NY State's own AWB... I still need pre-ban mags

[Pete45]

So the AWB has finally sunset! I live in New York State (Long Island) and we have our own state AWB here. Nothing has changed for me unfortunately. Still, I am happy the ban expired because it was nonsense. If I want to by one of those "military style semi-automatic rifles" here, it wouldn't me hurt too badly to do without a bayonet lug, folding stock, etc. The rifle will still fire the same round - I wouldn't feel too deprived. My concern is with standard capacity (a.k.a. high capacity) mags.

I own a Beretta 92FS and have purchased standard capacity 15 round pre-ban mags for it in the recent past at a reasonable price ($30-ish). The sunset of the AWB will definitely change the mag market, but to what extent? Will "genuine pre-ban mags" manufactured before 1994 become very expensive since there will be less of a demand for them now? Despite the fact that there is still a great supply of them, will pre-ban mags be considered rare?

It seems to me that companies can afford to jack up the price on their inventory of pre-1994 mags because they will already be selling enough post-sunset "high-capacity" mags to not feel the loss of those other sales. People that live in States like NY still have the option of buying 10 round mags so I feel the companies will push their inventory of 10 round mags on us. Will the price of 10 rounders be reduced?

What so you guys think about all this?

- Pete45

 

[Graystar]

I'm in the same boat. Pre-ban mags for my Glock 17 were 80 bucks. I think the price of 10 round mags will stay the same and standard capacity mags will be a little more. Hopefully, the prices of pre-ban mags will go way down.

Better yet would be if Glock dropped the LEO label on mags and make the new mags exactly like the old ones!

 

[NEtracker]

We have a permanent ban here in MA.
I believe the prices will reamain about the same for mags here, and for pre-ban AR's, etc., also.

 

[glocksman]

Not to encourage you to ignore NY state law or anything but once the supply of 'LEO Only' marked standard capacity mags is replaced by normal unmarked magazines, how would anyone know the date of manufacture of your Beretta mags?

BTW, for those of you who need preban glock mags, I'll let my G19 mags go for $25 each once I replace them with brand new ones.

 

[NEtracker]

If, and it's a big if, the manufacturers waste their $ for new patents, then the newer patent number will be associated with a current date.
(don't think that'll happen!)

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Is it actually against the law to purchase a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" in NY state? Looking through Article 265 it seems it's verboten to dispose of or deface large capacity ammunition feeding devices. But I see nothing prohibiting purchase, possession, or importation. Did I miss it? Is it somewhere else in the statutes? Or is it a poorly cobbled together, bad piece of legislation, which doesn't say what the lawmakers thought it did?

 

[Graystar]

Is it actually against the law to purchase a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" in NY state?

Yes it is.

S 265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when:
...
(8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

But I'm not "such person", am I?

S 265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third
degree when:
(1) He commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the
fourth degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five of
section 265.01, and has been previously convicted of any crime; or
(2) He possesses any explosive or incendiary bomb, bombshell, firearm
silencer, machine-gun or any other firearm or weapon simulating a
machine-gun and which is adaptable for such use; or
(3) He knowingly has in his possession a machine-gun, firearm, rifle
or shotgun which has been defaced for the purpose of concealment or
prevention of the detection of a crime or misrepresenting the identity
of such machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun; or
(4) Such person possesses any loaded firearm. Such possession shall
not, except as provided in subdivision one or seven, constitute a
violation of this section if such possession takes place in such
person`s home or place of business; or
(5) (i) Such person possesses twenty or more firearms; or (ii) such
person possesses a firearm and has been previously convicted of a felony
or a class A misdemeanor defined in this chapter within the five years
immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such possession
did not take place in the person`s home or place of business; or
(6) Such person knowingly possesses any disguised gun; or
(7) Such person possesses an assault weapon; or
(8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D
felony.

See, I'm reading the 'such person' to refer to someone who's already violated 265.02 [1],[2],or [3]. It's not criminal possession in the 4th degree to have a 'large capacity ammunition feeding device', and it isn't mentioned in the 3rd degree -- until it's speaking about "such person". IANAL, but am I misreading it?

 

[Graystar]

Yes, you’re reading it wrong, and yes you are “such person.â€

The words “Such person†and “Heâ€, as used in the enumerations, refers back to “A person†in the beginning of the subsection. All the cases are “orâ€ed...meaning that each is independent of the other. The last sentence, which describes the degree, is not part of the enumeration. That stands alone and is at the same level as the first sentence. So the statute can be written as:

S 265.02 Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third
degree when: [<--Start of enumerations]

(1) He commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the
fourth degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five of
section 265.01, and has been previously convicted of any crime; or

(2) He possesses any explosive or incendiary bomb, bombshell, firearm
silencer, machine-gun or any other firearm or weapon simulating a
machine-gun and which is adaptable for such use; or

(3) He knowingly has in his possession a machine-gun, firearm, rifle
or shotgun which has been defaced for the purpose of concealment or
prevention of the detection of a crime or misrepresenting the identity
of such machine-gun, firearm, rifle or shotgun; or

(4) Such person possesses any loaded firearm. Such possession shall
not, except as provided in subdivision one or seven, constitute a
violation of this section if such possession takes place in such
person`s home or place of business; or

(5)
(i) Such person possesses twenty or more firearms; or
(ii) such person possesses a firearm and has been previously convicted of a felony
or a class A misdemeanor defined in this chapter within the five years
immediately preceding the commission of the offense and such possession
did not take place in the person`s home or place of business; or

(6) Such person knowingly possesses any disguised gun; or

(7) Such person possesses an assault weapon; or

(8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device. [<--End of enumerations]

[Read below as continuation of paragraph after "when:"]
Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D
felony.

These laws are updated all the time. Most likely, when 265.02 was written it had only 3 cases. The person that wrote it used "He". Then someone that was a little more PC came along to write additions to the law, and used "such person."

If you read the Violent Crime Control And Law Enforcement Act of 1994 you'll notice two things. First, the AWB part was just a small part of the entire act, and second, the act is nothing but a huge list of amendments to the existing law. So there are bound to be inconsistencies in the writing. It may throw the layperson, but lawyers understand what's going and they understand how to recognize the hierarchy of the text.

 

[ctdonath]

Is it actually against the law to purchase a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" in NY state?

Yes.

HOWEVER...

If a magazine was manufactured before Sept. 14 1994, it is by definition NOT a "large capacity ammunition feeding device". Hence, "pre-ban" mags are still legal, even 100-round Beta-C mags (I want one; anyone want to part with their grungy 10+ year old one and buy a nice shiny new post-post-ban one? or likewise an AR15 pistol?).

Which raises the question:
Perhaps someone (me, if I can find the time) should set up a "goodwill AWB legal orphan" website, linking those who want pre-'94 items (being in NY, NJ, CA, etc.) with those seeking to upgrade, as in "I'll buy you a new one if you'll give me your old one".

 

[Graystar]

Perhaps someone (me, if I can find the time) should set up a "goodwill AWB legal orphan" website, linking those who want pre-'94 items (being in NY, NJ, CA, etc.) with those seeking to upgrade, as in "I'll buy you a new one if you'll give me your old one".

Won't matter here in NYC. According to NYC law I can only buy/sell mags from/to a dealer.

 

[Daniel964]

Could you do FFL transfers on Normal Cap Mags? I have Three 15 round and one 17 round mags for my beretta 92F I bought about 1989. Still in like new condition. I would be willing to try a transfer of them to someone in NY if I have bought new beretta replacement mags first. If everything is legal etc.

 

[madmike]

As another thread discusses, you can repair your preban mags with new parts, as long as you maintain one old component (as near as we can tell, consult an attorney, etc).


So if you had, oh, I don't know, four damaged mags, and were able to scavenge one component from each, you could replace them with parts to maintain four magazines.

So if you had, say, a baseplate, body, spring and follower, that would mean each one could be wrapped in three new parts to repair....

 

[Sam Adams]

I don't know how in the world any state could know for certain whether you had purchased a magazine prior to '94 (or whenever their respective bans took effect) or had, alternatively, traveled to one of the free states and purchased it at a gun show last weekend (hypothetically speaking, of course). Short of stopping and searching every car at all entry points to a state, which would be blatantly illegal and would result in any such evidence being thrown out of court, and which would also subject the police to civil suits for violating your civil rights, it would be impossible.

Further, I strongly doubt that new mags produced after 9/12/04 will have any markings that would allow someone to determine the date of manufacture - and if something were imprinted on the baseplate, how would they (hypothetically speaking, of course) know whether that component had been replaced? BTW, to my knowledge, no law in any state ever made it illegal to own or acquire baseplates, or the tools to remove and assemble them into magazines. They might not like it, but tough tah-tahs.

The oppressed citizens of the former Soviet Union had a saying: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." I think that the residents of the various Peoples Republics located within the borders of the US should adopt a variation on that, e.g. "They pretend to serve us, and we pretend to obey."

Naturally, I don't advise anyone to break any law. All of the above is thrown out there for discussion purposes only, and is protected speech under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

As an aside, I owned over 40 magazines capable of holding over 15 rounds of ammunition while a NJ resident and after the Florio gun and magazine ban (which made mere possession of such magazines a 4th degree felony, and punishable by time in the pokey) became law in the PRNJ. Almost all of them were acquired in Pennsylvania, for cash, after the ban had passed. However, I later came to my senses: I escaped and became a political refugee, and the great state of Texas graciously decided to grant me assylum. Now I can own whatever I can afford to buy, with no fear of going to jail for a victimless "crime."

 

[Zach S]

So if you had, oh, I don't know, four damaged mags, and were able to scavenge one component from each, you could replace them with parts to maintain four magazines.

So if you had, say, a baseplate, body, spring and follower, that would mean each one could be wrapped in three new parts to repair....

The only magazine part that was banned by the AWB was the tube. I wouldnt want to be caught with four replacement tubes and one pre-ban if I was living under oppression.

 

[El Rojo]

Boy things sure are simple out here in the PRK. I bought all of my magazines in 1985.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Yeah, thanks, I see it now Graystar. I can usually decipher the lawyerese, but the change in construction threw me (that and the wishful thinking ). So no LEO only marked mags as souvenirs. Oh well.

And Rojo, did you use a time machine? Or did you see into the future to buy mags for guns you didn't own yet in '85?

 

[El Rojo]

That is correct.

 

[Schwatt]

(i) Such person possesses twenty or more firearms

First, when did states start laws about how many firearms you can own, and how would they enforce that?

"Sorry Mr. Jones, but I can't sell you that single shot shotgun because you are over your limit."

What a bunch of liberal drivel.

 

[Graystar]

First, when did states start laws about how many firearms you can own, and how would they enforce that?

There are some things here that you're not understanding.

First, New York State does not consider rifles and shotguns to be firearms. Those are rifles...and shotguns...and would not be counted. Firearms are handguns, machineguns, etc.

Second, the law in NYS completely outlaws even simple possession of a firearm. You can't possess one...much less twenty. The difference in count between 1 and 20 only acts to increase severity from a fourth degree crime to a third degree crime.

As far as I know, there is no limit on how many firearms I can legally own. I can have a hundred handguns if I want, as long as I acquire them according to the law. That means being licensed and registering each gun.