The OFFICIAL Gun Thread.


and here is the hardware mod i was talking about:


Im checking out that site after i click reply. thanks for the link

im going to check that link in a few mins. thx

read how the court challenge that was at the bottom of the link i gave a few days ago. The parts that were under scrutiny are now shown to the public how each side, for and against, argued their points to put the bill into place. A lot of the sections were reached by considering statistics for the most part and examples that support their statistical argument, instead of logical and technical though. If there wasn’t heavier opposition given in the same way, that side “won” and it went into the bill.

CLEARLY the people who had a valuable enough say in this bill are by no means weapons experts or basing their argument on feasibility and ease of pulling off an action while in the middle of a mass shooting… if they were, definitions to explain what a valid “detachable magazine” is would be in place… and arguments like we are having here would have told them that there has to be a level of “disassembly” drawn for firearms that must be considered in the bill to validate the difference between “assembly” or “reattaching ammunition feeding device”.

Which the CA law seems to have thought and spelled this out wayyy better. Which is why their system is in place and still functional. Until NYS puts more detail in place like we are here, as its written now, it can be wide open for discussion full of valid points like you are making, and it can also be on the flip side as simple as I am putting it… and both sides are correct fighting for different results.


like you said the law is worded like complete shit and can be interpreted in about 1000 different ways so all you and i are doing is speculating as to what would be acceptable under the law…this state sucks and i really wish that the federal government would allow long island to become it’s own state…it would be sort of like amputating a diseased foot to prevent the infection from spreading IMO.


yeah i feel ya, im typing and thinking… to exercise my brain and have a discussion, not to win a side which can never be won! :slight_smile:

I absolutely love the idea of the MR2 thing… but still it can be opposed so easily in court. “the actions you just took were done to facilitate the removal of the magazine from the lower receiver, correct?” YES they were. “Would you agree that the magazine was removed from the gun, for reasons of reloading and the intention to continue firing?” Yes I agree. “No further questions”.

It’s like pinning a compensator or flash hider. You are permanently modifying the threads on the barrel it’s attached to and welding a pin in place so that the device cannot be removed with normal hand tools, and even if it was the threads are going to be destroyed meaning it would need machine work to repair and reinstall another one. Not exactly an operation one would take place during a session of shooting. That’s as permeate as it can get I would say, and making that item NOT detachable. Remember their basis for this is all based around the intentional use of the weapon in NYS will designed in such a way to facilitate rapid firing with the intent on killing a lot of people… that’s what the military is designed to do, and that’s why the military uses these design parameters. That’s quite literally how they “accepted” the way parts of the safe act were written and they failed scrutiny in court on the 30th.

The worst part of it all for me is this. They put in writing proof that the design and ownership of these fire arms in the states eyes are that you will use them for unlawful acts of violence instead of lawful and practical purposes… guilty before even given the chance to prove innocence. THAT should be the most disgusting part for ANY citizen in NYS regardless of being a gun person or not.


in other news:




so another idea for a non detachable magazine would be to replace the mag release spring with a metal sleeve and assemble the mag release with a 10 round mag in the mag well and now it is a non detachable magazine…i might actually try this and see if it works.


same reasons that thread you linked earlier about the epoxied bolt stuffed into the release won’t work either… its modification is not permanent enough therefore can still accept another mag. Sure nothing as far as drilling, grinding, cutting, etc can be 100% permanent I get that, which is why there are details defining “permanent” in the law. Your idea can be altered in a way that no “repair” is even needed to the original gun once you remove that modification, which is that farther from permanently not allowing the gun to accept a detachable mag.

The thing that thread brought up you posted about the point that the law speaks about knowingly avoiding the registration because your weapon is on the ban list and having 30 days to register it or surrender it to dismiss the charges.

S. 2230 34 A. 2388


If your caught with it, and there is something like these loop hole ideas modified on it, there goes your chance for saying “I didn’t know” then your fucked, charges stick. If you didn’t know, why did you mod it to try to get around it? Which is why I am making a big “KK-Stink” about it, because it’s an all or nothing modification. It either is 100% going to get your ass out of trouble, or the attempt will get you in more.


featureless seems to be the best option IMO




Read the law mike. Theres nothing in it that says it has to be permanent for the mag catch. Technically, by vebatim, it renders the rifle not an assault rifle and herfore registration need not apply. There are tons of gun stores selling ar15s again just like this, with either an mr2 in place or a locked mag. Even got ny2a lawyers backing it up, so yeah, good to go.

Now doesnt mean you wont get arrested and have to fight it in court but youd win regardless despite having to pay for a lawyer based on how the law is written


I know it doesnt say perminate anywhere in there… that wasnt my point really. and I read the law, its literally 25 words or so “semiautomatic that can accept a detachable mag with one feature.” no further definition for any of the pertinent key words are given.

the point I was making is exactly how I was reading it… the weapon can still accept a detachable mag. period.

there are two ways I think the court will look at it.

-Will the weapon in its form presented to the court (with a mr2 installed) accept this magazine sitting next to the weapon? Yes it will, you pull this rear pin tilt the upper and press this button, the mag falls out, the next one is put in place and the upper is closed with the rear pin. I(court) can plainly see this weapon can accept a detachable magazine.

-Will this weapon in its form presented to the court with what once was a magazine welded to the receiver (or formed that way as one piece, or to a farther extent modified that it cant come off without alot of effort and possible tools) accept this second magazine sitting next to me? Clearly no it wont I dont have a cuttoff wheel handy. I(court) can plainly see this weapon can NOT accept a detachable magazine.

Until a court case is handled on this very matter, like me, Chris, You, my lawyer friend and the NY2A lawyers are doing its only speculation based on a piss poorly written bill. I just find it awful hard to believe that they let the pistol grip and collapsible stock fly because it was “believed to help steady the weapon, and allow the shooter to kill more people like the army does”… yet the point of the detachable mag shit in the first place is to DRASTICLY SLOW DOWN the shooter in a mass shooting event by not being able to have a weapon that can drop a clip in a split second. Where any coordinated person can pull a pin, pivot the upper just enough to travel that mag lock button, drop and swap the mag, then smack a pin back in in under a few seconds…

and selling in stores pistol grip / collapsible stock traditional AR’s with this mr2 type stuff in place doesn’t mean it is perfectly ok… it just means nobody got tested yet… just like what I bet the ammo sales in 8 days will be like, “fuck if i know what im supposed to dp, im going to just sell it anyways”

Link to a thread with compelling reason with the ny2a lawyers backing it, and I would love to see a nys letter of approval also.


im reading the 24 page thread now… read the first 2 pages then skipped to the last few… plenty of people dont believe its ok and plenty are for it… no proof anywhere either way.


Mike if you want more information on the safe act cases just read the law and politics page on NYF there are a fair number of idiots on that forum, but a few legal professionals and FFLs that work with NYSP.

If your going to be that strict with your interpetation your idea is still and AW since you can just pull the rear pin and jam a stripper CLIP into your premanently afixed MAGAZINE.

Unfortunately the moral of the story is until there is a test case keep your black rifles at home in the safe and don’t show them in public unless they are featureless.

just my .02 though


JUST like in CA… until someone gets canned in NYS with one of these ideas on the weapon and it goes through court to set a precidence to base further judgment on there is no real “legal” foot to stand on.

taken from the CA penal code:

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.

In other words, its considered a FIXED MAG when it requires the use of a tool OR dissassembily to remove the magizine. WHICH would make the MR2 thing, a bullet button, or the like perfectly LEGAL.

Once that flys through court bulletons would be given out to LEO’s… like this:

AGAIN the biggest problem why NONE of these solutions will keep you out of trouble is the LACK OF DEFINITION FOR A FIXED OR DETACHABLE MAGIZINE IN NYS PENAL CODE! Simple as that.

and for what its worth, ca is starting the banning process of the bullet button there now… so that will once again be rewritten.


i spent alot of time reading them; shooter, ashotinthedark, and others I understand who they are… I have read everything you have i bet. They are just as in the dark until either A someone goes to court and B things are re-written.

bushmaster carbon 15. fixed mag. 100% legal ar with pistol grip adjustable stock, etc.

If someone goes to court with a modded gun to make it “fixed” this state has literally ONE shot at this. If they prove it was a fixed mag beyond a reasonable doubt, we are just like CA was years ago and the mods work. (until NYS decides to fight back and ban the devices like ca is doing now). If they fail… we are all seriously fucked for good.

I said my peace. i have no further comment. I DO THANK YOU all for having the discussion in a respectable manor.


ammo sales shit.

Section 50 of the bill enhances control over sales of ammunition by adding a new Penal Law § 400.03 requiring (1) that sellers of ammunition register with the superintendent of the State Police (2) that prior to a sale of ammunition, a seller must run the buyer through a State-created review of disqualifiers to ensure that the buyer is not prohibited by law from possessing ammunition, and (3) that ammunition sales are electronically accessible to the State. In addition, to prevent from purchasing ammunition, the bill requires that any ammunition sold commercially must be conducted by a seller that can perform a background check.

the background check is NOT a NICS check. its a query against a state database.

the 15th of this month deadline is for retailers to have to register to sell ammo in the state. Its NOT a deadline for retailers to have to partake in a background check of any kind, since as its worded in the bill, there is no state created review of disqualifiers in place yet. They bought themselves a TON of time by wording it that way.

The law will also require retail sellers to do background checks and record sales once a
New York State database is established and operational.

Penal code for ammo sales and such found here:

Interesting part of it: This requirement of this section shall not apply (i) if a background check cannot be completed because the system is not operational as determined by the superintendent of state police, or where it cannot be accessed by the practitioner due to a temporary technological or electrical failure, as set forth in regulation So if the power accidently goes out, or the internets are down you don’t have to do the check, it says nowhere that selling of the ammo must stop until its back up and accessible. Maybe FFL’s will have some accidental power outages when ammo goes on sale.


If you own a firearm and care about your rights, not just about guns but your liberties in society as a whole, express that at Noon this Saturday. This marks the one year anniversary from when Cuomo shoved his agenda through with a heavy fist, over night without giving due time for a proper review… the un-SafeAct. Do so in a safe manor to prove that responsible ownership is not a crime.


Firearms are not legal in this state anyways. Have to start using the correct terms if youwant to be ahead of these assholes that wrote this law. This is one reason why if this ever makes it to a legitimate court case, its gojng down. Written so vaugly and incorrectly it cannot be enforced properly. Get enough people who are (wrongfully) arrested and are released/case dropped because of the wording of the law, suit can be filed against the state and he law can be found to be debunk by scotus and striken from the books.


Waiting for my Mossberg and Marlin to get here… been 14 days since ive ordered.