New York Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I ran into something interesting the other day and no one seems to hold the answer just a lot of "well i think" and then they cant cite where they got the info from.

I have read through the bill legal text s2230-2013 (that's the only legal text minus the recent amendment correct?) and I believe I can build a NY compliant ar-15 post safe act but that's when some one turned around and said "oh no the safe act says all ar-15's are banned." I went and glanced through the bill again and I can find no such legal verbiage and in fact it seems 100% feature driven.

Then I went onto the safe act and I get mixed answers. according to the legal verbiage i read its legal. According to the "is your weapon an assault rifle?" feature option selector, its not but if you go under "is my gun an assault rifle?" - rifles that are classified as assault weapons, it will then show a list of firearm types which are "banned." So both a firearm is and is not an assault rifle depending on how you look at the safe act?

So really it boils down to is their some where in the law which specifically bans firearm brands such as cemte, ar-15, ak varients etc or is it feature driven? if their are brands/type/models which have a specific ban can some one please link or cite the legal verbiage please? thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I ran into something interesting the other day and no one seems to hold the answer just a lot of "well i think" and then they cant cite where they got the info from.

I have read through the bill legal text s2230-2013 (that's the only legal text minus the recent amendment correct?) and I believe I can build a NY compliant ar-15 post safe act but that's when some one turned around and said "oh no the safe act says all ar-15's are banned." I went and glanced through the bill again and I can find no such legal verbiage and in fact it seems 100% feature driven.

Then I went onto the safe act and I get mixed answers. according to the legal verbiage i read its legal. According to the "is your weapon an assault rifle?" feature option selector, its not but if you go under "is my gun an assault rifle?" - rifles that are classified as assault weapons, it will then show a list of firearm types which are "banned." So both a firearm is and is not an assault rifle depending on how you look at the safe act?

So really it boils down to is their some where in the law which specifically bans firearm brands such as cemte, ar-15, ak varients etc or is it feature driven? if their are brands/type/models which have a specific ban can some one please link or cite the legal verbiage please? thanks!
There is no legal verbage, those lists are simply guidelines and they even say as such. No where in the legal written law does it list specific brands. They're are specific firearms listed, but I believe they were there before the Safe Act, such as post ban Uzi's. To answer you're question, I'm not sure...but unless you were able to build an AR without a pistol grip or muzzle break, then it would still be illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,159 Posts
If it's got evil features then it's a no go. If you build one without a pistol grip or muzzle device then you should be okay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
The list shows rifles considered aw in their stock form. Law also says your firearm can be modified to not be an aw. List is a guideline not the law and you can build a featurless ar. Idiots in Albany don't understand how easy they are built and modified so they think a stock stag rifle for example couldn't be altered to non aw, they failed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
There are three big ways to do it.

The first is to do the rifle stocks which ca has (ugly as sin but we do what we can) which are not a pistol grip.

The other is to have a fixed magazine though what ny will accept as a fixed magazine is certainly up for debate.

The last is to have a bolt action variant like I was considering building a .50 bmg rifle out of a ar lower or you could also do something such as disable the gas tube so it does not cycle the bolt.

Either way it means that if its not specifically banned I can start buying lowers which I plan to build into legal rifles or maybe if we are all lucky can be one day rebuild into non neutered rifles. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
I didn't see any model specific verbiage in the bill either which would call out an AR15 or and AK directly. You are correct that it is feature driven. Otherwise, a manufacturer could sell what the state calls an "assault weapon" as a "KR15" or other name. The NYSP "list" is supposed to be a guideline, but it does seem to add some confusion.

In another thread on this board, there is an AR stock replacement being discussed. This would modify an AR to remove the pistol grip and give it a more "traditional" rifle stock. I believe it was one of the Tresmond's who actually checked out this modification with the NYSP to see if that would be sufficient to get around the registration requirement. The answer was "yes" as it no longer qualified as an "assault weapon" under the new law. I believe they were also going to ask for written confirmation of this, but did not hear if that was received.

In other words, it seems theoretically possible to build an AR variant that would not qualify as an "assault weapon."

Remember that these guns have been attacked on cosmetic grounds - not due to functionality or lethality. The state police have also been given discretion to update the list of banned rifles. If you are going to build your own or make your own modifications, you should probably get some kind of written confirmation before going through the time and expense. Especially if the rifle is a black semi-auto and/or bears any visual resemblance to an AR or AK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
I wouldn't even want to have a S2230 legal weapon, because at that point, the compliant weapon is so different from the original design that you may be better off with another weapon system that isn't stripped of it's functionality.

A pistol grip is a useful feature. A muzzle brake is a useful feature. A detachable magazine is a useful feature. Take those away, and you are basically left with either an ugly weapon, which is not too useful.

For what it's worth, I sure hope S2230 is repealed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
What bugs me is why is a pistol grip a military feature? Pretty much all modern handheld power tools have that type of grip. Civilian manufactured rifles have them. Centuries of military rifles don't have them. Modern features for comfort and easy of handling do not make something more dangerous. It's like claiming an automatic transmission on a car is an evil feature cause it makes operating easier for drunk drivers to run over people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I am certainly considering other options like the keltec su-16 rifle but it will all turn into availability of things and the price that drives them that determines what one builds. I agree like everyone else here on this forum that its stupid and wont help anything but its a band aid on the flesh wound to know we still have at least something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
The thing is, even if you build a rifle to be NY SAFE compliant, you probably still have to prove that your custom built AR15 is legal. It may need to get inspected first, or confiscated and then it is up to you to prove it's legality. Who knows so far?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
242 Posts
There is language in the NYS law banning THUMBHOLE stocks............... that used to come on AK's, FAL,s and G3's to make them compliant with the old Fed AWB.

So a previously legal weapon that just has the thumbhole stock and a detachable mag, must be registered..no exemption.

The Saiga AK47/74 based weapon, also has a removable shroud for the bbl to protect the hand from the bbl---it is not a stock like remington 700 that is one piece of wood or plastic........... and that Saiga likely must be registered too. The remington 742 and the BAR get a pass, but do not ask me why...........they have removable shrouds for the bbls too.

The pistol grip was removed from those thumbhole stocked weapons, just like you guys want to do with an AR............ even though the pistol grip is gone, it is still there, on the thumbhole stocked weapons----------- like a leg that was amputated but you can still feel...............it is the ghost effect that Cuomo has put into law. Crazy.......but there it is. Once a pistol grip was in the original design, it is always there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The Saiga AK47/74 based weapon, also has a removable shroud for the bbl to protect the hand from the bbl---it is not a stock like remington 700 that is one piece of wood or plastic........... and that Saiga likely must be registered too. The remington 742 and the BAR get a pass, but do not ask me why...........they have removable shrouds for the bbls too.

The pistol grip was removed from those thumbhole stocked weapons, just like you guys want to do with an AR............ even though the pistol grip is gone, it is still there, on the thumbhole stocked weapons----------- like a leg that was amputated but you can still feel...............it is the ghost effect that Cuomo has put into law. Crazy.......but there it is. Once a pistol grip was in the original design, it is always there.
not true, you can swap the pistol grip out for a rifle stock, look up the ca ar-15 rifle stock and you will see the example i am talking about. just because it starts with a pistol grip doesnt mean it will end with it.

The new ban actually failed to mention barrel shroud in regards to rifles or shotgun so in fact firearms like the Suomi or shotguns with heat shields are still legal as long as you can get proper mags for them and you dont need to register them as assault weapons.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
242 Posts
On the SAFE ACT, FAQ website there is a picture of an AR with a thumbhole stock.........and it is a banned feature. I had never seen an AR with a thumbhole stock before, but there it is on the Gov website pics........... they showed it......not me.

I also just called the info line and discussed the issues.

I was informed that the police indeed consider that there were two classes of weapons....pre ban and post ban, and if a question came up in the field, a compliance check, to determine if it was pre ban or post ban weapon, would be done, as the data is easily accessible.

So according to this source, it IS all about "born on date," of the receiver..........no updating of post ban guns to pre ban status. Pretty clear to them........

I also asked about the three gun limit on the registration form, and one registration number being assigned to three guns.
Seemed not to make any sense.
The registration number assigned, relates only to the form that you file, as the data is what is put into a database, like pistol permits.

You can send in any number of forms and apparently they will put the owner and each serial number into the database, like the pistols are in a database.

Polite Trooper; seemed to understand the questions and therefore I would not update post ban--post '94 weapons, to pre ban status............

As it is, the post ban guns--post '94 guns, with formerly legal muzzle brakes pressed, pinned or welded on, dummies or not.... now may constitute a third feature, on 2 feature, post ban guns................guns that we purchased legally over the last 20 years with two features, AND a muzzle device that was legal at the time of sale.
The gov website shows the muzzle devices as a feature...........no longer is it a dummy or a muzzle break or whatever that used to be ok--it is now a feature AND one of the banned features..................
.
This could become thorny, if the century G3, FAL, or AR you bought is questioned........... as it has 3 features, not two, and is a post '94 ban gun................or if you built one and, has the same three features, like the Century mfg guns, not two features........... does not bode well for most post ban builds, with a muzzle device.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,522 Posts
The law is based on features not make and model. You can build compliant rifles if you choose, but chances are we will be grated an injunction on the 29th of this month so it won't matter.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
242 Posts
Based upon the actual legal histories of just Kachalsky, Heller and McDonald.................the chances of getting an injunction granted, is about as likely as Cuomo and Obama joining the NRA and SAF.............
 

·
R.I.P. to our friend PY-3-21-2016
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
V guy you totally misunderstand the number of features allowed post '94 and pre SAFE. It was a single feature only, commonly the pistol grip, not two. Two would have made it illegal. To comply with SAFE you can have zero features.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,835 Posts
I've been looking into doing the same as zeaken, but can't seem to find concrete evidence of whether or not you can still legally buy an AR stripped lower and build a featureless rifle. I'm playing golf with a friend this weekend who is a spokesman for the NYS Troopers. If anyone would know, I think he will. I'll ask and post his response on Monday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,150 Posts
V guy you totally misunderstand the number of features allowed post '94 and pre SAFE. It was a single feature only, commonly the pistol grip, not two. Two would have made it illegal. To comply with SAFE you can have zero features.
I believe it was two, the detachable magazine was 1, and the pistol grip was 2. I'm so lost in the new laws that I've lost track of the old one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,150 Posts
I've been looking into doing the same as zeaken, but can't seem to find concrete evidence of whether or not you can still legally buy an AR stripped lower and build a featureless rifle. I'm playing golf with a friend this weekend who is a spokesman for the NYS Troopers. If anyone would know, I think he will. I'll ask and post his response on Monday.
Yes, you can buy a stripped lower. This has been discussed several times.
 

·
R.I.P. to our friend PY-3-21-2016
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
I believe it was two, the detachable magazine was 1, and the pistol grip was 2. I'm so lost in the new laws that I've lost track of the old one.
No, detachable mag was not a feature. Having two features equaled illegal which means one was allowed, not two.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top