LI DA Rice makes nine arrests

The nine men arrested today were openly breaking the law, making a practice of putting profits before the safety of our citizens, and flooding our streets with dangerous assault weapons...
Click to expand...

Because if the stocks were still pinned, then using the guns for criminal activities would be darn near impossible?

Everytime I forget about how illogical some people are, someone on the internet has to go and remind me again...

Stuff like this makes me just speechless.
 
I appreciate everyone keeping this thread this civil to this point.

However, I'd like to remind everyone that we generally frown on calling anyone, including public figures, epithets like Nazi, Fascist, Communist, etc., unless they are actually affiliated with that specific political movement...

Otherwise it borders on a violation of TFL rule no 3:

"No spamming, trolling, flaming, invective or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor..."
 
So, when was pinning of stocks down to a matter of degree?

Are there any NY regulations on point that say either (a) pinning is not allowed or that (b) pinning must be so permanent as to be impossible to remove with a hammer and punch?

If not, I'd throw some due process challenges in to the arrest.
 
KChen986 said:
So, when was pinning of stocks down to a matter of degree?

Are there any NY regulations on point that say either (a) pinning is not allowed or that (b) pinning must be so permanent as to be impossible to remove with a hammer and punch?

If not, I'd throw some due process challenges in to the arrest.
Click to expand...


I'd like to point out again that the real stupidity here is that the collapsable stock is NOT illegal.... it only becomes illegal if the firearm has at least two of the other eeevillll options also installed/capable.

For instance, if it had a collapsable stock and a GRENADE LAUNCHER, it would be perfectly legal as long as it didn't also have a flash suppressor, a barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a pistol grip or, worst of all, A BAYONET LUG!



I mean, if you guys can't see how a perfectly acceptable gun with a grenade launcher and flash suppressor is instantly made into a horrendous, evil, unconscionable killing machine when a threaded barrel is added, well, I just don't know what to say.:eek::rolleyes::D
 
I believe the NY AWB allows only ONE "evil" feature. If the rifles in question were AR-15s, the pistol grip is a given, so the collapsible stock would be a second "evil" feature.
 
This is the applicable law:

S 10. Section 265.00 of the penal law is amended by adding three new subdivisions 21, 22 and 23 to read as follows: 21. "SEMIAUTOMATIC" MEANS ANY REPEATING RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR PISTOL, REGARDLESS OF BARREL OR OVERALL LENGTH, WHICH UTILIZES A PORTION OF THE ENERGY OF A FIRING CARTRIDGE OR SHELL TO EXTRACT THE FIRED CARTRIDGE CASE OR SPENT SHELL AND CHAMBER THE NEXT ROUND, AND WHICH REQUIRES A SEPARATE PULL OF THE TRIGGER TO FIRE EACH CARTRIDGE OR SHELL. 22. "ASSAULT WEAPON" MEANS (A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
(III) A BAYONET MOUNT;
(IV) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR OR THREADED BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR;
(V) A GRENADE LAUNCHER; OR
(B) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
(II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
(III) A FIXED MAGAZINE CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF FIVE ROUNDS;
(IV) AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE; OR
(C) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
(I) AN AMMUNITION MAGAZINE THAT ATTACHES TO THE PISTOL OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;
(II) A THREADED BARREL CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A BARREL EXTENDER, FLASH SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;
(III) A SHROUD THAT IS ATTACHED TO, OR PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIRCLES, THE BARREL AND THAT PERMITS THE SHOOTER TO HOLD THE FIREARM WITH THE NONTRIGGER HAND WITHOUT BEING BURNED;
(IV) A MANUFACTURED WEIGHT OF FIFTY OUNCES OR MORE WHEN THE PISTOL IS UNLOADED;
(V) A SEMIAUTOMATIC VERSION OF AN AUTOMATIC RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR FIREARM; OR
(D) ANY OF THE WEAPONS, OR FUNCTIONING FRAMES OR RECEIVERS OF SUCH WEAPONS, OR COPIES OR DUPLICATES OF SUCH WEAPONS, IN ANY CALIBER, KNOWN AS:
(I) NORINCO, MITCHELL, AND POLY TECHNOLOGIES AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOVS (ALL MODELS);
(II) ACTION ARMS ISRAELI MILITARY INDUSTRIES UZI AND GALIL;
(III) BERETTA AR70 (SC-70);
(IV) COLT AR-15;
(V) FABRIQUE NATIONAL FN/FAL, FN/LAR, AND FNC;
 
(I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
Click to expand...
And that's the crux of the matter. When is a telescoping (collapsible) stock not a telescoping stock?

Answer (until now): When the stock is pinned and cannot readably be made to telescope.

DA Rice is going to try and get the Courts to say that having a pin makes it readably convertible.

That's giving Rice the benefit of the doubt and it has nothing to do with this. :rolleyes: Plausible deniability.
 
It will never happen but the U.S. Justice Department ought to conduct a criminal investigation for civil rights violations.
 
i had a gun store on long island tel me today that they wouldnt do a transfer after what happened in Nassau County.
 
What's the reasoning behind the "(IV) A MANUFACTURED WEIGHT OF FIFTY OUNCES OR MORE WHEN THE PISTOL IS UNLOADED;"

Anyway, this is probably going to be expensive.
 
What's the reasoning behind the "(IV) A MANUFACTURED WEIGHT OF FIFTY OUNCES OR MORE WHEN THE PISTOL IS UNLOADED;"
Click to expand...

It was likely intended to ban one particular firearm. I don't know for sure. There's no RATIONAL reason for any of it, but there's some one's (or some party's) personal vendetta as a REASON for most of it.
 
After reading the potential behind the scenes issues, I hope justice is served. In fact, maybe if we're lucky, there will blow back.
 
If the linked blog contains the truth (which the lawsuit will determine) then this clearly appears to be the tyranny of a petty individual in a position of bureaucratic and law enforcement power. A sadly familiar situation, although this example is more extreme than most.


As to the assault weapon law, rumor has it that when they were selecting criteria for the banned features, they got a copy of the Shooter's Bible (some say with the Shotgun News) and picked out the guns that looked "evil" and compiled the ban features to include as many of them as possible.

As to the current charges, it will boil down to the court (always the best determiner of technical issues:rolleyes:) to rule if the pinned stocks are in compliance with the law, in both fact and spirit.

In other words, how "readily comvertable" can something be, and still be in legal compliance. There is nothing you can do to a firearm that still leaves it functional that cannont be "undone" if you are prepared to do enough work, and it can all be done with hand tools, if you are dilligent enough.

The tape of the undercover agents being told what they were arsking about was against the law, and so on, seems pretty good evidence in favor of the defense, that the dealer was following the letter of the law. Wonder if it will make it into court?
 
44 AMP said:
As to the current charges, it will boil down to the court (always the best determiner of technical issues) to rule if the pinned stocks are in compliance with the law, in both fact and spirit.

In other words, how "readily comvertable" can something be, and still be in legal compliance. There is nothing you can do to a firearm that still leaves it functional that cannont be "undone" if you are prepared to do enough work, and it can all be done with hand tools, if you are dilligent enough.
Click to expand...
But the law says nothing about whether or not stocks can't be "readily convertible." It simply says they cannot be telescoping or folding. A stock with a rivet or pin driven through it (not a screw or a nut-and-bolt) is not a telescoping stock. It may not pass at the trial court level, but I feel resonably certain that, even in New York State, an appellate level court is going to be capable of reading what the law says and slapping down a DA who wants to extrapolate beyond what the law requires or prohibits.
 
Read up on the Bullet Button, a CA concept to thwart the removable large capacity ammunition feeding device. Perfectly legal.

I suspect those CA cases will be cited in defense in these LI cases.
 
Is there anything on the NRA's website about this situation. It is a serious matter and, in my opinion, the way it gets resolved will have an impact on our rights in the future and the NRA should be following it closely. At last check, however, I couldn't find anything on the NRA's website regarding this however. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top