Another SAFE Act Unintended Consequence-- Illegal to transport an AR15 with Ammo

B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
A few hours ago, I got a phone call from Jim Tresmond, lead attorney in the Dywinski v. State Of New York suit.

He tells me that they have identified yet another unintended consequence in the "SAFE" Act...

Hopefully, Maxb49 will be along to fill in any details or errors in my reporting here.;)

Anyway, under the SAFE Act, AR15 rifles are now classified as "firearms" in NY State. This sounds obvious to any normal person, but the legal definition of a firearm in NY has never included ordinary long guns.

The problem that this creates is that it is illegal to transport a "loaded" firearm in a vehicle in NY State without a permit.

Here again, this may sound obvious, until we find that an appeals court has found that the definition of "loaded" includes POSSESSING a "quantity of ammunition sufficient to discharge the firearm.

Yes, you read that right. POSSESSING enough ammo to discharge the firearm. Not loaded in the chamber... not in the magazine... IN POSSESSION.

How much ammunition is a quantity sufficient to discharge the firearm? Yes, one round.

It is now illegal, in NY State, to transport an AR15 rifle and ammunition in the same vehicle.
 
Last edited:
I can only speak of my hometown in Boston, but I do not think the vast majority of constituents are pro gun in a good many of these NOrtheast States. If I had to gauge if pit to a vote most gun control laws would be willingly accepted by a slight majority in and around Boston.
 
I would add a caveat to the above statement about the northeast and attitudes towards legal gun ownership, and carry. It is the metro areas, meaning inner cities AND suburbs that are against legal guns ownership, not the more rural areas. The problem is most of the population is in these areas and thus they control the rest of the state. New York, and Boston are prime examples. It is a problem that has spread all over the country. The attitudes, and beliefs of the metro area individuals taking over entire states that were once reasonable, free, and actually common sense about guns. (using their own language against them for a change)
 
Regarding the comment about the Northeast. I'm from Massachusetts and have to live with insane laws.

Here's an example. When my son was 16 he applied for and received an FID card. He was required to take a full day NRA class to do so. With an FID license he can possess lo-cap long guns. So he could legally possess a shotgun, lo-cap rifle, and ammo.

But some consider the Ruger 10-22 a hi-cap weapon because magazines of >10 capacity are readily available. Many dealers require a Class A firearms license to buy a Ruger 10-22. Yet my son could legally possess my Remington 700p in .308, or even my Barrett .50 BMG. Oh, and in MA you need an FID card to possess pepper spray. That's right, we need a license for pepper spray.

Oh, one more thing... my son could possess the aforementioned firearms with his FID card. But he could not possess a pellet gun. In MA you need to be 18 or older to possess a pellet gun. His FID card is not valid for a pellet gun. He needed some sort of "Police Chief sporting license" that our chief of police never heard of.

Massachusetts is clearly the worst in New England. North of us sanity prevails, so far anyway. Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are very gun friendly by comparison. Even RI and CT allow purchase of a handgun without a license. A license is needed for CCW.

In MA, a used brass cases falls under the definition of ammunition. And a firearms license is required to possess ammunition.

Does that help y'all understand the madness that is this liberal run state???
 
Thank you Brian. Sadly, everything Brian said is true. Tresmond Law will be publishing soon a full list of the consequences this bill has on gun owners. Most of these consequences have not yet been realized by many people. This is a sad day in our State, and this goes beyond gun rights. It's bad enough that they attack people's right to own and purchase guns. The broader issue, which frankly is scary, is whether a state government has the ability to interfere with your life and criminalize your behavior without so much as giving you reasonable notice, your rights be damned. The issues here are so serious that we're going to be converting to a full time civil rights practice here in Western New York. We have to put an end to this. More to come. . .
 
It is now illegal, in NY State, to transport an AR15 rifle and ammunition in the same vehicle.
Click to expand...

So has the state police taken the rifles out of all their patrol cars? (I know city cops won't obey the law, but state troopers are usually pretty by-the-book)
 
The NYS Supreme Court is soon going to tell us what "arbitrary and capricious" is in the SAFE Act.:rolleyes:
 
The NYS Supreme Court is soon going to tell us what "arbitrary and capricious" is in the SAFE Act.
Click to expand...

Yes. Frightening, and (legally) exciting times.

There are now three cases in NYS Supreme Court.

There Robert Schulz case out of Albany. That is returnable on, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) March 11th.

The Dywinskicase (Class Action) is underway in front of Hon. Diane Devlin in Erie County. The first appearance was on 2/21, returnable in April.

Then there is the Holtz case

Those two cases are being handled here.

Lastly, there is the Notice of Claim filed by the NYSRPA, being handled by Goldberg Segalla. Presumably, a Request for Judicial Intervention will be filed soon.

The State is in bigger trouble than many think.
 
Does that include to and from the range?

I believe so, but I will check tomorrow. This is beyond outrageous.
 
I'm not 100% sure myself, but this may clarify.

New York defines firearms as illegal weapons. Therefore, unlicensed handguns, short barreled rifles/shotguns, and assault weapons are firearms, within the meaning of NY law.

It is possible to remove a weapon from firearm status. Having a pistol license allows you to have a handgun, which is no longer considered a firearm,

Likewise, having a registered assault weapon removes that gun from the firearm classification. However, the registration scheme does not exist yet.

The key here is the reading of how assault weapons can be registered to remove them from being classified as firearms. It says they are not firearms if they are registered pursuant to the SAFE act, and the registration section says they can be registered within one year of the act.

My guess is the issue centers around whether a non registered assault weapon will be considered to comply with the registration section before the one year deadline is up.

Edit to add:

Forget the second part.

The law defines loaded firearm as follows:

265.00 sub 15. "Loaded firearm" means any firearm loaded with ammunition or any
firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a
quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm.

Thus, having any weapon that is classified as a firearm (i.e. illegal weapon) and possessing ammo constitutes a loaded firearm.

Then turn to

265.03, which makes possessing a loaded firearm a class C felony, but carves out an exception if the firearm is in your home.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'll have to drop my AR off at the range and then go back home and get my ammo ?
Being a law abiding citizen I complied with this law ad when I returned to the range I discovered my AR had been stolen. So I guess I won't be able to register it now.

Maybe I should have hooked up my utility trailer and had the AR in the truck and the ammo in the trailer ?
 
My guess is the issue centers around whether a non registered assault weapon will be considered to comply with the registration section before the one year deadline is up.
Click to expand...

You are correct, this is the controlling issue. And the problem that we have here is that at least 4 police officers that we have spoken with define the unregistered AR as a "firearm". This is problematic, because they're the ones who are going to be making the stops/arrests. Oliver Wendall Holmes's definition of law as a mere "prediction of what the courts will do" holds true here.
 
Hindsight, leaving New York 31 years ago is probably one of the best things I've ever done in my life.
 
does this go for all assault weapons or just the ar-15?
Click to expand...

Yes. From what Lancelot and I have been posting, you non-New York folks can see that we're in for the fight of our lives here in New York. Don't think for one second that this is going to be contained in New York. We have to win these cases. My people here have to win, NYSRPA has to win. Even Schultz has to win.

Fortunately, we have a real shot at success.
 
Yes. From what Lancelot and I have been posting, you non-New York folks can see that we're in for the fight of our lives here in New York
Click to expand...

yeah i live here so I'm not a non-New York folk. no more speeding on the way to the range I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top