I clicked through this and nowhere in there does it ask “when” you owned it. So based on that I dont even know if “owned pre safeact” or “owned post safeact” is relivant. (I bet it is, and its just another shitty oversight when they made the little tool I linked).
If it is relivant, remember that application I talked about months back… crossing nics and the registration db its already in place and funtional, ill just leave it at that.
one of the old timers I use to shoot trap and skeet with was telling me this about a month ago when I ran into him at the gun shop. this is the first I’ve seen it on the net. stock up while you can, if you haven’t been already
Yup, times eleventy billion. He sounds retarded when he talks about car stuff he knows little about, and blatantly ignorant when he talks about gun stuff that he obviously knows jack shit about…
I think its retarded in concept and necessity but in design it’s still a rifle. It might not look like it “should”, but how it is uncomfortable. Unless the stock is too short or too long for the user it’s the same ergonomics as any other standard hunting rifle. I held one and it felt nothing different really than my deer rifle.
What is so retarded about its design and the utterly useless argument that a thumbhole stock or pistol grip somehow kills more people by their design… on that NY comp ar if they connected that 1/2" of air space behind the buffer tube and the lower part of the stock it would make it illegal. That blows my mind how that tiny little bit of air space makes it A-OK (and be a fixed stock).
"“A pistol grip helps you keep firing on a target,” she said. “Each characteristic has a specific battle component.” "
That’s a quote from an assemblywoman in the article. The world’s easiest counter to that statement. “Would you rather have someone in control of the weapon, keeping it on a safe target or someone struggling with the ergonomics of the weapon who can’t stay on target? It’s not a battle component, until it’s aimed at someone presenting you with resistance.”
The entire court decision and order from Monday is shown in the link… I read it all.
The jist is this:
-it states that the legislation has more power than the judicial system. Thats scary.
-It also states that the legislation acted on the assumption that the weapons themselves are only possessed for criminal activity IF they are outfit with more than one “military type feature”, thus making the rifle an assault weapon. “collapsible stocks and pistol grips are used to control the weapon better” this is true, and is a benefit in the hands of a capable and law abiding shooter. Then they go on to say that “these features are on military weapons, for the same reasons of weapon control, but they are used by them to kill more human targets”, therefore legislation says it is in the right to assume that the features are there only to aid in killing more people so their “reason for the ban” is justified. THAT is very scary, for the sole fact that they just proved “you are guilty before proven innocent”, that even before you commit a crime, simply possessing the rifle with more than one “feature”, that you are a criminal. read page 27-34. Its all based on ASSUMPTIONS that we are all of criminal intent, before we are even given the chance to prove otherwise through lawful use of those weapons. THATS BULLSHIT.
-It did say that now we are able to have 10 rounds in our 10 round mag and the reasoning is this: "pitting the criminal with a fully-loaded magazine against the law-abiding citizen limited to seven rounds. " is removing our ability to defend ourselves effectively. Thats nice and all, but again, its simply defeated by the fact that the lawless person attacking me could have a 10, 30, 50+ round mag, so I am still at a lesser opposition. AND, more importantly, stating that CONTRIDICTS the points they said validated their reasons to let the pistol grip and adjustable stocks stick for the fact that if you are worried about a law abiding citizen having the ability to protect themselves to the fullest extent, why cant we also have the features that allow us to control the weapon better???
Basically its PROVING that the state is only concerned about the what if’s that are never going to change, and that everything about the safe act and the weapons/magazines it focus on are in place based on assumptions, statistics and that fact that an inanimate object is perceived to be owned and used lawlessly over lawfully. But hey, we can load a 10rd mag fully now.
Adam H… has this idea ever come across your melon?
Since the "xxxxxx & the ability to accept a detachable magazine) is the qualifier for an “assault weapon”… Mechanically how hard would it be to come up with a fixed magwell lower receiver that can quickly be loaded? I understand pulling the rear pin and sending a stripper clip into the mag from the inside of the receiver… but thats a pain.
I am picturing in my head a bottomless “magazine”. In other words something built into the sides of the “mag” that hold the bullets and spring them up to feed them. So to reload it you just push each round into the bottom.
Or a receiver with some crazy feed ramp design that allows you to pull the bolt back and easily push rounds past the bolt and into the “mag”.
Just board thinking out loud one inventor to the next.
I hear what you’re saying but i dont like the idea of loading through the ejection port…but there are (this is only my thoughts not facts) 2 ways of going about making an ar that has an internal magazine which could still be recharged without taking out the rear take-down pin…my first thought would be something similar to an enbloc (from an m1 garand) that would be fed through the ejection port, and my 2nd idea would be a purpose built upper with a similar design to a belt fed gun with a section that can be unlatched and swing up and allow access to the mag that is locked in place and a stripper clip or a mag lula could then be used to recharge the magazine…either way would be a lot of money and time in R&D and with a somewhat limited market…glad i could contribute to the novel though.
the reason i say i don’t like the idea of loading through the ejection port is if you were to accidentally hit the bolt release while your finger(s) where in the upper, it would fuck your day up in a jiffy.
Mag locks on market defeating the law already for AR owners, essentially making them no different than any other fixed mag semi auto.
Youre idea has been tried to ill effect. No effective means to positively feed the ammunition without redesigingthe mag, which requires atf approval and paperwork(creating new ammunition feeding device). Complexity, cost, durability, etc all come into play. If it doest feed reliably you wont sell asingle unit beyond protos.
Could i come up with something, yes, but i have already lost far too much money and time to this law. There are other lawsuits going through after reg begins and im waiting until then before i tool up for stuff thatwill be needed.
Right now you can make your AR compliant to the law an not have to register via a maglock withnothing more than $5 worth of hardware from lowes and maybe that much of your time, but you then have to load from the top via takedown.
Im staying out of the gun game for bit aside from coatings and custom bits(stocks, parts, etc)
I am going wayyy out on a limb (knowing Adam holds better stature on shift and is way more of a gun guy than I) here but I disagree with your idea on the mag lock/bulletbutton.
From what I understand reading the law, and what others (one lawyer in the family as a matter of fact) agrees… the utter bullshit way the safeact was written VS how proper it was written in CA is why it “shouldn’t fly” here in ny. Reason I said shouldn’t fly is because we have yet to see a court case against the bullet button here in NY to prove his (lawyer buddy) assumptions.
Its currently written as: “Has… AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE…. AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS”
That’s it. Infact if you look up the Bill and do a search for “tool”, “button” and have zero results found. The search term “fixed magazine” only refers to semiauto shotguns which cant have a capacity of more than 5 round in them.
Tool-less or tooled (allen wrench, bullet tip, etc) removal of the magazine to remove/dismount and then attach another magazine, states IN NY that the weapon can still accept a detachable magazine and is still under the one feature scrutiny. The way he CA law is written it goes into DETAIL on how that magazine should be legally removed for re-installation. Talks about “tools” and such.
A welded on magazine or a one piece receiver with a built in “magazine” or bullet holding area if you will is the only thing that would stretch the idea that it can no longer ACCEPT a detachable magazine… I’ll put my foot in my mouth the after the first “bullet button” case that favors the defendant.
AMMO… 9 DAYS TILL WHO KNOWS WHAT. I have been to Dicks, Walmart, and 2 gun shops… they know the nic’s and NYS database entry for who, how much, and what cal. is coming on the 15th but NONE of them know how its even supposed to be carried out yet! I have information thats for the SRS thread if details are needed, but I can tell you from what I read from the inside, NYS doesn’t have a plan yet either! One on the books suggestion was put a trooper on prem to fill out information on a hand written form for each customer! not even joking.
the mag locks are not the same as a bullet button…with a mag log the only way to remove the magazine is to remove the rear take down pin and swing the upper out of the way…this is considered disassembly, and disassembling an ar to swap out a mag is no different than disassembling a bolt action rifle to replace the internal magazine. the fact that the disassembly of an ar is much simpler doesn’t change the fact that the rifle is being disassembled (therefore the mag is not detachable). i know what you are saying though but lets live the technical thinking and redefining of words to the state, lets not help them turn us into criminals.
edit: if they decide to require tools to remove the mag i will gladly use the punch on my leatherman mut to push out the takedown pin.
and dont get me wrong im not “redefining” words… I am reading them for how they are written and so did my lawyer. also, nowhere in the bill does it mention “disassembly” at all either, and it doesn’t mention anything about taking federal standards or something else as further definition for the NYS bill. My lawyer said “if the magizine can be removed, it accepts a removable magizine end of story”. then he also said its written like shit and will lead to some fucked up court cases becasue of how its written.
any magazine can be removed from a firearm if it is disassembled, the tube mag on a shotgun can be removed, an internal box mag can be removed from a rifle, but they all require disassembly, when you remove the upper from the lower that is disassembly, so you can either use a mag lock or replace the mag release on the lower with some hardware and the magazine cant be released even with the upper removed…not saying your lawyer is wrong but from a purely gun knowledge point of view, if the ability to remove the magazine from a firearm means it accepts a detachable mag would mean that all guns accept a detachable mag, which in my opinion is wrong…but i am by no stretch of the imagination a firearms expert or a lawyer…but the law is written like complete shit, that’s why so many parts of it can be challenged and thrown out as “unconstitutionally vague”.
