NBC New York is Shocked to Learn Effect of SAFE Act

[Armorer-at-Law]

NBC New York "I-Team" discovers that "assault" rifles, after a few cosmetic changes to comply with the state's SAFE Act, look "almost entirely the same as those that were banned."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigat...258323561.html

But the new modified rifle is still semi-automatic. That means each squeeze of the trigger automatically loads the next round into the chamber.

Some families of gun violence victims say they are frustrated by what they believe are efforts to skirt the gun control law.

"Here we go again,” said Joyce Gorycki, who lost her husband in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road massacre. “This is what they always do. It's just a terrible thing. The gun manufacturers. I just don't understand them."

They didn't use the word "loophole," but they are still upset that gun manufacturers comply with the law rather than go out of business.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Armorer-at-Law

They didn't use the word "loophole," . . . .

Fear not. They'll use it soon enough.

[carguychris]

The link takes me to the NBC NY front page, not the story.

[BarryLee]

The link takes me to the NBC NY front page, not the story.

Try this:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigat...258323561.html

[Armorer-at-Law]

Thanks. Link in OP fixed.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

These points of equal efficacy and the futility of an 'AWB' ban focusing on cosmetics has been made for years in the criminological literature. See Koper and Roth.

Gun world take away - bans are useless. Antigun world take away - ban them all.

Given there is no middle ground that makes sense from either position, the antigun world will push for complete bans of semiautomatic guns.

So - that's why the modern sporting rifle story is BS and a surrender to the antigunner's world view. Hear that NSSF and gun talk show dudes, gun rag writers!!

[Scimmia]

So they outlaw cosmetic features and are surprised when the manufacturers make cosmetic changes? Shame on NBC for stirring things up with such an idiotic story.

[Slamfire]

“It definitely didn’t make us safer,”

This is not rationale about the problems of semi auto bans, this is propaganda for a total firearms ban.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The advocate for the law had to babble about the grip being a significant factor as they need even a minor effect to push for more stringent methods.

The issue could easily be settled by a quality human factors experiment. I know of no such study being done.

[2ndsojourn]

I agree with Scimmia above.

They ban certain features on a gun, and when the manufacturers take them off to comply, they still gripe.

"But the new modified rifle is still semi-automatic. That means each squeeze of the trigger automatically loads the next round into the chamber"

That seems to be stated to fear-monger people into thinking it's a machine gun. Probably because the hack....erm... I mean reporter also thinks it is.

[Armorer-at-Law]

In the video, even the NYU law professor referred to the law as previously prohibiting two "scary features" and now prohibiting even one "scary feature."

[doofus47]

So, before the law was passed, no one cared that the gun community told them that their proposed changes weren't affecting function, just cosmetics. So now they are worried about function, not cosmetics.
I guess I'd best start paying attention, they're getting smarter...

[maestro pistolero]

I understand the public relations driven urge to label banned features as cosmetic, but they really are not cosmetic, let's be honest.

A flash hider, forward grip, pistol grip, and collapsible stock all have specific useful functions that make the firearm more functional. I actually think there is an argument here in our favor.

Collapsible stocks for example make the firearm fit the user better or adapt the firearm to various shooting positions. Flash hiders allow the firearm to be used at night without being blinded by the flash. Forward grips allow the user to better control the weapon. Pistol grips allow a natural hand position to better control the weapon.

How on earth is an ill fitting rifle, which is more difficult to fire accurately safer? Safer for whom? Ask an innocent bystander.

Of course, we all know this, but calling these features cosmetic is as disingenuous as our opponents claiming they make the rifle more lethal.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Armorer-at-Law

They didn't use the word "loophole," but they are still upset that gun manufacturers comply with the law rather than go out of business.

But they did the same thing around 1995, when all the manufacturers started selling "post-ban" configured AR-15s. The anti-gunners complained that the manufacturers were exploiting a "loophole."

No, they were strictly complying with the silly requirements of a stupid, ill-conceived law that was authored by people who had no understanding of that which they sought to regulate (or prohibit). If the same logic were applied to traffic enforcement, every driver who avoids a speeding ticket by not exceeding the speed limit would be "exploiting a loophole."

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

calling these features cosmetic is as disingenuous as our opponents claiming they make the rifle more lethal.

I consider that contradictory.

For one, being "cosmetic" doesn't mean that there's no function whatsoever. It means that the function of the device isn't integral to the weapon. The gun functions without them. One of the definitions of "Cosmetic" is "not important or meaningful". Since none of these features are required by the gun and it's works just fine without them, they are cosmetic.

Two, for most users, most of the banned features ARE purely (or significantly) for looks. I've known plenty of people who have ARs with flash suppressors and none of them that shoot at night. They are there to look cool. Pistol grips are the same. It's a basic part of the AR historic design, but it's not a requirement, as we've seen with the new designs.

[Tom Servo]

The anti-gunners complained that the manufacturers were exploiting a "loophole."

The cries of "loopholes" in the Brady Act were utterly disingenuous and dishonest. Authors of the bill deliberately and knowingly excluded private sales. They couldn't have gotten it passed otherwise.

For the record, this is a loophole:

loop·hole (noun) \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\ :
an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it

[maestro pistolero]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

I consider that contradictory.

For one, being "cosmetic" doesn't mean that there's no function whatsoever. It means that the function of the device isn't integral to the weapon. The gun functions without them.

No, it doesn't, particularly in the case of a pistol grip. The removed pistol grip must be replaced with a different design to replace the functionality in order for the weapon to be operable, i.e. functional.

One of the definitions of "Cosmetic" is "not important or meaningful".

Whether those features are important or meaningful to any given person under given set of circumstance is highly debatable. What is not debatable is that they enhance the functionality of the weapon, or they wouldn't exist, let alone be ubiquitous. Therefore the word "cosmetic" is inapt to describe those features. If any doubt remains about that, note that antonyms to 'cosmetic' include "functional" and "utilitarian".

The most common understandings and usage of the word cosmetic is :

1: of, relating to, or making for beauty especially of the complexion

2: done or made for the sake of appearance: as
a : correcting defects especially of the face <cosmetic surgery>
b : decorative, ornamental
c : not substantive : superficial <cosmetic changes>

3: visually appealing

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmetic

Since none of these features are required by the gun and it's works just fine without them, they are cosmetic.

None of the feature are required by the gun in order to lauch a projectile, but they may well be required by the operator. If a rifle is used at night for self-defense and the flash blinds the operator, I would submit that the functionality of that weapon was severely compromised. If a person is forced to defend him or herself from a position that requires a shorter or longer stock to be effective, the functionality is compromised. Same, of course for magazine limits. What might be just fine and dandy on a range, might be woefully inadequate in actual use for the most important purpose of defense.

Two, for most users, most of the banned features ARE purely (or significantly) for looks. I've known plenty of people who have ARs with flash suppressors and none of them that shoot at night.

If called upon to use your weapon for lawful defense, there is a 50/50 chance it will be at night. I wouldn't use recreational shooting to set the bar for what functionality a weapon may have.

They are there to look cool. Pistol grips are the same. It's a basic part of the AR historic design, but it's not a requirement, as we've seen with the new designs.

Whether a person ever actually uses the functionally of those features is irrelevant to whether those features are functional or cosmetic.

If you replace the low-profile racing tires on your Lamborghini with passenger car tires, the car will still go down the road. Were those racing tires and rims purely cosmetic, or do they serve to enhance the functionality of the car?

The biggest problem with the misuse of the word 'cosmetic' when referring to common features of guns is that it's a double-edged sword. Claiming the features do little or nothing to degrade to functionality of the gun is a losing argument.

If there is no loss of functionality of the gun, then how can we argue against laws that would ban those features? Where would be the harm?

[Kappe]

The biggest problem with the misuse of the word 'cosmetic' when referring to common features of guns is that it's a double-edged sword. Claiming the features do little or nothing to degrade to functionality of the gun is a losing argument.

If there is no loss of functionality of the gun, then how can we argue against laws that would ban those features? Where would be the harm?

Trying to argue that the features are useful for lawful self-defense, while at the same time not beneficial to a gunman, was exactly how those parts of the NY SAFE Act were upheld.

Lives do not hinge on the marginal increase in comfort a pistol grip or adjustable stock may offer. As far as lethality goes, they might as well be cosmetic.

[maestro pistolero]

The fact that the law was upheld says far, far more about the courts and politics that it does about the argument. The whole point of the second amendment is to put law-abiding people on people footing with those who would harm them, thus, the common use test. All other things being equal, the disadvantages, however minor, change that balance. Since gunfights often hinge on milliseconds, those minor disadvantages may mean the difference between life and death.

[Kappe]

All other things being equal, the disadvantages, however minor, change that balance. Since gunfights often hinge on milliseconds, those minor disadvantages may mean the difference between life and death.

This argument, by the same token, is a double-edged sword.

Any feature that supposedly benefits a gun owner in a self-defense scenario, also invariably benefits a gunman in a mass shooting.

The opposition would argue that milliseconds matter in mass shootings just as they do in SD. Had a shooter been armed with a fixed-stocked rifle instead of an adjustable-stocked rifle, would one life have been saved?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

No, it doesn't, particularly in the case of a pistol grip. The removed pistol grip must be replaced with a different design to replace the functionality in order for the weapon to be operable, i.e. functional.

The cosmetic features may serve some function, but they are not critical functions.

I purchased a neutered (i.e. "post-ban") AR-15 during the federal ban period. To be post-ban compliant it was not allowed to have a telescoping stock, a flash hider, or a bayonet lug. So I bought a rifle that didn't have any of those "features." It still shoots 5.56x45 / .223 ammo, and it still makes quarter-inch holes in paper at 200 yards. Clearly, then, the telescoping stock, flash hider, and bayonet lug are not critical necessities. In fact, I carried an original M16 for the better part of a year in Vietnam and I don't think I ever affixed a bayonet to mine. I don't think my unit were even issued bayonets. And folding/telescoping stocks hadn't even been thought of in 1968.

Ubiquitous? Aren't both the flash hider and the bayonet lug "ubiquitous" mostly through habit? Post-ban ARs don't have them. When the federal ban expired in 2004, I don't recall a huge rush by people with post-ban rifles to retrofit flash hiders (many had compensators anyway) or bayonet lugs. Have you EVER seen a civilian-owned AR-15 with a bayonet attached? Who cares if most of them have the lug -- virtually nobody uses it, so who cares.

Is the pistol grip "necessary"? No, it certainly isn't. It's attached to the lower receiver with a single screw. It can be removed and the rifle will fire just fine. The shooter's wrist angle will be a bit uncomfortable, but the rifle will never know the pistol grip isn't there.

In fact, the only "evil feature" of an AR-15 type rifle that's more or less critical is the detachable magazine, and it's even possible to make an AR-15 with a fixed magazine that can be loaded from the bottom through a trap door or removable floor plate.

[maestro pistolero]

Originally Posted by Kappe

This argument, by the same token, is a double-edged sword.

Any feature that supposedly benefits a gun owner in a self-defense scenario, also invariably benefits a gunman in a mass shooting.

This is true, of course. In fact, that is the fundamental nature of the Second Amendment right itself.

The Second Amendment banks on the fact that the vast majority of us are good, and will be judicious in that use of force. The ratification of the amendment takes that cost/benefit analysis out of the hands of government.

The SAFE act will deny access to those features to only those who will comply. No one capable of a mass shooting is going to hesitate in the slightest to disregard those restrictions. This indisputable fact makes the SAFE act antithetical to the core purpose of the amendment, i.e. to equalize the playing field for the law-abiding.

If the idea is as it seems, to slowly choke off the supply of these weapons, it is futile. With easily tens of millions of full featured rifles in circulation, there is essentially an unlimited supply of them which criminals will not hesitate to find and use. A supply side approach to an issue in which there is an unlimited supply is moronic and doomed to fail.

Could you imagine a law at the time of founding that would have limited the amount of powder one could possess to 10 shots-worth? Would a scofflaw have complied with that in the late 1700s?

If there is no meaningful loss of performance in the absence of these features, then what on earth is the rational basis for the law?

If there IS a disadvantage to a rifle lacking any of these features, it will only hurt those of us inclined to comply.

Arguing that these restrictions aren't so bad is a strange position to see on a gun rights forum.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

If there is no meaningful loss of performance in the absence of these features, then what on earth is the rational basis for the law?

Who here (or anywhere, for that matter) ever said or wrote that there was a rational basis for the law?

I would say you have put your finger on the crux of the issue, except that you're WAY late arriving at the realization that the law has no rational basis. It's nothing but an extension of the same, flawed thinking that led to the federal AWB in 1994. The anti-gun forces had to ban something. They have no knowledge of how guns work, so the best they can do is to try to eliminate what they perceive as particularly dangerous firearms based on how scary the gun looks. In other words, based entirely on cosmetics.

Suppose you have a modern, "free state" Bushmaster AR-15 carbine, complete with telescoping stock, flash hider, and bayonet lug. I have my post-ban configuration carbine with fixed stock, no flash hider, and no bayonet lug. If both rifles are handed to the same person at a range, do you seriously believe that your "evil" configured carbine will shoot significantly better than mine at 100 yards? If we are both in a building defending against the invading zombie horde, do you honestly believe that the folding stock and bayonet lug give you any advantage whatsoever compared to my plain vanilla post-ban configuration?

I don't think so. My post-ban AR-15 is actually pretty close to what I carried in Vietnam, so I feel absolutely comfortable with it. Having never needed a bayonet in real combat, I think I can get by without a bayonet in the civilian world. Flash hiders, at best, dissipate flash, they can't eliminate it. I don't think my lack of a flash hider makes any significant difference. And the ones with compensators? That's worse for muzzle flash than a bare muzzle.

[maestro pistolero]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Who here (or anywhere, for that matter) ever said or wrote that there was a rational basis for the law?

Nobody here, to my knowledge. But I'm sure the proponents of the law would say it's rational.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I would say you have put your finger on the crux of the issue, except that you're WAY late arriving at the realization that the law has no rational basis.

This is not a late breaking epiphany for me. I have been following gun laws and gun bans for almost thirty years. I make the point about rational basis today because of it's relevancy (in my opinion) to the subject matter.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

They have no knowledge of how guns work, so the best they can do is to try to eliminate what they perceive as particularly dangerous firearms based on how scary the gun looks. In other words, based entirely on cosmetics.

All true except the part about cosmetics. Those features have a function (whether or not it's a critical function), therefore they are not cosmetic. Functional is literally an antonym to cosmetic.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Suppose you have a modern, "free state" Bushmaster AR-15 carbine, complete with telescoping stock, flash hider, and bayonet lug. I have my post-ban configuration carbine with fixed stock, no flash hider, and no bayonet lug. If both rifles are handed to the same person at a range, do you seriously believe that your "evil" configured carbine will shoot significantly better than mine at 100 yards?

With only those features missing, no.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

If we are both in a building defending against the invading zombie horde, do you honestly believe that the folding stock and bayonet lug give you any advantage whatsoever compared to my plain vanilla post-ban configuration?

Again, no, in the scenario you describe. You are, of course, correct that a bayonet lug is almost never used in combat for actually mounting a bayonet. In any case, a bayonet essentially turns a rifle into a spear and I am not certain that completely banning spears would be constitutional, either.

Collapsible stocks and pistol grips, on the other hand, are very functional in tight quarters and can help with weapon retention (example: home invasion with multiple assailants).

One handed control of the weapon during mag changes and malfunction clearances are greatly expedited by a pistol grip.

A telescoping rifle stock might also become more important at intermediate and longer distances for accurate fire. I know when I go prone with my M4 styled AR, I get a lot more stability by extending the stock all the way. For me, and I suspect a lot of other people, that is functional, therefore not cosmetic.

In any case, the antis argue that these features which extend functionality (to whatever degree) make a weapon too dangerous to qualify for 2A protection.

I am saying that once it's a gun, it's already lethal. Lethality is precisely the point of a firearm in the 2A context. If banning secondary features doesn't reduce their lethality, it's irrational . . . and therefore unconstitutional.

To whatever degree the laws actually do reduce lethality of weapons that are in common use, they are also unconstitutional on a pure 2A argument.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Personally, probably from my lack of experience in handling pistol grip rifles, I find that a pistol grip is awkward. I prefer a thumbhole stock or even traditional rifle stock. I have no trouble with one hand control. You might ask (and I'd agree) isn't there practically no difference between a thumbhole and a pistol grip? I don't know, it must be the angle or something, I prefer the thumbhole.

In any case, I think the proof that the banned features are cosmetic is that the redesigns all comply with the law and sell the person a gun that's functionally identical in 99% of cases.

Also, the reverse is true. The singular change that dramatically slows the operation of the gun is the elimination of the detachable magazine. There are already designs of ARs with permanently affixed magazines that otherwise retain EVERY other "evil" feature. Their function, as per original design, is dramatically handicapped.

So, guns that have only cosmetic changes, the example of the hammerhead adapter or NY compliant not-quite-pistol-grip-not-quite thumbhole stocks do not changed the function of the gun.

I agree that many of these features may have very minor effects on actual operation but there has to be a rational end to that argument. For example, a friend of mine has an AR with a front sight but no rear and a scope. That front sight is cosmetic (looks stupid in my opinion). However, if he removed it, the balance of the gun would be *ever so slightly* changed. Does that make it "functional" or other than cosmetic?

Also, I say that these features are cosmetic simply by the effect that the ban will have. That being... None. If they banned a bunch of features and some nutbag gets a NY compliant AR and goes on a rampage, how different will the end results be? None whatsoever. Therefore, what they've done is make killing people with a gun that looks a certain way different than killing people with a different looking gun. It would be like banning all gun colors except blaze orange. I could argue that black is functional rather than cosmetic because it's harder for me to hide with an orange gun but for the nutbag that goes on a rampage does it make a difference? Nope.