What is the legal consensus on the juggernaut hellfighter kit in NY?

[Marine Cpl]

Again, my car has the ABILITY to fly, if I change the way it is and add things to it. Can a person pick up a regular rifle and drop the mag and re-insert it under normal operating circumstances? If so then it has the ability to accept a detachable mag. Now can that person pick up a fixed mag rifle drop the mag and re-insert it under normal operating circumstances? Nope. You need to modify the rifle to do so. The law doesn't say the rifle must be IMPOSSIBLE to alter by the use of all tools and resources. It just says it can't accept. My mag is fixed. Try jamming another mag in there. It's not gonna work.

There is no law that says that your car shall not have the ability to fly. There is one however about rifles having the ability to accept a magazine that detaches. So I do not understand your point.

And the law also doesn’t say if it can readily accept another magazine. Only if it has the ability to do so.

 

[squib]

problem solved buy an "Other"

 

[Chevusa]

There is no law that says that your car shall not have the ability to fly. There is one however about rifles having the ability to accept a magazine that detaches. So I do not understand your point.

And the law also doesn’t say if it can readily accept another magazine. Only if it has the ability to do so.

The point is if you take everything to the extreme, than nothing shall apply to anything. The intent of the law is to stop quick reloads. If the mag does not release as the rifle was designed, then it is a fixed mag. It no longer can accept a mag. Your ability to insert a mag is gone. Now if you take things to the extreme and want to act silly online, then yes you can take apart my rifle with your tools and change the way it was built which made it comply with the law. While you are at it you can change it to full auto, and shorten the barrel to an illegal length. The choice is yours. You are the one taking something legal and making it illegal with your modifications.

 

[Chevusa]

Stand in a court room in front of a jury. I will then ask you to hold out your hands. In your right hand I will place my fixed mag rifle. In your left hand I will place a standard 10 round mag. I will then ask you to show the jury the rifle accepting the mag I placed in your hand. You will look foolish and that will be the end of it.

 

[RoyP]

I'm sure the dems didn't put THAT MUCH thought into the definition of the would "ability" when the law was written.

 

[Marine Cpl]

My point is that in a court of law, the law has to be taken literal. What’s practiced in the field is another matter entirely. Here’s an example. The gravity knife law never intended to include locking folders. But taken literally, it did. For years it was never an issue. Then NYC decided to make it an issue just because knowing that it was intended to only apply to parachuter gravity knives. They arrested thousands for it until a court told them to stop.

The same can happen with the fixed mag. That’s my point.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'm sure the dems didn't put THAT MUCH thought into the definition of the would "ability" when the law was written.

Correct.

 

[Chevusa]

I'm sure the dems didn't put THAT MUCH thought into the definition of the would "ability" when the law was written.

Exactly. A person either can or cannot insert the magazine. When you say "hold on I'll be right back" then run out of the room and return with a toolbox, any reasonable person is going to have a problem with that. Again, the law makes no mention of making a rifle impossible to illegally modify with the use of unlimited resources, tools, and time. It is what it is.

 

[Chevusa]

My point is that in a court of law, the law has to be taken literal

So take it literal. Can you insert your mag into my fixed mag rifle? Nope. Push harder.. Nope. Push as hard as you can... Nope. Case dismissed.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Stand in a court room in front of a jury. I will then ask you to hold out your hands. In your right hand I will place my fixed mag rifle. In your left hand I will place a standard 10 round mag. I will then ask you to show the jury the rifle accepting the mag I placed in your hand. You will look foolish and that will be the end of it.

That’s not how it would work in court. An ADA would bring in a firearms expert that will tell jury that this rifle can accept another one with a tool. The ADA will then tell the jury that they can only go by what the law says and not to inject their personal feelings into it.

 

[Chevusa]

That’s not how it would work in court. An ADA would bring in a firearms expert that will tell jury that this rifle can accept another one with a tool. The ADA will then tell the jury that they can only go by what the law says and not to inject their personal feelings into it.

I disagree. No different that saying a legal rifle could be made into a full auto with a tool. We're not playing the "could be" game in court. We are dealing with what "is".

Also in my case, after you got your tools and took apart my rifle it would still not accept your mag. You would then have to tell the jury to go on lunch break because you need to go to the firearms store for a part. You would need to pick up a catch spring and install extra parts into my rifle. This isn't looking good for the prosecutor.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I disagree. No different that saying a legal rifle could be made into a full auto with a tool. We're not playing the "could be" game in court. We are dealing with what "is".

Also in my case, after you got your tools and took apart my rifle it would still not accept your mag. You would then have to tell the jury to go on lunch break because you need to go to the firearms store for a part. You would need to pick up a catch spring and install extra parts into my rifle. This isn't looking good for the prosecutor.

The law doesn’t say a Semi Auto rifle with the ability to be full auto.

 

[Chevusa]

The law doesn’t say a Semi Auto rifle with the ability to be full auto.

That's because all full autos are illegal. But every semi-auto has the ability to be full auto if you take your tools are start messing with my legal rifle. It's one or the other. Full auto OR semi-auto. Fixed mag OR accepts detachable mag. You get the point, and I think you're being silly, but even if you don't, any reasonable person understands that many things can be made illegal if you modify them. It doesn't mean my configuration is illegal. Keep your hands off it and your tool box put away and everything will be just fine!

 

[Marine Cpl]

That's because all full autos are illegal. But every semi-auto has the ability to be full auto if you take your tools are start messing with my legal rifle. It's one or the other. Full auto OR semi-auto. Fixed mag OR accepts detachable mag. You get the point, and I think you're being silly, but even if you don't, any reasonable person understands that many things can be made illegal if you modify them. It doesn't mean my configuration is illegal. Keep your hands off it and your tool box put away and everything will be just fine!

No that’s not why. It’s because you either have a rifle that isn’t fully automatic or is. There is no law that says having the ABILITY to shoot fully automatic. Just like there is no law that says having the ability to except a pistol grip. It either has one or doesn’t.

If the law says it has the ability to except a pistol grip then or rifles would be illegal.

 

[Chevusa]

No that’s not why. It’s because you either have a rifle that isn’t fully automatic or is. There is no law that says having the ABILITY to shoot fully automatic. Just like there is no law that says having the ability to except a pistol grip. It either has one or doesn’t.

If the law says it has the ability to except a pistol grip then or rifles would be illegal.

One or the other. Fixed mag or has the ability to accept a detachable mag. By your logic every rifle is illegal because even if it was built with a one piece lower and magazine, I could use a cutting torch, remove the mag, use special tools to manufacture and install a mag catch, release, spring, button... You are being silly about it. Yes, given enough time, money, and skill a person can make every rifle have the ABILITY to accept a magazine. No reasonable person in a courtroom, nor here are buying your argument. You know the intent of the law and a fixed mag satisfies that intent. The evidence is not on your side. They are sold every day by licensed firearms dealers all over the state. That's all the proof a reasonable person needs.

The only reason I've continued to engage you in this silliness is because I'm sitting here killing time while being paid $33/hr. I will not respond to you further on this subject, because your argument doesn't warrant it.

 

[Uzi]

Nope. My argument says that it has the ability to. Even if a bolt is placed through the magazine release. It’s still has the ability to.

I mean you're certainly entitled to as many opinions as you wish but,

Ability would describe the firearm's operational functionality that it actually possesses. That is what the word would imply within definition. Even if some idiot judge took your misunderstood opinion and ruled fixed firearms illegal tomorrow, it still doesn't change the true definition of the word.

It also doesn't change the differentiation of an ability to perform an action, to also include hypothetical alterations down the line to enable another function. We would call that a capability, which would be almost impossible to write into a law correctly and enforce. Just because one is more easily altered also doesn't validate your interpretation.

The government banned production of new open bolt guns for civilians for an example because they had an easier capability to modify into full auto's. They never had the ability from the get go to shoot full auto, as they were still semi auto's. Get it yet? This difference is important to understand because there is a major difference. What matters is the functional ability. Can your gun shoot full auto? Nope? Well okay it's not a full auto then. When there is no button available to press to eject a magazine and it's fixed, it does not have the ability to accept detachable magazines at that point.

 

[Chevusa]

I mean you're certainly entitled to as many opinions as you wish but,

Ability would describe the firearm's operational functionality that it actually possesses. That is what the word would imply within definition. Even if some idiot judge took your misunderstood opinion and ruled fixed firearms illegal tomorrow, it still doesn't change the true definition of the word.

It also doesn't change the differentiation of an ability to perform an action, to also include hypothetical alterations down the line to enable another function. We would call that a capability, which would be almost impossible to write into a law correctly and enforce. Just because one is more easily altered also doesn't validate your interpretation.

The government banned production of new open bolt guns for civilians for an example because they had an easier capability to modify into full auto's. They never had the ability from the get go to shoot full auto, as they were still semi auto's. Get it yet? This difference is important to understand because there is a major difference. What matters is the functional ability. Can your gun shoot full auto? Nope? Well okay it's not a full auto then. When there is no button available to press to eject a magazine and it's fixed, it does not have the ability to accept detachable magazines at that point.

Please do not muddy up this thread with reasonable thought, logic and comprehension.

 

[Marine Cpl]

One or the other. Fixed mag or has the ability to accept a detachable mag. By your logic every rifle is illegal because even if it was built with a one piece lower and magazine, I could use a cutting torch, remove the mag, use special tools to manufacture and install a mag catch, release, spring, button... You are being silly about it. Yes, given enough time, money, and skill a person can make every rifle have the ABILITY to accept a magazine. No reasonable person in a courtroom, nor here are buying your argument. You know the intent of the law and a fixed mag satisfies that intent. The evidence is not on your side. They are sold every day by licensed firearms dealers all over the state. That's all the proof a reasonable person needs.

The only reason I've continued to engage you in this silliness is because I'm sitting here killing time while being paid $33/hr. I will not respond to you further on this subject, because your argument doesn't warrant it.

Not every rifle. Only the ones that are semi auto with one banned feature and the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

An AR or Mini 14 with no features. Good to go. An AR or Mini 14 with one feature and the ability to accept another magazine that is detachable... Not good to go. It’s really simple.

And I’m at work too. I get paid almost 40 for 2 hours of work. The rest is sitting around. That’s why I’m on here.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I mean you're certainly entitled to as many opinions as you wish but,

Ability would describe the firearm's operational functionality that it actually possesses. That is what the word would imply within definition. Even if some idiot judge took your misunderstood opinion and ruled fixed firearms illegal tomorrow, it still doesn't change the true definition of the word.

It also doesn't change the differentiation of an ability to perform an action, to also include hypothetical alterations down the line to enable another function. We would call that a capability, which would be almost impossible to write into a law correctly and enforce. Just because one is more easily altered also doesn't validate your interpretation.

The government banned production of new open bolt guns for civilians for an example because they had an easier capability to modify into full auto's. They never had the ability from the get go to shoot full auto, as they were still semi auto's. Get it yet? This difference is important to understand because there is a major difference. What matters is the functional ability. Can your gun shoot full auto? Nope? Well okay it's not a full auto then. When there is no button available to press to eject a magazine and it's fixed, it does not have the ability to accept detachable magazines at that point.

No. I don’t think you’re getting it. A weapon is either fully auto or not. Ability does not come into play because it’s not written in the law. A rifle has a pistol grip or it doesn’t. Ability to add one does not come into play because it is not written in the law that way.

Ability to except a detachable magazine is however listed in the law. That’s the big difference. And like I said, “ Whether it’s enforce now or later or not all like a number of poorly written laws out there that are ignored is a matter entirely different.”

I’m just telling you what the law says to the letter and what it now means due to the unintended consequence of striking the definition of what is a fixed magazine from the original draft to prevent usage of the bullet button like in California. The original was an exact copy of California‘a wording. It will not be enforced but it can be.

What you are doing is trying to make sense of a poorly written law with logic for your own use. You cannot do that. There is no logic to a poorly written law that the lawmakers failed to see. Just like when they failed to exempt police officers. They ignored that part. This is the same thing. They will continue to ignore it because it was never their intention to make all fixed magazine rifles with one feature illegal. But in the future they may due to the wording. Kind of like when they did that with gravity knives. That skewing was used a generation later.

You are a smart dude. Probably the smartest dude here. By a long shot. You know what ability means. You know that it is only used in just one part of the law relating to the acceptance of a magazine only. But for some reason you fight tooth and nail and try to skew what is written in plain English and try to use the word ability for other features or actions that have no such word in their definitions.

 

[Jem45472]

problem solved buy an "Other"

Oh brother.

 

[meketrefe]

two words come to mind... use less

 

[spat]

No that’s not why. It’s because you either have a rifle that isn’t fully automatic or is. There is no law that says having the ABILITY to shoot fully automatic. Just like there is no law that says having the ability to except a pistol grip. It either has one or doesn’t.

If the law says it has the ability to except a pistol grip then or rifles would be illegal.

Actually the law says anything that can be converted to full auto is full auto.

That's why many open bolt semi autos are illegal.

That's why an AR with the extra hole in the receiver is illegal even if none of the associated parts are present.

 

[spat]

No. I don’t think you’re getting it. A weapon is either fully auto or not. Ability does not come into play because it’s not written in the law. A rifle has a pistol grip or it doesn’t. Ability to add one does not come into play because it is not written in the law that way.

Ability to except a detachable magazine is however listed in the law. That’s the big difference. And like I said, “ Whether it’s enforce now or later or not all like a number of poorly written laws out there that are ignored is a matter entirely different.”

I’m just telling you what the law says to the letter and what it now means due to the unintended consequence of striking the definition of what is a fixed magazine from the original draft to prevent usage of the bullet button like in California. The original was an exact copy of California‘a wording. It will not be enforced but it can be.

What you are doing is trying to make sense of a poorly written law with logic for your own use. You cannot do that. There is no logic to a poorly written law that the lawmakers failed to see. Just like when they failed to exempt police officers. They ignored that part. This is the same thing. They will continue to ignore it because it was never their intention to make all fixed magazine rifles with one feature illegal. But in the future they may due to the wording. Kind of like when they did that with gravity knives. That skewing was used a generation later.

You are a smart dude. Probably the smartest dude here. By a long shot. You know what ability means. You know that it is only used in just one part of the law relating to the acceptance of a magazine only. But for some reason you fight tooth and nail and try to skew what is written in plain English and try to use the word ability for other features or actions that have no such word in their definitions.

We all understand the law. We understand what the word ability means. You apparently do not.

Ability means what something is capable of doing right now, not what it can be converted into with unlimited resources.

I do not have the ability to run a 4 minute mile. Just because I could theoretically spend the next few years in intensive training and maybe eventually manage it does not mean I currently have that ability.

 

[Marine Cpl]

We all understand the law. We understand what the word ability means. You apparently do not.

Ability means what something is capable of doing right now, not what it can be converted into with unlimited resources.

I do not have the ability to run a 4 minute mile. Just because I could theoretically spend the next few years in intensive training and maybe eventually manage it does not mean I currently have that ability.

Care to quote the definition in the penal law. I cannot seem to find it.

Answer me this.

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a standard magazine release that only takes the press of a button to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a standard bullet button which works exactly like a standard magazine release that only takes the press of a button with a skinny point to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a bolt through the magazine release that only takes a few turns of a wrench to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with an MR2/ ARMaglock that only takes a pull of the rear pin and a press of a button to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with an FC Hook with a detachable magazine inserted that only takes a push of a button and a turn off the FC Hook to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a Prince 50 with a magazine inserted that only takes a few turns of a screw on the button itself and the push of a button to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Answer each honestly please. Please don’t say yes only for your purposes. The first question is obviously a default yes.

 

[spat]

Care to quote the definition in the penal law. I cannot seem to find it.

Answer me this.

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a standard magazine release that only takes the press of a button to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a standard bullet button which works exactly like a standard magazine release that only takes the press of a button with a skinny point to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a bolt through the magazine release that only takes a few turns of a wrench to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with an MR2/ ARMaglock that only takes a pull of the rear pin and a press of a button to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with an FC Hook with a detachable magazine inserted that only takes a push of a button and a turn off the FC Hook to release the magazine have the ability to accept another magazine?

Answer each honestly please.

You can't find a definition of "ability" in the penal law that supports your dubious position and somehow that's my problem ?

As for what constitutes "ability" in the real world, it's simple. Can a regular FFL (not a licensed gunsmith) swap that magazine legally ? It comes down to is this "operating" the weapon, or modifying it.

A normal mag release is normal operation.

Most of the others you mention probanly are as well, but the law is vague, so it probably depends more on how much lawyer you can afford than anything you'll find printed in any law book.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Nowhere in the law does it say normal operation to release a magazine. Nowhere. It was going to by default if the original definition saying that a fixed magazine is a magazine that requires the use of a tool to release it but it never made the final draft so where does that leave what is left as far as what is actually written?

You cannot use wants and hopes. You can only go by what is written. And because the whole use of tools thing was struck from the law is the whole reason why officials giving an opinion say that it should be semi permanent and even that doesn’t totally satisfy what is actually written but no one will fuck with you if they cannot release it easily.

That’s my point. I’m not using wants or needs to inject into it when I’m reading the words. I’m only going by what the words actually 100 percent say.

 

[spat]

Nowhere in the law does it say normal operation to release a magazine. Nowhere. It was going to by default if the original definition saying that a fixed magazine is a magazine that requires the use of a tool to release it but it never made the final draft so where does that leave what is left as far as what is actually written?

You cannot use wants and hopes. You can only go by what is written. And because the whole use of tools thing was struck from the law is the whole reason why officials giving an opinion say that it should be semi permanent and even that doesn’t totally satisfy what is actually written but no one will fuck with you if they cannot release it easily.

That’s my point. I’m not using wants or needs to inject into it when I’m reading the words. I’m only going by what the words actually 100 percent say.

No you're not.

None of the words say that anything that can be converted to accept a magazine is illegal. Only things that can *currently* accept a magazine.

You are the one who is making things up that plainly don't exist in this law.

 

[Jem45472]

Care to quote the definition in the penal law. I cannot seem to find it.

Answer me this.

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a standard magazine release that only takes the press of a button to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a standard bullet button which works exactly like a standard magazine release that only takes the press of a button with a skinny point to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with a bolt through the magazine release that only takes a few turns of a wrench to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a magazine inserted with an MR2/ ARMaglock that only takes a pull of the rear pin and a press of a button to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with an FC Hook with a detachable magazine inserted that only takes a push of a button and a turn off the FC Hook to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Does a rifle with a Prince 50 with a magazine inserted that only takes a few turns of a screw on the button itself and the push of a button to release the magazine have the ability to accept another detachable magazine?

Answer each honestly please. Please don’t say yes only for your purposes. The first question is obviously a default yes.

I answered one of these earlier.

With a regular magazine lock, the catch needs to be completely removed to remove a magazine. After removal, it can't accept a detachable magazine because there is no mag catch. Before you say a mag will still go in there with no catch- to be considered a detachable magazine it must first be considered attachable right? A magazine is not attachable with no mag catch. Insert mag, hold it there and put the lock back on to hold it.

At no point does it have the ability to accept a "detachable" magazine unless I put a standard mag catch and spring back in.

That's the way I see it, and the way most people see it, other than Cuomo's storm troopers.

 

[Marine Cpl]

No you're not.

None of the words say that anything that can be converted to accept a magazine is illegal. Only things that can *currently* accept a magazine.

You are the one who is making things up that plainly don't exist in this law.

Huh? Not following. Unless you mean a standard rifle with a magazine in it cannot accept a detachable magazine. It can once removed. There is no level on the removal process required to be able to accept another one. That was removed from the final draft that was passed into law.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I answered one of these earlier.

With a regular magazine lock, the catch needs to be completely removed to remove a magazine. After removal, it can't accept a detachable magazine because there is no mag catch. Before you say a mag will still go in there with no catch- to be considered a detachable magazine it must first be considered attachable right? A magazine is not attachable with no mag catch. Insert mag, hold it there and put the lock back on to hold it.

At no point does it have the ability to accept a "detachable" magazine unless I put a standard mag catch and spring back in.

That's the way I see it, and the way most people see it, other than Cuomo's storm troopers.

Does a player cup with a tiny hole in it accept water even though it doesn’t hold it in? Does a wire accept electricity even though it does not hold the electricity in it? Can an air intake accept air even though it does not hold the air in it? Nowhere anywhere with anything is there a requirement that in order to accept something, whatever is accepting it has to hold it in place.