The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 22, 2011, 11:06 PM   #26
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
This is the applicable law:

S 10. Section 265.00 of the penal law is amended by adding three new subdivisions 21, 22 and 23 to read as follows: 21. "SEMIAUTOMATIC" MEANS ANY REPEATING RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR PISTOL, REGARDLESS OF BARREL OR OVERALL LENGTH, WHICH UTILIZES A PORTION OF THE ENERGY OF A FIRING CARTRIDGE OR SHELL TO EXTRACT THE FIRED CARTRIDGE CASE OR SPENT SHELL AND CHAMBER THE NEXT ROUND, AND WHICH REQUIRES A SEPARATE PULL OF THE TRIGGER TO FIRE EACH CARTRIDGE OR SHELL. 22. "ASSAULT WEAPON" MEANS (A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
(III) A BAYONET MOUNT;
(IV) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR;
(V) A GRENADE LAUNCHER; OR
(B) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
(III) A FIXED MAGAZINE CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF FIVE ROUNDS;
(IV) AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE; OR
(C) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) AN AMMUNITION MAGAZINE THAT ATTACHES TO THE PISTOL OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;
(II) A THREADED BARREL CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A BARREL EXTENDER, FLASH SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;
(III) A SHROUD THAT IS ATTACHED TO, OR PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIRCLES, THE BARREL AND THAT PERMITS THE SHOOTER TO HOLD THE FIREARM WITH THE NONTRIGGER HAND WITHOUT BEING BURNED;
(IV) A MANUFACTURED WEIGHT OF FIFTY OUNCES OR MORE WHEN THE PISTOL IS UNLOADED;
(V) A SEMIAUTOMATIC VERSION OF AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR FIREARM; OR
(D) ANY OF THE WEAPONS, OR FUNCTIONING FRAMES OR RECEIVERS OF SUCH WEAPONS, OR COPIES OR DUPLICATES OF SUCH WEAPONS, IN ANY CALIBER, KNOWN AS:
(I) NORINCO, MITCHELL, AND POLY TECHNOLOGIES AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOVS (ALL MODELS);
(II) ACTION ARMS ISRAELI MILITARY INDUSTRIES UZI AND GALIL;
(III) BERETTA AR70 (SC-70);
(IV) COLT AR-15;
(V) FABRIQUE NATIONAL FN/FAL, FN/LAR, AND FNC;
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 22, 2011, 11:42 PM   #27
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
I sit corrected.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 22, 2011, 11:51 PM   #28
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
And that's the crux of the matter. When is a telescoping (collapsible) stock not a telescoping stock?

Answer (until now): When the stock is pinned and cannot readably be made to telescope.

DA Rice is going to try and get the Courts to say that having a pin makes it readably convertible.

That's giving Rice the benefit of the doubt and it has nothing to do with this. Plausible deniability.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 22, 2011, 11:59 PM   #29
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
It will never happen but the U.S. Justice Department ought to conduct a criminal investigation for civil rights violations.
KyJim is offline  
Old February 23, 2011, 01:28 AM   #30
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
i had a gun store on long island tel me today that they wouldnt do a transfer after what happened in Nassau County.
heyjoe is offline  
Old February 23, 2011, 11:41 PM   #31
SVO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 728
What's the reasoning behind the "(IV) A MANUFACTURED WEIGHT OF FIFTY OUNCES OR MORE WHEN THE PISTOL IS UNLOADED;"

Anyway, this is probably going to be expensive.
SVO is offline  
Old February 24, 2011, 11:08 AM   #32
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Quote:
What's the reasoning behind the "(IV) A MANUFACTURED WEIGHT OF FIFTY OUNCES OR MORE WHEN THE PISTOL IS UNLOADED;"
It was likely intended to ban one particular firearm. I don't know for sure. There's no RATIONAL reason for any of it, but there's some one's (or some party's) personal vendetta as a REASON for most of it.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 24, 2011, 11:18 AM   #33
KChen986
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
After reading the potential behind the scenes issues, I hope justice is served. In fact, maybe if we're lucky, there will blow back.
__________________
E Pluribus Unum
KChen986 is offline  
Old February 24, 2011, 09:32 PM   #34
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
If the linked blog contains the truth (which the lawsuit will determine) then this clearly appears to be the tyranny of a petty individual in a position of bureaucratic and law enforcement power. A sadly familiar situation, although this example is more extreme than most.


As to the assault weapon law, rumor has it that when they were selecting criteria for the banned features, they got a copy of the Shooter's Bible (some say with the Shotgun News) and picked out the guns that looked "evil" and compiled the ban features to include as many of them as possible.

As to the current charges, it will boil down to the court (always the best determiner of technical issues) to rule if the pinned stocks are in compliance with the law, in both fact and spirit.

In other words, how "readily comvertable" can something be, and still be in legal compliance. There is nothing you can do to a firearm that still leaves it functional that cannont be "undone" if you are prepared to do enough work, and it can all be done with hand tools, if you are dilligent enough.

The tape of the undercover agents being told what they were arsking about was against the law, and so on, seems pretty good evidence in favor of the defense, that the dealer was following the letter of the law. Wonder if it will make it into court?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 24, 2011, 11:35 PM   #35
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
As to the current charges, it will boil down to the court (always the best determiner of technical issues) to rule if the pinned stocks are in compliance with the law, in both fact and spirit.

In other words, how "readily comvertable" can something be, and still be in legal compliance. There is nothing you can do to a firearm that still leaves it functional that cannont be "undone" if you are prepared to do enough work, and it can all be done with hand tools, if you are dilligent enough.
But the law says nothing about whether or not stocks can't be "readily convertible." It simply says they cannot be telescoping or folding. A stock with a rivet or pin driven through it (not a screw or a nut-and-bolt) is not a telescoping stock. It may not pass at the trial court level, but I feel resonably certain that, even in New York State, an appellate level court is going to be capable of reading what the law says and slapping down a DA who wants to extrapolate beyond what the law requires or prohibits.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 25, 2011, 12:35 AM   #36
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Read up on the Bullet Button, a CA concept to thwart the removable large capacity ammunition feeding device. Perfectly legal.

I suspect those CA cases will be cited in defense in these LI cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 25, 2011, 07:46 AM   #37
Bubsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2006
Posts: 191
Is there anything on the NRA's website about this situation. It is a serious matter and, in my opinion, the way it gets resolved will have an impact on our rights in the future and the NRA should be following it closely. At last check, however, I couldn't find anything on the NRA's website regarding this however. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place?
Bubsy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 04:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08733 seconds with 8 queries