Posted: 5/23/2013 12:04:47 PM EDT
| So has anyone figured out with the new safe act canceling out the old law, if we can have whatever evil features we want on our ar's? such as flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc? |
|
Quoted:
So has anyone figured out with the new safe act canceling out the old law, if we can have whatever evil features we want on our ar's? such as flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc? Yes your rife is an assault rifle. You can't make it anymore of an assault rifle by adding features. |
|
Quoted:
So has anyone figured out with the new safe act canceling out the old law, if we can have whatever evil features we want on our ar's? such as flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc? You can add anything you want , just make sure its nice and clean when the boys come to pick it up. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So has anyone figured out with the new safe act canceling out the old law, if we can have whatever evil features we want on our ar's? such as flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc? Yes your rife is an assault rifle. You can't make it anymore of an assault rifle by adding features. I figured that once they are registered as AW then it doesn't really matter what stock, muzzle device are on them. Pre-ban in NYS don't mean shit anymore. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just remember that it has to be registered otherwise it is illegal if it fails the one feature test 
(yes I'm being sarcastic) It's not illegal it's undocumented... That's offensive, I prefer to call mine a Guest Rifle of NY State  Mine are resident aliens, but I married them, so they are legit now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just remember that it has to be registered otherwise it is illegal if it fails the one feature test
(yes I'm being sarcastic) It's not illegal it's undocumented... That's offensive, I prefer to call mine a Guest Rifle of NY State Mine are resident aliens, but I married them, so they are legit now. I shudder to think of the debauchery that took place on that wedding night..... poor things |
|
Quoted:
Rifle needs to stay in current configuration post ban after registered. Collapsible stocks and FH will still get you jail time. Then again only 400 have registered so far so the fuck Where in the new law does it say that registered assault weapons have to stay in factory configuration? Not trying to start an argument but I don't see it in the new law. Thanks, 1981 |
|
It's not in the new law. The only thing there is that the gun must have been legally possessed at date of law signing. Now interpretation of this might be that the gun must have been legal at that time, namely having one feature only, the "post '94 ban configuration.
Now, I have a .22 LR upper and a 9mm upper, both. Bought before law signing but never had the bayonet lug removed or FH replaced with a brake or pinned. So what do I need to do to legally use those uppers? The lower receiver was legally possessed on 1/15/13, pinned fixed stock, pistol grip. With a legally configured .223 upper on it. |
|
Quoted:
Rifle needs to stay in current configuration post ban after registered. Collapsible stocks and FH will still get you jail time. Then again only 400 have registered so far so the fuck Wrong. You can have any feature you want if you owned the rifle prior the the new law and it was re-classified into an assault weapon on that date. Also you do not need to register it first to add these features. Show me where it says otherwise in the law. |
|
Quoted:
It's not in the new law. The only thing there is that the gun must have been legally possessed at date of law signing. Now interpretation of this might be that the gun must have been legal at that time, namely having one feature only, the "post '94 ban configuration. Now, I have a .22 LR upper and a 9mm upper, both. Bought before law signing but never had the bayonet lug removed or FH replaced with a brake or pinned. So what do I need to do to legally use those uppers? The lower receiver was legally possessed on 1/15/13, pinned fixed stock, pistol grip. With a legally configured .223 upper on it. Nothing is needed you can slap those uppers on and go. |
|
Quoted:
Here we go again. The answer to the question is _______________. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=4506 sir I take your.........and raise you 
|
|
Quoted: Rifle needs to stay in current configuration post ban after registered. Collapsible stocks and FH will still get you jail time. Then again only 400 have registered so far so the fuck That position is completely unsupported (and is actually contradicted) by the plain text of the statute. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rifle needs to stay in current configuration post ban after registered. Collapsible stocks and FH will still get you jail time. Then again only 400 have registered so far so the fuck That position is completely unsupported (and is actually contradicted) by the plain text of the statute. well then I am wrong. Register or not it is up to you, it is none of my business if you want to abide by the treasonous state. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just remember that it has to be registered otherwise it is illegal if it fails the one feature test
(yes I'm being sarcastic) It's not illegal it's undocumented... That's offensive, I prefer to call mine a Guest Rifle of NY State Mine are resident aliens, but I married them, so they are legit now. I shudder to think of the debauchery that took place on that wedding night..... poor things You ever stick your wiener inside of a railed hanguard? It hurts, and I still have scars. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rifle needs to stay in current configuration post ban after registered. Collapsible stocks and FH will still get you jail time. Then again only 400 have registered so far so the fuck That position is completely unsupported (and is actually contradicted) by the plain text of the statute. For the non-legalese amongst us, any chance we can have a snippit, perhaps with highlights, to stuff in the safe? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just remember that it has to be registered otherwise it is illegal if it fails the one feature test
(yes I'm being sarcastic) It's not illegal it's undocumented... That's offensive, I prefer to call mine a Guest Rifle of NY State Mine are resident aliens, but I married them, so they are legit now. I shudder to think of the debauchery that took place on that wedding night..... poor things You ever stick your wiener inside of a railed hanguard? It hurts, and I still have scars. Not at any point when I was sober.... so if I did I wouldn't remember, and assume the scars were from something else
|
Its just weird that the features that we couldn't have on our rifles was because they would then be classified as assault weapons and illegal. Now all of the ARs are considered assault weapons and are illegal unless we register them. Most people aren't going to do that so if they are caught with rifles that are considered assault weapons now or post feb 2013 then wouldn't the punishment be the same? If your not going to comply with this BS then why worry about anything else?
 and I missed the ownage, bloody hell!!
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rifle needs to stay in current configuration post ban after registered. Collapsible stocks and FH will still get you jail time. Then again only 400 have registered so far so the fuck That position is completely unsupported (and is actually contradicted) by the plain text of the statute. well then I am wrong. Register or not it is up to you, it is none of my business if you want to abide by the treasonous state. I believe what you said was mentioned by one of the officials(NYSP?) who went around the state haing meetings informing people about the new law and answering questions. However his answer (opinion?) wasn't supported by the actual law. I think it was at a meeting in western NY where he made that claim so maybe that is where you got that idea from? |
|
Quoted: I believe what you said was mentioned by one of the officials(NYSP?) who went around the state haing meetings informing people about the new law and answering questions. However his answer (opinion?) wasn't supported by the actual law. I think it was at a meeting in western NY where he made that claim so maybe that is where you got that idea from? The statement was probably made by the "kool aid drinker". In any case my opinion (which means nothing) is you'd have to be batshit crazy to reconfigure an unregistered postban 1994/2000 rifle that would have made it illegal to possess prior to 01-15-2013. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe what you said was mentioned by one of the officials(NYSP?) who went around the state haing meetings informing people about the new law and answering questions. However his answer (opinion?) wasn't supported by the actual law. I think it was at a meeting in western NY where he made that claim so maybe that is where you got that idea from? The statement was probably made by the "kool aid drinker". In any case my opinion (which means nothing) is you'd have to be batshit crazy to reconfigure an unregistered postban 1994/2000 rifle that would have made it illegal to possess prior to 01-15-2013. But what if (hypothetically speaking) someone didn't give a rats ass about the 1994 ban before 01-1-13 and they give even less of a shit now about the new one, and they just continued to do what they do with their property, much the same way as they did before? Hypothetically speaking 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe what you said was mentioned by one of the officials(NYSP?) who went around the state haing meetings informing people about the new law and answering questions. However his answer (opinion?) wasn't supported by the actual law. I think it was at a meeting in western NY where he made that claim so maybe that is where you got that idea from? The statement was probably made by the "kool aid drinker". In any case my opinion (which means nothing) is you'd have to be batshit crazy to reconfigure an unregistered postban 1994/2000 rifle that would have made it illegal to possess prior to 01-15-2013. Why would someone be crazy for "Following the law"? According to the law it is not illegal not to add features to your newly classified assault weapon. There is no more pre post whatever ban. It is really that simple. You can go live in fear but no need to spread it to others. |
|
Quoted:
Hypothetically speaking you should move to a free state and enjoy your new found freedoms.
Well my contract is up in 2017... at which point I hope to be considered "experience" enough to get a job at with VMware or HP in Salt Lake City.... and then I will be a happy happy man |
|
Quoted: It is really that simple. You can go live in fear but no need to spread it to others. As always you might beat the rap, but I guarantee you'll never beat the ride. I did say "In any case my opinion (which means nothing). Oh yeah. This is New Yorkistan where nothing and I mean NOTHING is simple. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe what you said was mentioned by one of the officials(NYSP?) who went around the state haing meetings informing people about the new law and answering questions. However his answer (opinion?) wasn't supported by the actual law. I think it was at a meeting in western NY where he made that claim so maybe that is where you got that idea from? The statement was probably made by the "kool aid drinker". In any case my opinion (which means nothing) is you'd have to be batshit crazy to reconfigure an unregistered postban 1994/2000 rifle that would have made it illegal to possess prior to 01-15-2013. Why would someone be crazy for "Following the law"? He said unregistered- In that case it is illegal anyway unless it is featureless or whatever... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe what you said was mentioned by one of the officials(NYSP?) who went around the state haing meetings informing people about the new law and answering questions. However his answer (opinion?) wasn't supported by the actual law. I think it was at a meeting in western NY where he made that claim so maybe that is where you got that idea from? The statement was probably made by the "kool aid drinker". In any case my opinion (which means nothing) is you'd have to be batshit crazy to reconfigure an unregistered postban 1994/2000 rifle that would have made it illegal to possess prior to 01-15-2013. Why would someone be crazy for "Following the law"? He said unregistered- In that case it is illegal anyway unless it is featureless or whatever... Not illegal till after registration deadline. Regardless of the amount of features. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I believe what you said was mentioned by one of the officials(NYSP?) who went around the state haing meetings informing people about the new law and answering questions. However his answer (opinion?) wasn't supported by the actual law. I think it was at a meeting in western NY where he made that claim so maybe that is where you got that idea from? The statement was probably made by the "kool aid drinker". In any case my opinion (which means nothing) is you'd have to be batshit crazy to reconfigure an unregistered postban 1994/2000 rifle that would have made it illegal to possess prior to 01-15-2013. Yes, he made the statement. He has also told people that permanently attached muzzle devices don't count towards barrel length. If you mean the part in red from a "you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" perspective, then I agree to some extent as it can be risky. However, from a strictly legal perspective, there is no difference between pre-94 ARs and post-94 ARs - they're all "assault weapons." Registration is the surest way to avoid being hassled (at this time), because once a gun is registered it's no longer an assault weapon. |
|
Quoted: If you mean the part in red from a "you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" perspective, then I agree to some extent as it can be risky. However, from a strictly legal perspective, there is no difference between pre-94 ARs and post-94 ARs - they're all "assault weapons." Registration is the surest way to avoid being hassled (at this time), because once a gun is registered it's no longer an assault weapon. Four issues concern me without going into specifics: 1. The registration language of the applicable unSAFE Act PL statutes(s). 2. The legal status of a reconfigured AW if the applicable unSAFE Act PL statutes(s) are found to be unconstitutional. 3. This is new law and it's going to take years for the appellate courts and NYS COA to decide what many of these poorly crafted PL statutes actually mean. 4. As always "You may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride". I don't have a dog in this fight and as always YMMV. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If you mean the part in red from a "you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" perspective, then I agree to some extent as it can be risky. However, from a strictly legal perspective, there is no difference between pre-94 ARs and post-94 ARs - they're all "assault weapons." Registration is the surest way to avoid being hassled (at this time), because once a gun is registered it's no longer an assault weapon. Four issues concern me without going into specifics: 1. The registration language of the applicable unSAFE Act PL statutes(s). 2. The legal status of a reconfigured AW if the applicable unSAFE Act PL statutes(s) are found to be unconstitutional. 3. This is new law and it's going to take years for the appellate courts and NYS COA to decide what many of these poorly crafted PL statutes actually mean. 4. As always "You may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride". I don't have a dog in this fight and as always YMMV. I see your point with respect to the registration language, but I think any issues can be avoided relatively easily and the sloppy drafting is a problem for them as well, because the registration language doesn't do what they intended it to do. As with most of the crap that comes out to Albany, this was drafted horribly. Accomplishing what they wanted to accomplish should have been easy for them, and the means to do so should have been obvious. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you mean the part in red from a "you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" perspective, then I agree to some extent as it can be risky. However, from a strictly legal perspective, there is no difference between pre-94 ARs and post-94 ARs - they're all "assault weapons." Registration is the surest way to avoid being hassled (at this time), because once a gun is registered it's no longer an assault weapon. Four issues concern me without going into specifics: 1. The registration language of the applicable unSAFE Act PL statutes(s). 2. The legal status of a reconfigured AW if the applicable unSAFE Act PL statutes(s) are found to be unconstitutional. 3. This is new law and it's going to take years for the appellate courts and NYS COA to decide what many of these poorly crafted PL statutes actually mean. 4. As always "You may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride". I don't have a dog in this fight and as always YMMV. I see your point with respect to the registration language, but I think any issues can be avoided relatively easily and the sloppy drafting is a problem for them as well, because the registration language doesn't do what they intended it to do. As with most of the crap that comes out to Albany, this was drafted horribly. Accomplishing what they wanted to accomplish should have been easy for them, and the means to do so should have been obvious. Yeah assuming they knew one single thing about firearms.... |