New York Firearms Forum banner
21 - 28 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
If his guns are registered then what is his worry, he is bully proof, he should get in the fight and ask his own questions.
Robin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
I called the SAFE Act hotline in early 2013. The answer I received from several different people was, "You cannot add features to a post-ban rifle." Of course none of them could point out where the SAFE Act stated this. The law itself made a previous legal one evil feature (pistol grip) rifle with a muzzle brake and forward grip into an "assault weapon" with three evil features.

Features his post-ban rifle does not have.
1. Bayonet lug - Useless unless he has a bayonet (about $130)
2. Grenade laincher -Useless, the grenades are illegal
3. Adjustable stock - Useful, meant to adjust the lenght of reach for different sized people or wearing heavy clothes.
4. Flash hider or compensator - ??? He either has no threads or a pinned and welled muzzle brake. A real bother to alter.

So the answers are, "Who knows?" and "What risks is your friend willing to take?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,393 Posts
*sigh*, at the risk of sounding very tired of anything related to the SAFE Act, should TSHTF, and the State of New York collapses into various fiefdoms and enclaves of free people, with a lot of zombies and brigands roaming around, does your friends value as a physician become negated because there is no longer a functional licensing agency?

It still seems to me that a non-compliance rate of 96% should be telling the fascists that all may not go according to plan if and when TSHTF.
 

·
R.I.P. to our friend PY-3-21-2016
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
If I have a registered "AW" and now want to add a different upper, the muzzle device and bayonet lug, if any, is going to stay just the way I bought it. A new stock will stay unpinned. They are among the features making it an "AW." Nothing will make it less than or more so.
Nothing in the SAFE law that says no features can be added. Just that it was legally possessed prior to 1/15/13.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
Let's actually try to answer this with reference to the Penal Law. Under PL § 265.02(7) it is illegal to possess an "assault weapon." As a general premise, none of the exemptions set forth in § 265.20 provide an exception from this prohibition. Rather, the question is whether the object you possess meets the definition of "assault weapon."

The definitions are set forth in PL § 265.00. Paragraph 22 contains the "assault weapon" definition, which is broken into 8 subparts (a)-(h). So, for example, subpart (a) addresses rifles and says:
22. "Assault weapon" means

(a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one 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 thumbhole stock;

(iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

(v) a bayonet mount;

(vi) a flash suppressor, muzzle break, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle break, or muzzle compensator;

(vii) a grenade launcher; . . .
So if you have a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has any one or more of the listed features (e.g. a protruding pistol grip), then that rifle fits subpart (a) of the definition.

The critical language is in subpart (g), which says in pertinent part:
(g) provided, however, that such term does not include: . . .
(v) any weapon validly registered pursuant to subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter. Such weapons shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (h) of this subdivision; . . .
And subpart (h), for its part, says:
(h) Any weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of this subdivision and any large capacity ammunition feeding device that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to an individual or entity outside of the state provided that any such transfer to an individual or entity outside of the state must be reported to the entity wherein the weapon is registered within seventy-two hours of such transfer. An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.
So to me it seems pretty straightforward. If we are talking about a "weapon validly registered pursuant to" the procedure set forth in PL § 400.00(16-a), then that "weapon" is not an "assault weapon," even if one of the earlier subparts in the definition would cover it. The operative question is not "how many features of the subpart are met?" but is instead "was it validly registered pursuant to § 400.00(16-a)?" If so, then you still have to comply with subpart (h), but subpart (h) doesn't say anything about adding or removing prohibited features.

And one thing that should be noted is that the legislature could have achieved a different result by using different language. The State of California enacted a total of three "assault weapon" bans, and each time they left the old bans in place. So in other words, there are three separate acts on the books that prohibit "assault weapons," and the fact that you have an exemption from one definition does not give you an exemption from the others. But that is not what the Cuomo law did. The Cuomo law simply deleted the old definition that was previously set forth in paragraph 22 and replaced it with the current one.

But then I read this:
I called the SAFE Act hotline in early 2013. The answer I received from several different people was, "You cannot add features to a post-ban rifle." Of course none of them could point out where the SAFE Act stated this. The law itself made a previous legal one evil feature (pistol grip) rifle with a muzzle brake and forward grip into an "assault weapon" with three evil features. . . .
So the answers are, "Who knows?" and "What risks is your friend willing to take?"
And frankly, I cannot see what the basis for this position would be. Did the person answering the hotline think you were talking about adding prohibited features to a gun that did not otherwise qualify for the subpart (h) exemption? If not, I don't understand the rationale. Maybe the person just didn't know what they were talking about? Beats me. It seems like it would be pretty difficult to bring a criminal prosecution. But seriously, if anyone has ever been able to get some articulation or rationale for this position, I would really like to see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
Actually not true. If he gets his license revoked then he can't just get another job as a physician again. Same as if he was a Dentist or an Attorney, Nurse, Judge, etc.
When licensed through the State of NY for your profession you are held to the mercy of the State to begin with. So the question asked had NOTHING to do with the fact he personally registered. It wasn't being asked if he did something right or wrong. It merely asked what he can do with his registered weapon.
A lot of us are in the same boat. I work for a railroad. If I was arrested, I'd lose my job and no other railroad would hire a Felon. It pretty much goes that way for any career that does a background check on you prior to getting hired. There were many options available to him. Fixed mag, spur grip, ect. I know someone who said, "I just can't risk it, but I will not register!"

He ended up selling the AR and bought a Mini instead. While that isn't a "I will not comply" situation at least he didn't contribute to the registration numbers and if ever a time comes to tote a rifle, he will have one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
I am in Rensselaer county and it turns out 334 people registered their "assault weapons"
My question is does it say you can't add features to a registered "post" ban rifle as a "preban" rifle would already have evil features? I thought as long as the rifle was legal at the time of registration then adding features were not an issue? Example is a SCAR 16 with muzzle brake and non collapsible stock. Then you registered it and put on a collapsible stock. It was legal prior to safe act and then you register it and can have "evil" features. Does it say anywhere you can't do this?? Is the post ban rules still apply on registered AR's? I don't see that anywhere
..http://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/archive/assets/documents/safeactfaq.pdf
NY Safe Act Guide
That is a good question …. The safe act doesn’t address this. If you read section 400 of the New York State penal law it reads in sum and substance that once the assault weapon is registered it is no longer considered an “assault weapon”… make that make sense
 
21 - 28 of 28 Posts
Top