The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 26, 2009, 04:06 PM   #1
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Is A preban (1993) Colt AR Legal in NY?

So that it can be transferred in?

I forgot

WildjustgrabbedoneAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old March 26, 2009, 04:12 PM   #2
Budzboy
Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2008
Posts: 20
"It shall be unlawful to possess any "assault weapon" or a "large capacity ammunition feeding device". So called "assault weapons" lawfully possessed prior to September 14, 1994 and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" manufactured prior to such date are grandfathered."
Budzboy is offline  
Old March 26, 2009, 08:54 PM   #3
armedtotheteeth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2005
Location: podunk, Texas
Posts: 1,610
Hmmmm, Advice from a junior member with 1/1000th the posts of the senior member....Priceless
Whats up KEN!!!??
__________________
a well placed 22 bullet will out perform a poorly placed 50 BMg anyday. , Not really HA!!
armedtotheteeth is offline  
Old March 26, 2009, 09:23 PM   #4
Erik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: America
Posts: 3,479
Nobody knows everything, all the time.

Does "lawfully possessed" mean "lawfully possessed in New York?"
__________________
Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective
Erik is offline  
Old March 26, 2009, 10:17 PM   #5
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Whats up KEN!!!??
Three Pallets of ammo and laziness

WildijustcantdoitallijustcantAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old March 26, 2009, 11:23 PM   #6
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
"It shall be unlawful to possess any "assault weapon" or a "large capacity ammunition feeding device". So called "assault weapons" lawfully possessed prior to September 14, 1994 and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" manufactured prior to such date are grandfathered."
Assumption: this is the controlling language in NY statutes.

Note that the law speaks to the manufacture date of magazines, not to the manufacture date of the so-called "assault weapon". Rather, it speaks to the possession of the weapon. At this point, it's a sticky wicket, because it doesn't specify that the person who lawfully possessed the firearm prior to September 14, 1994 is the current possessor of the firearm, nor that the firearm was possessed in the state of New York prior to September 14, 1994.
csmsss is offline  
Old March 27, 2009, 06:43 AM   #7
armedtotheteeth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2005
Location: podunk, Texas
Posts: 1,610
Heck , I didnt know the answer either Alaska, But , it seemed like an easy jab.
"3 pallets of ammo and laziness"
thats a start, you got a few beers?
__________________
a well placed 22 bullet will out perform a poorly placed 50 BMg anyday. , Not really HA!!
armedtotheteeth is offline  
Old March 27, 2009, 06:49 AM   #8
Dingoboyx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2009
Location: South East Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,513
Just a poor dumb Aussie here...

What does "grandfathered" mean? Is it allowed or not?

Muzza
__________________
Muzza
If you cant blind them with brilliance, Baffle them with BS
Be alert...... there is a shortage of LERTs
Dingoboyx is offline  
Old March 27, 2009, 01:21 PM   #9
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
What does "grandfathered" mean? Is it allowed or not?
It would be allowed if the person owned it before the ban, but you wouldn't be able to go out and buy a new one.
chemgirlie is offline  
Old March 27, 2009, 02:35 PM   #10
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
It would be allowed if the person owned it before the ban, but you wouldn't be able to go out and buy a new one.
Yes - but the essential question is whether a firearm lawfully possessed before the "ban" date could be lawfully transferred to and possessed by another person after the ban date.
csmsss is offline  
Old March 27, 2009, 02:48 PM   #11
CatskillDraht
Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2009
Location: Catskill Mtns, NY
Posts: 22
I've seen that language before, but then why do most of the sporting goods stores in the state, including gander mountain, sell them ( the rifles, not the mags ) including the new remington r-15? Thats certainly capable of using a large capacity magazine. The NY guns shows usually have plenty of them too (not now, but thats a different story).
__________________
"I think we have more machinery of government than is neccesary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious" Thomas Jefferson 1802
CatskillDraht is offline  
Old March 27, 2009, 04:09 PM   #12
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
I've seen that language before, but then why do most of the sporting goods stores in the state, including gander mountain, sell them
From my understanding NY's AWB is very similar to the expired federal AWB. It doesn't ban the sale of AR15's it bans the sale of Ar15's with certain features.

Do any of these AR15's you see for sale possess, in addition to the pistol grip, any of the following:

1. Collapsible Stock

2. Bayonet Lug

3. Flash Suppresor

4. Grenade Launcher

From my understanding of NY law If they do not they are legal to sell.

The expired federal ban prohibited Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Bayonet mount

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 27, 2009, 06:16 PM   #13
CatskillDraht
Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2009
Location: Catskill Mtns, NY
Posts: 22
thats a great point, i wasn't thinking about it that way. so then i guess post ban ar's are legal to transfer, but pre-bans may not be, depending on circumstances? thnx
__________________
"I think we have more machinery of government than is neccesary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious" Thomas Jefferson 1802
CatskillDraht is offline  
Old March 27, 2009, 08:19 PM   #14
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,110
out of state grandfather? Not likely.

New Yorks law is current, it did not expire, so anything meeting the restrictive criteria in the law is still banned.

True, the law does not specificly say possesed in New York State, or possessed by a NYS resident, but since NY laws do not apply to people who are not NYS residents or physically in New York, I think the most likely interpretation would be that if the gun was not legally in NY when the law took effect, it cannot be brought in. Isn't that also the way California sees it?

You could argue the other way, after all, the law does not specifically state where the weapon had to be posessed on the effective date. But I for one would not want to be the test case. I have a pretty good idea which way most of the NY judges would rule on that one. And I don't think risking my gun rights just to be able own an AR with banned features in NY is worth it. Because, in the long run, if you did bring the gun in, and after all the appeals were finally said and done, if they went against you, that's what would happen.

You may, if you can afford it, bring a suit of some kind to get a ruling on this before you bring in the (potentially) banned weapon, so no actual crime is committed. Just be properly prepared for all possible outcomes. Possibilities include
A) rule in your favor (yay!!!) bring in as many as you can before the legislators amend the "horrible loophole" in the law!
B) rule against you. Sorry, no can have gun with evil features in the good state of NY. Case dismissed
B.1) rule against you, and charges brought against you for conspiracy to violate NY assault weapon law (not likely, but lots of unlikely legal things happen in NY)

bottom line, as I see it, if you have a rifle with the banned features, and cannot proove you had it in NY before the law took effect, be prepared to have your day in court. Good Luck.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09141 seconds with 9 queries