Posted: 9/23/2007 5:52:41 PM EDT
|
I am so confused..... If I buy a preban lower receiver, can I build it into a preban configured rifle? I've been told that I can do this, and I've been told that I need to buy a complete rifle to be NY legal. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Steve |
+1 you dont need to prove it was a complete rifle. You do have to prove the lower was made before the AWB |
|
This question comes up time & time again, and stems from the fact that in spite of what many people think & are told, the NYS "assault weapons" ban is NOT a word for word copy of the old federal ban. The subject was done to death a few years ago: archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=202877, but to clarify for the new folks around here, the following is the legal definition of "Assault Weapon" according to NY State law:
Thus, under NYS law, even "functioning frames or receivers" of "such weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known as... Colt AR-15" are considered grandfathered "assault weapons" if they were "lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four." |
 It depends on your risk tolerance. Until a court rules on the meaning of the provision, it's unknown what the meaning is. You may very well find the Court of Appeals thinks a Bushmaster lower is not a copy or duplicate because it's stamped "Bushmaster" on the side and not Colt. The risk is of being on the wrong end of a crusade by Janet DiFiore or someone similar. A misguided prosecution is not an unlikely thing and a court in NY is unpredictable on gun matters. YMMV but I have no intention to be the test case. |
so your going to avoid owning anything like an AR because of this fear or? 
|
|
"Thus, under NYS law, even "functioning frames or receivers" of "such weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known as... Colt AR-15" are considered grandfathered "assault weapons" if they were "lawfully possessed prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four." Ok... now I'M confused. By that same token, wouldn't any post ban "functioning frames or receiver of such weapons, copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known as... Colt AR-15"" be an AW, and thus illegal? I mean.. If it need only be a receiver (as per section D, "evil points" being irrelevant) to be grandfathered as legal, then all post bans would be illegal for the same reason. You can't apply the "two features" clause to one and not the other. 
|
It seems to me the answer is no, because all the weapons named in paragraph (d) are already (by definition), "assault weapons" (i.e. they have two or more "evil" features). In other words, the "functioning frames or receiver of such weapons, copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known as... Colt AR-15" are considered "assault weapons" because the weapon they were compared to by name (Colt rifle marked "AR-15") possessed the physical attributes necessary to qualify it as an "assault weapon" under the "features" clause of the law. I helps to think of it this way: The weapons listed & named in paragraph (d) are not there in spite of the "features" clause, they are listed & named because of it. Hence, a pre ban Bushmaster lower would qualify as a "copy or duplicate" because (like a Colt AR-15) it was legally capable of being assembled as an "assault weapon" (two+ features), where as a post ban Bushy lower was never legally capable of being an "assault weapon", thus it is not considered a "copy or duplicate" of an "assault weapon". Clear as mud, yes?  I hope I'm making sense... it's late & the law is poorly written & conceived.Anyway, years of firsthand experience with ARs' in this state has demonstrated that post ban receivers can only be built into "one feature" weapons, & that pre ban receivers can be built into any configuration that you choose. With that said, I'm no lawyer, so I may be dead wrong in everything I said. My opinion is worth what you paid for it. God... I hate this state!  |
Not at all. I'm going to only own a receiver verified as shipped as a complete rifle rather than a stripped lower. The difference in price is small, and think of it is added insurance. It's not as if I have to buy 20 AR15s. (Although I do have 18 M16s right now . . . ) |
thats all you 
|
Mmm... no. It clearly says "functioning frames or receiver of such weapons". Frames and receiver have no features. I think it's best to let that sleeping dog lie though. No good can come for poking it and asking questions. 
|
It says "functioning frames or receiver of such weapons", but your leaving out the key part of the equation... "in any caliber, known as: Colt AR-15" Colt AR-15s' were "assault weapons" by definition (i.e. they were a semi-automatic rifle which was capable of accepting detachable magazines & they featured a pistol grip, a threaded muzzle, a flash hider.) Thus, the "functioning frames or receiver of such weapons" are also (and necessarily) "assault weapons" according to the wording of the law. Post ban receivers can not be considered "copies or duplicates" of a Colt AR-15, because Colt AR-15s' were by definition always "assault weapons"... something that a post ban receiver or weapon could never legally be. Pre ban "functioning frames or receivers" are always considered "assault weapons" Post ban receivers are not & can never be (on their own) "assault weapons" And yes... it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. 
|
I just wanted to post the text of the old Federal AWB...
... for comparison with the text of the NYS AWB:
See, there is a reason the BATF opined that there was no such animal as a "pre ban lower receiver" (stripped or otherwise)... the concept was not supported by the law as it was written! The NYS AWB on the other hand... |
Actually AFAIK the opinion of the ATF did not apply to named assault weapons. AFAIK a "Colt AR-15" receiver under the federal ban was considered to be an assault weapon regardless of its current configuration. Once again I have no dog in this fight and as always you're on your own to determine what meets the definition of an AW in NYS. |
I did not know that, but if true, it only strengthens my argument. One can only assume that if the old federal law had been worded the same as the NYS law, they would have determined that the "copies or duplicates" of an AR-15 receiver are also considered to be "assault weapons," regardless of their current configuration. |
Beats me. Who knows what the Albany Critters had in mind. You need to keep in mind that like Carolyn McCarthy who thinks a barrel shroud is a "thing that goes up" the NY legislators are for the most part as clueless (or even more clueless if that's possible) then McCarthy is. |
I hear you brother... this state is a fucking mess from top to bottom. Though I will add this... I have an AWB response letter from state Senator Nick Spano dated July 2000, which says: "To be sure, significant changes were made over several months to the Governor's plan to ensure that it had minimal impact on legal gun owners, as the following chart illustrates: Conforms NY law to mirror weapons banned in 1994 by the federal government. Effect on current legal gun owners: none." This would seem to indicate that their intent was to mirror the federal ban at the state level in case the federal ban was allowed to expired. At very least, this letter shows that they were not seeking to pass a ban that was more restrictive than the old federal one. But again, who the fuck really knows? |