, and especially by the lack of any descriptive definitions within the law. A detachable magazine is just a feature that a firearm has, just like you've taken away a pistol grip and adjustable stock for something else in place of it, and taken away a muzzle brake for a cap or something else in place of it. Your rifle no longer has the ability to adjust the stock, and no longer has the ability to reduce muzzle flash because those features aren't there anymore. What matters is what your rifle has the ability to do how it is, not what it can be changed into.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You're still confusing two different words with different meanings and allowing your confirmation biased interpretation to come up with the same incorrect conclusion time and time again. ABILITY and CAPABILITY are not interchangeable at all in this instance and that's what you're doing. You're using the word "ability" in place of what should be "capability" to describe your reasoning. "I can make one accept it" you mention; Yes, yes you can. Any rifle is capable of getting changes, but its ability to actually perform them is limited by its actual configuration, and it's ability is what is being regulated here. That's what you don't quite seem to grasp.

If a rifle were to have the ability to do something, that action would require nothing whatsoever but the action itself because it would be able to perform the task already. Now, conversely If it were NOT to have the ability to do an action like accepting detachable magazines, it may be CAPABLE of such an action, however not within the present state of functionality, or "current configuration" as I've stated myself before. That IS what it means, dude. The ability to perform the action does not exist, and so it does NOT have the ability to perform it.

Just because some part is easy and convenient to a degree to change or disassemble, doesn't change or define it differently by simple logic, and especially by the lack of any descriptive definitions within the law. A detachable magazine is just a feature that a firearm has, just like you've taken away a pistol grip and adjustable stock for something else in place of it, and taken away a muzzle brake for a cap or something else in place of it. Your rifle no longer has the ability to adjust the stock, and no longer has the ability to reduce muzzle flash because those features aren't there anymore. What matters is what your rifle has the ability to do how it is, not what it can be changed into.

Sorry. Ability and capability are synonyms. Ever dictionary says so. They are interchangeable.

But if you want to make the definitions work for you, have at it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

A detachable magazine is just a feature that a firearm has, just like you've taken away a pistol grip and adjustable stock for something else in place of it, and taken away a muzzle brake for a cap or something else in place of it.

Incorrect. They are sold as detachable magazines. They are specifically designed to be detached with a push of a button. And the other features you listed don't have the language "ability to accept a pistol grip" for example. In that case the rifle either has it or it doesn't have it.

 

[spat]

Sorry. Ability and capability are synonyms. Ever dictionary says so. They are interchangeable.

But if you want to make the definitions work for you, have at it.

What characteristics, in your opinion, does a rifle need to have before it *doesn't* have the ability to accept a detachable magazine ?

Bear in mind, I have a ready supply of epoxy for attaching, and dremel disks for detaching.....

 

[Marine Cpl]

What characteristics, in your opinion, does a rifle need to have before it *doesn't* have the ability to accept a detachable magazine ?

Bear in mind, I have a ready supply of epoxy for attaching, and dremel disks for detaching.....

It's not up to me. I didn't write the law. If I was an anti-gunner and actually knew what I was talking about, I'd write a definition to explain what a fixed magazine is like in California's first law. It was actually included in previous bills here that didn't pass.

But by deleting it, ability now has a broad spectrum when previously it didn't. But like I said before many officers have sense and they just consider themselves whatever they want to be fixed. Just the same as they don't bother security guards open carrying or people open carrying while they're hunting or at the range on their own property despite what the penal law says.

 

[Acer-m14]

i just bought a AR mag and attatched it my assault stick hummm duct tape was not included

 

[Marine Cpl]

For the record if I wanted an AR as a toy, I would fix the magazine and claim ignorance to what the law actually says just like everyone else. But I don't want toys so it'll never happen.

 

[spat]

It's not up to me. I didn't write the law. If I was an anti-gunner and actually knew what I was talking about, I'd write a definition to explain what a fixed magazine is like in California's first law. It was actually included in previous bills here that didn't pass.

But by deleting it, ability now has a broad spectrum when previously it didn't. But like I said before many officers have sense and they just consider themselves whatever they want to be fixed that's the same as they don't bother security guards open carrying or people open carrying while they're hunting or at the range on their own property.

You didn't answer the question.

In your opinion, what does a rifle have to have or not have to be in compliance with this law ?

It's not up to the people who wrote the law either. Their ability to interpret it ended when it was signed. Properly, it is the court's place to decide what the pile of word salad the legislature passed means now. But that is irrelevant to this discussion, you obviously have a strong opinion about what it would take for a rifle to not have "the ability to accept a detachable magazine". I'm asking you to clarify what you think that means.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You didn't answer the question.

In your opinion, what does a rifle have to have or not have to be in compliance with this law ?

It's not up to the people who wrote the law either. Their ability to interpret it ended when it was signed. Properly, it is the court's place to decide what the pile of word salad the legislature passed means now. But that is irrelevant to this discussion, you obviously have a strong opinion about what it would take for a rifle to not have "the ability to accept a detachable magazine". I'm asking you to clarify what you think that means.

My opinion doesn't matter. If it were up to me, there would be no law. But since you are asking me, if I wrote the law knowing that there are legitimate fix mags out there, I would write it as a magazine that can only be removed with a tool while the firearm is disassembled just like real fix mags are removed.

 

[spat]

My opinion doesn't matter. If it were up to me, there would be no law. But since you are asking me, if I wrote the law knowing that there are legitimate fix mags out there, I would write it as a magazine that can only be removed with a tool while the firearm is disassembled just like real fix mags are removed.

I'm not asking you what you think the law *should* be, I think all here would agreethat the law *should* say that you can have whatever the hell you want.

What I'm asking you is what you think the law we *do* have means.

You've been very clear that you think many rifles that others believe are compliant aren't.

I think you're wrong, but before I can prove that I need to pin down what it is you are really saying.

So, I ask again, what do *you* think a rifle needs to have or do so that it doesn't have "the ability to accept a detachable magazine".

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'm not asking you what you think the law *should* be, I think all here would agreethat the law *should* say that you can have whatever the hell you want.

What I'm asking you is what you think the law we *do* have means.

You've been very clear that you think many rifles that others believe are compliant aren't.

I think you're wrong, but before I can prove that I need to pin down what it is you are really saying.

So, I ask again, what do *you* think a rifle needs to have or do so that it doesn't have "the ability to accept a detachable magazine".

I've already told you. What we do have as written means any rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine by any means. The reason why I believe that it's "by any means" is because it does not define what would be a fixed magazine. And because it does not define what a fixed magazine is, if it can be removed, it has the ability to accept another one. They fucked up.

That's standard English. I know they didn't mean it for it to be that way but the way they wrote it is what it says. So now law enforcement determines on the street what they think is fixed enough and cannot accept another magazine. For the most part they've been reasonable.

Just the same as they didn't mean for open carry to be illegal for security guards, on your own property, at the range, hunting, ect but they made it that way by making it illegal to possess a pistol unless exempted from the penal law. And the penal law 400 states that the exemption is for carrying concealed and any violation of it results in a misdemeanor.

 

[spat]

I've already told you. What we do have as written means any rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine by any means. The reason why I believe that it's "by any means" is because it does not define what would be a fixed magazine. And because it does not define what a fixed magazine is, if it can be removed, it has the ability to accept another one. They fucked up.

That's standard English. I know they didn't mean it for it to be that way but the way they wrote it is what it says. So now law enforcement determines on the street what do you think it's fixed enough and cannot accept another magazine. For the most part they've been reasonable.

Just the same as they didn't mean for open carry to be illegal for security guards, on your own property, at the range, hunting, ect but they made it that way by making it illegal to possess a pistol unless exempted from the penal law. And the penal law 400 states that the exemption is for carrying concealed and any violation of it results in a misdemeanor.

Ok, so to be clear then, you think *all* semi auto rifles have that ability, at least within the scope of PL 265 ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Ok, so to be clear then, you think *all* semi auto rifles have that ability, at least within the scope of PL 265 ?

Yes. As long as they can be reassembled without whatever fixed magazine they have.

If they cannot be reassembled without that fixed or internal magazine, they aren't operable and the law doesn't apply.

 

[spat]

Yes. As long as they can be reassembled without whatever fixed magazine they have.

If they cannot be reassembled, they aren't operable and the law doesn't apply.

You actually appear to have a self consistent view on the topic. I was not expecting that.

I think we will just have to disagree. I think there are at least some semiautomatic rifles that are still legal in NY. I believe most people would agree with me on that point.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You actually appear to have a self consistent view on the topic. I was not expecting that.

I think we will just have to disagree. I think there are at least some semiautomatic rifles that are still legal in NY. I believe most people would agree with me on that point.

Except they aren't on paper but accepted because it wasn't the original intent to ban them inadvertently with a poorly written law.

Most people will agree because they don't read the law. And they cannot fathom how it could be illegal. Some just want them to be legal. They'll say things like, "If it wasn't legal, the gun shop wouldn't sell them. " Or they'll say things like, " No cop is ever going to arrest someone for having an SKS." Or they'll say that the hotline or their cousin who is a state trooper said otherwise.

Like I said, I would get one and fix it if I wanted to and ignore the law just like everyone else. I had an SKS actually and did just that when I bullpupped it.

 

[Podmonkey]

Manually linking ammo like that is the biggest PITA. If you can afford a machinegun and the ammo to feed ot you can afford a linking machine.

 

[Uzi]

Sorry. Ability and capability are synonyms. Ever dictionary says so. They are interchangeable.

But if you want to make the definitions work for you, have at it.

I'm not in the least bit concerned about this anymore, I don't need to have anything work for me. A judge will rule whatever he or she wants to, even if it's right or wrong. They will interpret it however they see fit when the time comes.

What matters is how it's written. They choose to use a word with a different meaning as capability, which is what you want it to mean as you describe it, but it doesn't. I can use claimed not so accurate synonyms found wherever all day and many of them would still be incorrect to use, and others may be used in a different context in place of another, but that is why we use specific words and structure in the first place. If you want to stay persistent, you should be as technically accurate as possible, instead you ignore important aspects contrary to your beliefs. If you use the words interchangeably, you may find yourself being incorrect often.

Here's something most of us can relate to; An infant child a few days after birth is not able to walk, but as a healthy baby they're capable of walking eventually. So what we know for certainty is that the baby does not yet have that ability. You would not say the baby has the ability to walk, would you? If you told your friends and family your baby can walk two days after they're born, they would be amazed and truly astonished. "Wow the baby that young can perform that task?" I wasn't born with the ability to walk, speak english, or type on a keyboard, but I was always capable of it. If I told you I already had the ability to do those tasks two days after I was born, you'd probably think I was not being truthful right?

Now apply that simple logic to a firearm. A rifle when built doesn't have any abilities to perform a task unless they're made possible correct? Until that point it's only capable with the right type of configuration and qualities. That's why I mentioned features, not to quote any law like you wanted to shift it, but because just like an adjustable stock for an example has the ability to be moved, it does NOT when it's fixed, it loses any ability. Could not be any simpler than what I have described. Not my opinion, not my interpretation, just actual fact of the matter. I didn't tell them to structure the law the way they did, I had nothing to do with it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Whatever mental gymnastics you want to use for the word ability to work for you is fine with me. I'm just pointing out with the law actually says. Since the word ability isn't defined and fixed magazine isn't defined, it's all up to the interpretation of the arresting officer and judge and jury.

One could say that a magazine inserted into a rifle with a regular mag catch that's just a button to release it doesn't have the ability to accept another one unless the button is pressed. The same could be said by one with a standard bullet button which is just a smaller button and the same could be said by a T-nut.

It's all up the court system.

 

[joshy_quest]

Dds mag lock is different than a bullet button, and is built like a backwards mag catch. Drilling out the epoxy isn't going to work because you would still have epoxy in the Allen screw head that you wouldn't be able to get out. Trying to do it that way, you would have to drill straight through the bolt to the other side of receiver.

The best way to get that lock off is on the opposite side where the Allen bolt screws into the catch. It's only a few threads there and will come off easy.
View attachment 45630

For anybody else that is going to use a dds lock- if you are going to epoxy in the hole it is best to fill it with sponge first, then epoxy the last bit. Now with the smack of a hammer and punch the epoxy and sponge will come out and mag lock can be removed normally.

i know i am late to this, but what is your method for removing the Allen bolt screw thats screwed into the catch? i'm trying to figure it out but very unsuccessful.

 

[PutnamCharlie]

You can try a reverse drill bit if it's epoxied.

 

[Tisto]

Carefully drill out the epoxy with a drill bit the same size as the cavity until you reach thebolt inside. I happen to have a DD's fixed mag kit here and I measured it as .247". A 1/4" bit would be fine. Once you remove the epoxy to the head of the bolt, switch to a smaller bit that will fit inside the pocket for the Allen wrench without cutting into it. Run that to the bottom. Then get the appropriate e-z out and remove the bolt. Years ago, Sears sold a product called Grab-It. It was a set of e-z outs made to grip and remove screws with damaged Phillips or Roberts type drives. That would work perfectly if you can find one. They are very much like an original e-z out except that they come with reverse drill bits and are tapered to grip the inside of the fastener. Take it slowly and I think you'll do fine. I'm pretty sure that Dean isn't using military or spacecraft grade epoxy in those.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

You may find it comes out easier than expected. If they didn't bother to clean the surface of the metal button then the epoxy may not have bonded well.
A few years back I epoxied under and over the tabs that hold the base plate of a gi 30rd mag after installing a round limiter. I didn't bother cleaning the metal surface. Once I moved, I easily cut into the glue with a knife and pulled off the base plates to liberate the mag.

 

[cgrutt]

Old thread but cured epoxy can be sanded, dissolved with certain solvents (eg, mineral spirits with denatured alcohol or ethanol), or melted with a heat gun or torch. Where there's a will there's a way and all that...

 

[Robin]

Drill down to the top of the allen head, heat the wrench red hot and jamb it into the allen socket fill the hole with acetone to soften any residual epoxy, give three hail Mary's, five FUAC's and give that butch the heave ho!
Robin

 

[togmaster]

Drill down to the top of the allen head, heat the wrench red hot and jamb it into the allen socket fill the hole with acetone to soften any residual epoxy, give three hail Mary's, five FUAC's and give that butch the heave ho!
Robin

Wrong. It's six FUAC's.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Is it even "official" it needed to be epoxied in the first place?

 

[Robin]

Kinda sorta.
Robin