[Jarhead]

I am no lawyer and this is not legal advice. I repeat, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

When I read that exemption for simply what it says I get the following understanding of it.
(d) Persons in the military or other service of the United States, in pursuit of official duty or when duly authorized by federal law, regulation or order to possess the same.

So the exemption is written for "Persons in the military or other service of the United States" right? That exemption is written for two different and distinct groups of people; people who are "in the military" or people who are in "other service of the United States" right?

I can't think of any other way to interpret that sentence. You don't have to be in the military for that exemption to apply to you if you are in other service to the United States and you don't have to be in other service to the United Stats if you are in the military.

So when are these two group of people (military and other service) covered by the exemption? Well the first is "when in pursuit of official duty". Simple enough, military members do not use personally owned firearms "in pursuit of official duty" so strike that from the list.

The other time they are exempted is when they are "duly authorized by federal law, regulation or order to possess the same." The use of the word "or" lists two separate and distinct ways to be exempted just as it lists two separate and distinct groups of people covered by this exemption.

So where is the grey area? Well there is not Federal law, regulation, or orders that states "Persons in the military can own firearms considered by the state of New York to be assault weapons" but there are Federal laws that establish who cannot own a firearm. It would be extremely impractical to have a list of every person or group of people who can own a firearm so a list only exists of who cannot.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 defined what is a prohibited person and prohibited persons are defined in US Code, Title 18, part I, Chapter 44, Section 922, under Unlawful Acts.

If the original poster is a "person in the military" and is not prohibited from owning a firearm by "US Code, Title 18, part I, Chapter 44, Section 922, Unlawful Acts" then is he "duly authorized by federal law, regulation or order to possess the same"?

If he purchased the firearm in question legally then he is authorized to posess it (in New York it is questionable as covered in this discussion).

Seems there has never been a case covering this so the only way to get a definitive answer of what the exemption means is to get caught with an assault weapon, have charges pressed, go to trial, and see what happens. Which I am in no way suggesting!

I think it boils down to one question. Are you authorized by default under Federal Law since you are not prohibited?

Again, I am no lawyer and this is not legal advice. I repeat, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.