The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 1, 2013, 08:51 PM   #1
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,350
Another SAFE Act Unintended Consequence-- Illegal to transport an AR15 with Ammo

A few hours ago, I got a phone call from Jim Tresmond, lead attorney in the Dywinski v. State Of New York suit.

He tells me that they have identified yet another unintended consequence in the "SAFE" Act...

Hopefully, Maxb49 will be along to fill in any details or errors in my reporting here.

Anyway, under the SAFE Act, AR15 rifles are now classified as "firearms" in NY State. This sounds obvious to any normal person, but the legal definition of a firearm in NY has never included ordinary long guns.

The problem that this creates is that it is illegal to transport a "loaded" firearm in a vehicle in NY State without a permit.

Here again, this may sound obvious, until we find that an appeals court has found that the definition of "loaded" includes POSSESSING a "quantity of ammunition sufficient to discharge the firearm.

Yes, you read that right. POSSESSING enough ammo to discharge the firearm. Not loaded in the chamber... not in the magazine... IN POSSESSION.

How much ammunition is a quantity sufficient to discharge the firearm? Yes, one round.

It is now illegal, in NY State, to transport an AR15 rifle and ammunition in the same vehicle.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; March 1, 2013 at 09:08 PM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 09:04 PM   #2
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
Color me shocked! Just kidding, the whole thing is a disaster. I really hope it gets taken to task.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 09:56 PM   #3
Southwest Chuck
Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2009
Location: A Calguns Interloper
Posts: 39
What makes him this this was "unintended" ?
Southwest Chuck is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 08:31 AM   #4
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
Another SAFE Act Unintended Consequence-- Illegal to transport an AR15 with Ammo

I can only speak of my hometown in Boston, but I do not think the vast majority of constituents are pro gun in a good many of these NOrtheast States. If I had to gauge if pit to a vote most gun control laws would be willingly accepted by a slight majority in and around Boston.
mayosligo is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 08:37 AM   #5
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,622
I would add a caveat to the above statement about the northeast and attitudes towards legal gun ownership, and carry. It is the metro areas, meaning inner cities AND suburbs that are against legal guns ownership, not the more rural areas. The problem is most of the population is in these areas and thus they control the rest of the state. New York, and Boston are prime examples. It is a problem that has spread all over the country. The attitudes, and beliefs of the metro area individuals taking over entire states that were once reasonable, free, and actually common sense about guns. (using their own language against them for a change)
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 08:58 AM   #6
RichC
Member
 
Join Date: April 30, 2009
Posts: 85
Regarding the comment about the Northeast. I'm from Massachusetts and have to live with insane laws.

Here's an example. When my son was 16 he applied for and received an FID card. He was required to take a full day NRA class to do so. With an FID license he can possess lo-cap long guns. So he could legally possess a shotgun, lo-cap rifle, and ammo.

But some consider the Ruger 10-22 a hi-cap weapon because magazines of >10 capacity are readily available. Many dealers require a Class A firearms license to buy a Ruger 10-22. Yet my son could legally possess my Remington 700p in .308, or even my Barrett .50 BMG. Oh, and in MA you need an FID card to possess pepper spray. That's right, we need a license for pepper spray.

Oh, one more thing... my son could possess the aforementioned firearms with his FID card. But he could not possess a pellet gun. In MA you need to be 18 or older to possess a pellet gun. His FID card is not valid for a pellet gun. He needed some sort of "Police Chief sporting license" that our chief of police never heard of.

Massachusetts is clearly the worst in New England. North of us sanity prevails, so far anyway. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are very gun friendly by comparison. Even RI and CT allow purchase of a handgun without a license. A license is needed for CCW.

In MA, a used brass cases falls under the definition of ammunition. And a firearms license is required to possess ammunition.

Does that help y'all understand the madness that is this liberal run state???
RichC is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 05:57 PM   #7
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Thank you Brian. Sadly, everything Brian said is true. Tresmond Law will be publishing soon a full list of the consequences this bill has on gun owners. Most of these consequences have not yet been realized by many people. This is a sad day in our State, and this goes beyond gun rights. It's bad enough that they attack people's right to own and purchase guns. The broader issue, which frankly is scary, is whether a state government has the ability to interfere with your life and criminalize your behavior without so much as giving you reasonable notice, your rights be damned. The issues here are so serious that we're going to be converting to a full time civil rights practice here in Western New York. We have to put an end to this. More to come. . .
Maxb49 is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 06:02 PM   #8
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,125
Quote:
It is now illegal, in NY State, to transport an AR15 rifle and ammunition in the same vehicle.
So has the state police taken the rifles out of all their patrol cars? (I know city cops won't obey the law, but state troopers are usually pretty by-the-book)
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is online now  
Old March 2, 2013, 07:04 PM   #9
mete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 5,283
The NYS Supreme Court is soon going to tell us what "arbitrary and capricious" is in the SAFE Act.
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver !
mete is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 08:04 PM   #10
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Quote:
The NYS Supreme Court is soon going to tell us what "arbitrary and capricious" is in the SAFE Act.
Yes. Frightening, and (legally) exciting times.

There are now three cases in NYS Supreme Court.

There Robert Schulz case out of Albany. That is returnable on, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) March 11th.

The Dywinskicase (Class Action) is underway in front of Hon. Diane Devlin in Erie County. The first appearance was on 2/21, returnable in April.

Then there is the Holtz case

Those two cases are being handled here.

Lastly, there is the Notice of Claim filed by the NYSRPA, being handled by Goldberg Segalla. Presumably, a Request for Judicial Intervention will be filed soon.

The State is in bigger trouble than many think.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 08:14 PM   #11
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,049
Does that include to and from the range?
spacecoast is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 10:26 PM   #12
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Does that include to and from the range?

I believe so, but I will check tomorrow. This is beyond outrageous.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 09:41 AM   #13
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Maybe it wasn't a unintended consequence....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 12:52 PM   #14
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
does this go for all assault weapons or just the ar-15?
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 03:33 PM   #15
LancelotLink
Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Posts: 21
I'm not 100% sure myself, but this may clarify.

New York defines firearms as illegal weapons. Therefore, unlicensed handguns, short barreled rifles/shotguns, and assault weapons are firearms, within the meaning of NY law.

It is possible to remove a weapon from firearm status. Having a pistol license allows you to have a handgun, which is no longer considered a firearm,

Likewise, having a registered assault weapon removes that gun from the firearm classification. However, the registration scheme does not exist yet.

The key here is the reading of how assault weapons can be registered to remove them from being classified as firearms. It says they are not firearms if they are registered pursuant to the SAFE act, and the registration section says they can be registered within one year of the act.

My guess is the issue centers around whether a non registered assault weapon will be considered to comply with the registration section before the one year deadline is up.

Edit to add:

Forget the second part.

The law defines loaded firearm as follows:

265.00 sub 15. "Loaded firearm" means any firearm loaded with ammunition or any
firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a
quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm.

Thus, having any weapon that is classified as a firearm (i.e. illegal weapon) and possessing ammo constitutes a loaded firearm.

Then turn to

265.03, which makes possessing a loaded firearm a class C felony, but carves out an exception if the firearm is in your home.
__________________
Lancelot Link Secret Chimp at your service

Last edited by LancelotLink; March 3, 2013 at 03:40 PM.
LancelotLink is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 04:46 PM   #16
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,195
I guess I'll have to drop my AR off at the range and then go back home and get my ammo ?
Being a law abiding citizen I complied with this law ad when I returned to the range I discovered my AR had been stolen. So I guess I won't be able to register it now.

Maybe I should have hooked up my utility trailer and had the AR in the truck and the ammo in the trailer ?
rebs is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 05:24 PM   #17
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Quote:
My guess is the issue centers around whether a non registered assault weapon will be considered to comply with the registration section before the one year deadline is up.
You are correct, this is the controlling issue. And the problem that we have here is that at least 4 police officers that we have spoken with define the unregistered AR as a "firearm". This is problematic, because they're the ones who are going to be making the stops/arrests. Oliver Wendall Holmes's definition of law as a mere "prediction of what the courts will do" holds true here.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 05:27 PM   #18
TMD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 469
Hindsight, leaving New York 31 years ago is probably one of the best things I've ever done in my life.
TMD is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 05:31 PM   #19
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
Quote:
does this go for all assault weapons or just the ar-15?
Yes. From what Lancelot and I have been posting, you non-New York folks can see that we're in for the fight of our lives here in New York. Don't think for one second that this is going to be contained in New York. We have to win these cases. My people here have to win, NYSRPA has to win. Even Schultz has to win.

Fortunately, we have a real shot at success.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 10:53 PM   #20
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Quote:
Yes. From what Lancelot and I have been posting, you non-New York folks can see that we're in for the fight of our lives here in New York
yeah i live here so I'm not a non-New York folk. no more speeding on the way to the range I guess.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 11:28 PM   #21
Mr. Davis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2009
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 127
Another SAFE Act Unintended Consequence-- Illegal to transport an AR15 with Ammo

Unadvertised but certainly not unintended.
Mr. Davis is offline  
Old March 5, 2013, 05:03 PM   #22
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,195
Well I guess its official, I am now a criminal. I took my AR and ammo in the same vehicle to the range today.
Thank you NYS politicians that voted for the safe act BS.
rebs is offline  
Old March 5, 2013, 05:08 PM   #23
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,346
I wouldn't be so quick to exited utterance your status as a test-case-volunteer on a message board run by lawyers who would comply with a search warrant in a heartbeat, if I were you.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 5, 2013, 05:31 PM   #24
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs
Well I guess its official, I am now a criminal. I took my AR and ammo in the same vehicle to the range today.
Thank you NYS politicians that voted for the safe act BS.
Fortunately, it would be like winning the bad luck lottery for you to find a police officer that would enforce this law.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 6, 2013, 08:30 PM   #25
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Hindsight, leaving New York 31 years ago is probably one of the best things I've ever done in my life.
Yeah, it's a good thing that interview I had in NYC with Salomon Brothers in '87 didn't work out so well. I was just another hayseed from the Midwest.
spacecoast 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 07:35 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 0.13140 seconds with 7 queries