Are AR type guns legal in NY?

[shield20]

Ok - confused by this - NY Penal law s265.0 has described an assault weapon in section (a) as the typical 'semi-auto with detachable mag + 2 or more features' crap, but then also lists, in section (d), "any of the weapons, or the functioning frames or receivers of such weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber known as:" then lists the (iv) Colt AR-15.

Doesn't this make any AR gun illegal in NY, regardless of features? Its obvious the dealers don't think so, as they are sold all over - so what gives?

 

[Graystar]

Doesn't this make any AR gun illegal in NY

Obviously

Its obvious the dealers don't think so, as they are sold all over - so what gives?

Dunno...call one and ask.

 

[WT]

It's very simple.

The Colt AR-15 is an assault weapon as defined by NY Codes.

The Colts that are sold to the public nowadays like the HBAR and Match Target are NOT AR-15's. They are NOT copies or duplicates of the AR-15.

Therefore, they are legal.

 

[shield20]

Ahhh - ok - it is all in the wording, especially the "or"s...

i.e. the AR-10A2 with muzzle break is definetly NOT a "functioning frame or receiver" of an AW Colt AR-15; NOR is it a copy/duplicate of the AW Colt AR-15 (detachable mag and supressor & bayo lug)...

man, its close, but it is OK then

This would explain it!

Edit: Thanks WT!

 

[WT]

You got it!

A little bourbon, a black light, and some Jimi Hendrix or Jethro Tull and the world becomes crystal clear.

 

[ctdonath]

shield20 is right. To any idiot looking at it - and when evaluated in NY court it most likely will be relativel idiots looking at it - any "AR-15 upper and lower receiver" is indeed a "functioning .. receivers of ... the (iv) Colt AR-15."

WT is wrong because the supposed difference relies on combinations of parts other than the receiver.

The incredible flaw in the prolonged & verbose NY AW ban is that there is that one line which practically renders the entire rest of the law irrelevant. All that verbage drawing a fractal (i.e. very complex, more complex the closer you look) line between what's a legal rifle and what's an illegal AW is a huge pile of red herrings, distracting from the fact that the law plainly and simply declares AR15 (and other) receivers contraband (excluding pre-'94 ones).

The only reason NY hasn't actively prosecuted anyone for possession is that the anti-gun types are too ignorant of the subject to understand their own hard-won laws, and the NY AG is too confused about its meaning to actually pursue what it actually says.

Read plainly, and without being distracted by other verbage, AR-15 style receivers are illegal in NY unless made pre-'94. Someday the wrong people are going to figure this out - a bad day indeed.

 

[WT]

Colt has modified the slightly modified the receivers on the HBAR and Target Master so that it is different than that AR-15 model. Some parts cannot be interchanged. You might say it is like comparing a Springfield 03 to a Remington 700. They may look the same - barrel, bolt, stock, etc. but to a knowledgeable person they are 2 different types of firearms.

The Colt barrels for civilian use are also different than the AR-15.

So yes the AR-15's are considered assault rifles while the HBAR, etc are not. They are different.

 

[artherd]

Ok - confused by this - NY Penal law s265.0 has described an assault weapon in section (a) as the typical 'semi-auto with detachable mag + 2 or more features' crap, but then also lists, in section (d), "any of the weapons, or the functioning frames or receivers of such weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber known as:" then lists the (iv) Colt AR-15.

Doesn't this make any AR gun illegal in NY, regardless of features? Its obvious the dealers don't think so, as they are sold all over - so what gives?

California tried to ban "All Ar-15 style guns, regardless of manufactuar"

Well, guess what, there's now CASE LAW THAT SUCH VERBAGE IS NOT LEGAL!!! (Kelser V Lockyear.)

You just can't have an open-ended ban like that. Because, when you think of it, there *isn't* really a legally defineable "AR-15 reciver".

What about the colts that take different pin sizes?

What about the SVI FAB-10 and now the Bushmaster XM-15s with welded mag wells?

What about the pistol lowers?

What about the .22lr or 9mm lowers that don't even work with a 'standard' upper?

Nope, sorry, this won't hold up.

Just like California's verbage DID NOT HOLD UP, and they were forced to provide a list of manufactuar stampings that were explicidely banned.

However, the 'series ban' lingo is still in the existing law, doing nothing much more than scareing people into submission.

 

[beerslurpy]

Unless your particular receiver was once part of a finished AR-15 or other specifically banned brand of gun, you do not posess "a receiver thereof."

For example, my gun contains the modified receiver and parts from an SLR-101. Just because it is funtionally identical to a SAM7 doesnt mean it would be banned under a law banning posession of "all Arsenal SAM7 or receivers thereof." Unless you ban the creation of firearms containing a list of features that offend in the SAM7, you cant ban my converting of a receiver to one form or another. For example, disabling the semiauto disconnect and installing a hammer delayer would create a gun with the feature of being fully automatic- a feature which is illegal to have. "assault weapon" bans must use similar approaches to even obey due process.

Kasler v Lockyer would seem to indicate that you can only ban specific guns by name or by featureset. You cant ban a "style" of guns because many guns contain similar features (such as a rotating bolt and a gas operated action) that may or may not be relevant to the intent of the legislature. And if I read the CA assault rifle case correctly, it is not an issue relating to the wording of a CA specific law, but a fundamental issue of due process whereby a law has to clearly enumerate what acts are criminal before someone may be held responsible for violating that law.