New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
708 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In the thread concerning the sale of "bullet button" modified AR rifles, the discussion has now turned to the news media report saying the NYSP making a statement that the bullet button is not an acceptable modification. From that thread........ "In a statement Wednesday, State Police confirmed that a "gun store owner was selling modified assault weapons he believed to be compliant with the SAFE Act, when in fact they were in violation of the law. The State Police in cooperation with the Orleans County District Attorney's Office will work with the gun store and its customers come into compliance with the law, as it appears the noncompliance was unintentional.""

In addition...... "Palumbo (the gun store owner) said he now must add an epoxy to fill the hole any tool would go in." (This would defeat the function of the bullet button to release the magazine, as I understand it.)

Many members here are asking where the hell the NYSP came up with this "it must be permanent" idea. And I think looking at NY law vs. CA law will explain it.

Under NYS Penal Law 265 definitions, section 22 reads as follows.....
"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: (no need to list them, we all know them)

But under CA law the definition is somewhat different..........

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon"
shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity
to accept any ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the
firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet
or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. [A]nd any one of
the following:

There are those among us who say the NY law doesn't say anything about "permanent" and they are right. Some say there is no mention of "epoxy" and they are also right. We can wish the law said something other than what it does, we can rail against the "stupid" lawmakers writing "stupid" laws, but the fact remains that the law consists of words that have specific meanings. Meanings that we cannot simply wish were different.

"Detachable" - a Google search of the definition of this word turns up............ "a detachable part can be removed and put back on again" ... "designed to be unfastened or disconnected without damage" ... "to separate or unfasten; disconnect" ... "to disengage and separate or remove; unfasten; disconnect".

Specific meanings.

Could the NY legislators have copied the California law? Sure, but that is not what they intended. They wrote this law broadly so that there would be little wriggle room. They remembered well how the 1994 ban allowed manufacturers to market similar, and yet, compliant rifles. And they were determined not to allow this to happen again.

The California law specifically references the use of a "bullet button" to make the magazine not "readily" detachable. And seems to reference a MR2 device to do the same thing by way of disassembly. But our law makes no reference to "readily removed" nor "disassembly" or "tools" to remove a magazine.

I know I will get bashed for this statement but our law is very clear............. "a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine" (and certain characteristics). Period.

Consider this fictional (and I think probable) courtroom scene............

DA: I am showing you an AR15 rifle with a so-called "bullet button" device installed in place of the standard magazine release button. A magazine is inserted into the rifle. How does this device allow the magazine to be detached from the rifle?
Witness: You insert a bullet tip or other small tool into this hole and push inward. Then the magazine falls free from the rifle.
DA: So the magazine is detachable, just not detachable by merely pressing on a standard AR15 magazine release?
Witness: That is correct, the magazine is detachable.

DA: Now I am showing you an AR15 rifle with a MR2 device
installed in place of the standard magazine release button. A magazine is inserted into the rifle. How does this device allow the magazine to be detached from the rifle?
Witness: You remove this pin at the rear of the receiver, split the upper part of the rifle from the lower part, then use your finger to push the MR2 device inward. Then the magazine falls free from the rifle.
DA: So the magazine is detachable, just not detachable by merely pressing on a standard AR15 magazine release?
Witness: That is correct, the magazine is detachable.


DA: Finally, NYS Penal Law states that an "assault weapon" is defined as a semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has certain other characteristics. And you have shown how the magazines on these two rifles are detachable. Since both of these rifles have pistol grips that protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, are semi-automatic in firing function, and can accept detachable magazines even though those magazines cannot be readily or easily removed........ do they meet the definition of "assault weapons"?
Witness: Yes, they do meet that definition.

It's a simple 3 part test, people. Is it semi-automatic? Is the magazine detachable (not readily or easily detachable)? Does it have evil features? If the answers to all 3 questions are "yes" then it meets the NYS legal definition of an "assault weapon" and all the other laws concerning this rifle apply.

This, I am certain, is the opinion of the NYSP legal counsel and this is how the law will be enforced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts

DA: Now I am showing you an AR15 rifle with a MR2 device
installed in place of the standard magazine release button. A magazine is inserted into the rifle. How does this device allow the magazine to be detached from the rifle?
Witness: You remove this pin at the rear of the receiver, split the upper part of the rifle from the lower part, then use your finger to push the MR2 device inward. Then the magazine falls free from the rifle.
DA: So the magazine is detachable, just not detachable by merely pressing on a standard AR15 magazine release?
Witness: That is correct, the magazine is detachable.
Since splitting the upper and lower effectivaly renders the rifle inoperable, it would cease to be a rifle and would become an upper and lower. Just a bunch of parts and therefore legal. Is my logic correct in that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
Since splitting the upper and lower effectivaly renders the rifle inoperable, it would cease to be a rifle and would become an upper and lower. Just a bunch of parts and therefore legal. Is my logic correct in that?
I'm sure they would find a way to screw you.

With that said, I don't remember the law stating that lower receivers needed to be permanently modified to not accept a semiautomatic upper receiver.. But let's face it, you'd go to jail whether or not you win the following court date.
 

·
R.I.P. to our friend PY-3-21-2016
Joined
·
5,474 Posts
Since splitting the upper and lower effectivaly renders the rifle inoperable, it would cease to be a rifle and would become an upper and lower. Just a bunch of parts and therefore legal. Is my logic correct in that?
Logic plays no part. It comes down to what a judge or jury will be convinced as to what they believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
The law states the ability to ACCEPT a detachable magazine.

Says nothing about removal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the BB, doesn't the detachable magazine just pop right in?

I purchased an AR MR2, but went with removal of the pistol grip that conspicuously protrudes below the action, instead.

There is nothing conspicuous about the spur grip, and it is not a pistol grip.

The NYSP saying it could be legal if they used epoxy makes no sense, as that does nothing to affect the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,902 Posts
We're lesser citizens of a second rate feudal state. The rifles were ATF compliant before Cuomo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,168 Posts
A lot of the speculation is due to misunderstanding how laws are written. Unfortunately, this crap unconstitutional law is very clear. When it says detachable magazine, its means exactly what it says. Laws are supposed to be written in simple terms. Unfortunately, the Safe Act is. This is why I've always maintained that nit-picking each individual line or word is not to our benefit. We need to work on getting the enture law thrown out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
708 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
The law states the ability to ACCEPT a detachable magazine.

Says nothing about removal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the BB, doesn't the detachable magazine just pop right in?
I don't like to speculate as to what is in other people's minds when they do something but I will take a crack at it on this issue.

I think the law could just as easily have been written to say "has an ability to UTILIZE a detachable magazine". What the legislators were doing is trying to describe a zebra without calling it a zebra............... describe the AR / AK without specifically referring to them by name.

Try to think of in from the other side's point of view.

Is it semi-automatic? (Meaning "does it shoot lots of booolits really really fast?") -------- yes ----------- oh, that's bad

Does it use detachable magazines? (Meaning "can you quickly put another magazine in when the first one runs dry?") ------ yes ------ oh, that's bad

Does it have "military" features? (Meaning "can it be spray fired from the hip?") ----- yes ----- oh, that's bad

Okay, we gotta write a law banning the bad stuff.

It is a 3 legged stool that needs all 3 legs in place to stand................ semi-auto, detachable magazine, evil features. The Mini 14/30 and the Ares SCR lack the evil features leg. The Troy Defense pump action PAR lacks the semi-auto leg. An AR modified so that the magazine is NOT detachable (not simply only detachable if you use a tool or only detachable if you take it halfway apart but NOT detachable as in FIXED IN PLACE) lacks the detachable magazine leg.

Finally, the wording "has an ability to accept a detachable magazine" separates the rifle issue from the magazine issue. What I mean by that is as long as the rifle itself is able to accept a detachable magazine - whether a magazine is in it or not - the rifle meets that particular criteria. This way a specific law is created for the rifle alone and the presence of a magazine is not necessary for there to be a violation.

As has been said before by others............... this law is INTENTIONALLY broad and vague. Designed to cast as wide a net as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
I never went with an MR2, much less a BB, because of the ambiguity of what is meant by "accepts a detachable magazine" and the corresponding arguments that tapper3 just made.

Here's an interesting related note: we've also heard from the NYSP that compliant stocks/devices (Hammerhead, FRS-15, Spur, etc.) must be permanently attached and that the buffer tube has to have the holes filled, even without a stock on it. This is absolutely not true. Legally, feature (iv) in the very same section establishes that the ability to accept a restricted feature must be separately and specifically restricted. Specifically, it says (after the "and has one of the following") "a flash suppressor or compensator, or a threaded barrel designed to accept a flash suppressor and compensator." (<- from memory, so the words may be slightly off.) Therefore, since it does not separately and specifically restrict the ability to accept a pistol grip or a collapsible stock, then just the features themselves are all that is restricted. They cannot construe "has" as including "or has the ability to accept". Manufacturers of compliant hardware were told this, but they were also told it would make the NYSP feel better, since it would show that the owner does not intend to switch the rifle back to AW configuration. So, pin/weld your thread protector to comply with (iv), but using epoxy on the stock or grip? Only if you want. Though, you may not want to have a loose pistol grip or collapsible stock hanging around ... you know, to make the NYSP feel better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Why I went with a T-nut.

Does not accept a detachable magazine.
Now does it need to be epoxied?
That is a whole other thread in itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Im gonna epoxy my palm to my face.... might as well make that permanent too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
Ok everyone, let me run this past you guys. My Brother in Law registered his M1A. Received the notice saying it was excepted and assigned a registration number. My Brother in Law then decides to modify the M1A by knocking out the roll pin for the mag release, removing the spring behind the magazine release lever and replacing it with a length of steel rod of the same length as the spring. The mag release lever does not move. He re installs the mag release and roll pin. Effectively he now has a MR2 type device in the trigger group of the M1A. He has two choices, first he can load the mag through the top of the receiver using a stripper clip or remove the trigger group and replace the mag, the same thing as separating the upper and lower of an AR.

Anyway, he fills out an amendment describing the modification and mails it to the NYSP. 5 days later he gets an email asking him to contact a Sgt from the NYSP. He calls, has a five minute conversation describing in detail the modification. One week later he receives an approved amendment basically removing the M1A from being classified as an AW.

So tell me what is the difference from the mod performed on the M1A or adding a BB or MR2 device to an AR. Both the modified M1A and AR with the BB or MR2 now either have to be disassembled to remove the mag, or load the mag from the top. So the talk of a BB or MR2 device not being legal is Bull.

I hope you guys can understand my thoughts by the way I wrote it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
I don't like to speculate as to what is in other people's minds when they do something but I will take a crack at it on this issue.

I think the law could just as easily have been written to say "has an ability to UTILIZE a detachable magazine". What the legislators were doing is trying to describe a zebra without calling it a zebra............... describe the AR / AK without specifically referring to them by name.

Try to think of in from the other side's point of view.

Is it semi-automatic? (Meaning "does it shoot lots of booolits really really fast?") -------- yes ----------- oh, that's bad

Does it use detachable magazines? (Meaning "can you quickly put another magazine in when the first one runs dry?") ------ yes ------ oh, that's bad

Does it have "military" features? (Meaning "can it be spray fired from the hip?") ----- yes ----- oh, that's bad

Okay, we gotta write a law banning the bad stuff.

It is a 3 legged stool that needs all 3 legs in place to stand................ semi-auto, detachable magazine, evil features. The Mini 14/30 and the Ares SCR lack the evil features leg. The Troy Defense pump action PAR lacks the semi-auto leg. An AR modified so that the magazine is NOT detachable (not simply only detachable if you use a tool or only detachable if you take it halfway apart but NOT detachable as in FIXED IN PLACE) lacks the detachable magazine leg.

Finally, the wording "has an ability to accept a detachable magazine" separates the rifle issue from the magazine issue. What I mean by that is as long as the rifle itself is able to accept a detachable magazine - whether a magazine is in it or not - the rifle meets that particular criteria. This way a specific law is created for the rifle alone and the presence of a magazine is not necessary for there to be a violation.

As has been said before by others............... this law is INTENTIONALLY broad and vague. Designed to cast as wide a net as possible.
and from your description , this may be it's downfall in the appeals court because of the broad an vague intentions . Sckretny admitted that these rifles were " in common use " as well as the magazines so along with this new challenge , this could the NYSP snare before the November court date too .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,419 Posts
I'm going to epoxy one hand to my ass and the other to my dick.
FUAC.
ROFL...don't use automotive structure epoxy, that sh:t don't come apart ! Ever ! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,419 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,656 Posts
In the thread concerning the sale of "bullet button" modified AR rifles, the discussion has now turned to the news media report saying the NYSP making a statement that the bullet button is not an acceptable modification. From that thread........ "In a statement Wednesday, State Police confirmed that a "gun store owner was selling modified assault weapons he believed to be compliant with the SAFE Act, when in fact they were in violation of the law. The State Police in cooperation with the Orleans County District Attorney's Office will work with the gun store and its customers come into compliance with the law, as it appears the noncompliance was unintentional.""

In addition...... "Palumbo (the gun store owner) said he now must add an epoxy to fill the hole any tool would go in." (This would defeat the function of the bullet button to release the magazine, as I understand it.)

Many members here are asking where the hell the NYSP came up with this "it must be permanent" idea. And I think looking at NY law vs. CA law will explain it.

Under NYS Penal Law 265 definitions, section 22 reads as follows.....
"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: (no need to list them, we all know them)

But under CA law the definition is somewhat different..........

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon"
shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity
to accept any ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the
firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet
or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. [A]nd any one of
the following:

There are those among us who say the NY law doesn't say anything about "permanent" and they are right. Some say there is no mention of "epoxy" and they are also right. We can wish the law said something other than what it does, we can rail against the "stupid" lawmakers writing "stupid" laws, but the fact remains that the law consists of words that have specific meanings. Meanings that we cannot simply wish were different.

"Detachable" - a Google search of the definition of this word turns up............ "a detachable part can be removed and put back on again" ... "designed to be unfastened or disconnected without damage" ... "to separate or unfasten; disconnect" ... "to disengage and separate or remove; unfasten; disconnect".

Specific meanings.

Could the NY legislators have copied the California law? Sure, but that is not what they intended. They wrote this law broadly so that there would be little wriggle room. They remembered well how the 1994 ban allowed manufacturers to market similar, and yet, compliant rifles. And they were determined not to allow this to happen again.

The California law specifically references the use of a "bullet button" to make the magazine not "readily" detachable. And seems to reference a MR2 device to do the same thing by way of disassembly. But our law makes no reference to "readily removed" nor "disassembly" or "tools" to remove a magazine.

I know I will get bashed for this statement but our law is very clear............. "a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine" (and certain characteristics). Period.

Consider this fictional (and I think probable) courtroom scene............

DA: I am showing you an AR15 rifle with a so-called "bullet button" device installed in place of the standard magazine release button. A magazine is inserted into the rifle. How does this device allow the magazine to be detached from the rifle?
Witness: You insert a bullet tip or other small tool into this hole and push inward. Then the magazine falls free from the rifle.
DA: So the magazine is detachable, just not detachable by merely pressing on a standard AR15 magazine release?
Witness: That is correct, the magazine is detachable.

DA: Now I am showing you an AR15 rifle with a MR2 device
installed in place of the standard magazine release button. A magazine is inserted into the rifle. How does this device allow the magazine to be detached from the rifle?
Witness: You remove this pin at the rear of the receiver, split the upper part of the rifle from the lower part, then use your finger to push the MR2 device inward. Then the magazine falls free from the rifle.
DA: So the magazine is detachable, just not detachable by merely pressing on a standard AR15 magazine release?
Witness: That is correct, the magazine is detachable.


DA: Finally, NYS Penal Law states that an "assault weapon" is defined as a semi-automatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has certain other characteristics. And you have shown how the magazines on these two rifles are detachable. Since both of these rifles have pistol grips that protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, are semi-automatic in firing function, and can accept detachable magazines even though those magazines cannot be readily or easily removed........ do they meet the definition of "assault weapons"?
Witness: Yes, they do meet that definition.

It's a simple 3 part test, people. Is it semi-automatic? Is the magazine detachable (not readily or easily detachable)? Does it have evil features? If the answers to all 3 questions are "yes" then it meets the NYS legal definition of an "assault weapon" and all the other laws concerning this rifle apply.

This, I am certain, is the opinion of the NYSP legal counsel and this is how the law will be enforced.
You missed one configuration... MR2 with washer installed making it so you cannot remove the magazine without removing the MR2 which requires an allan wrench. Removal of magazines from other non restricted rifles require the same or less. One step further, spot weld the screw, now the MR2 has to be ground off...

Keep in mind, when the removable magazine and 10 round limit provisions were defined in the SAFE act, their intent was described as slowing down how quickly a shooter could cycle large amounts of ammunition through the gun. If there was the true intent, washer installed MR2 certainly accomplishes this. It could be argued that it is too easy to convert back... As stated in many other threads, an SKS can be 'converted' using no tools and a lot faster than an MR2 equipped AR..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,419 Posts
ok everyone, let me run this past you guys. My brother in law registered his m1a. Received the notice saying it was excepted and assigned a registration number. My brother in law then decides to modify the m1a by knocking out the roll pin for the mag release, removing the spring behind the magazine release lever and replacing it with a length of steel rod of the same length as the spring. The mag release lever does not move. He re installs the mag release and roll pin. Effectively he now has a mr2 type device in the trigger group of the m1a. He has two choices, first he can load the mag through the top of the receiver using a stripper clip or remove the trigger group and replace the mag, the same thing as separating the upper and lower of an ar.

Anyway, he fills out an amendment describing the modification and mails it to the nysp. 5 days later he gets an email asking him to contact a sgt from the nysp. He calls, has a five minute conversation describing in detail the modification. One week later he receives an approved amendment basically removing the m1a from being classified as an aw.

So tell me what is the difference from the mod performed on the m1a or adding a bb or mr2 device to an ar. Both the modified m1a and ar with the bb or mr2 now either have to be disassembled to remove the mag, or load the mag from the top. So the talk of a bb or mr2 device not being legal is bull.

I hope you guys can understand my thoughts by the way i wrote it.
mag is perment and can not be removed. Bb with a tool you can remove
 
1 - 20 of 97 Posts
Top