NY State question on supposed assault weapons

[dust_101]

Ok, tried reading over this, and it just makes no sense...

So here's the situation, person X owns a Ruger 10/22 22LR rifle. This rifle has a bull barrel and a 'barracuda' style target stock that looks like this:

http://www.e-gunparts.com/DisplayAd.asp?chrProductSKU=851040&chrSuperSKU=&MC=

So now, is this considered a pistol-grip or not? ...and as such would that then make this an assault weapon?

.... so confused

 

[MHBushmaster]

No, that is not a pistol grip stock. Per NY State Penal code, you are allowed 2 evil features before your rifle is considered an assault weapon.
Your 10/22 only has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, Your 10-22 does not have a bayo lug, threaded muzzle, telescoping stock or a pistol grip.
Your 10-22 is not an Assault Weapon according to NY Penal codes.
Carry on, and good shooting.
Matt in Rochester, NY

 

[hnk45acp]

MH is correct however pending laws will make your friend a felon

 

[dust_101]

Ok see that's the part I forgot to add in here, as it is today 4/27/07 it is not an AW, but if the proposed bill passes:

http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A07331&sh=t

3 S 2. Subdivision 22 of section 265.00 of the penal law is REPEALED and
4 a new subdivision 22 is added to read as follows:
5 22. "ASSAULT WEAPON" MEANS ANY:
6 (A) SEMI-AUTOMATIC OR PUMP-ACTION RIFLE THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO
7 ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
8 (I) A PISTOL GRIP;
9 (II) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
10 NON-TRIGGER HAND;
11 (III) A FOLDING, TELESCOPING OR THUMBHOLE STOCK;



Am I reading this right?!?

 

[MilsurpShooter]

Going by the new wording on that bill, I'd say yes, it's an assault rifle... But I'm not an offical or lawyer though.

 

[GnL]

Contact your state senator and let's make sure this atrocity doesn't get passed by the senate.

If it does, they'll be all kinds of questions that arise over what is legal and what is not. Here's an example: the new bill talks about muzzle brakes and compensators but doesn't mention flash suppressors. I can see some numbskull judge ruling that a suppressor is the same as a muzzle brake because it goes on the end of the barrel, but the law doesn't say that. All kinds of crap like that we will have to deal with.

Our best medicine is to get it defeated, and that can only happen in the senate.