I came upon this article which seems to illustrate very well the folly of passing laws which legislate the legality of something based on appearance. I really haven't paid much attention to what the law mandates since I cant ever see myself visiting the state, but this seems to pass muster legally though has no real effect on the function of the weapon.
Shop owner Rich Sehlmeyer holds an AR-15 assault-style rifle with a compliant stock on Saturday, May 25, 2013, at The Gun Shop in Lake Luzerne, N.Y. (Cindy Schultz / Times Union)
The Times Union
It might be the most divisive element of Gov. Andrew Cuomo's NY SAFE Act: an expanded ban on what the administration terms "assault-style" weapons, such as the Vietnam-era AR-15s that are wildly popular with gun enthusiasts.
But the ban is proving to be less than total. Gun dealers, with the help of machine shops and gunsmiths, are on the cusp of offering what they call NY SAFE-compliant AR-15s and other military-style rifles.
Prototypes for the new rifles have been on display at gun shops from western New York to the Adirondacks in recent weeks. And now a lawyer representing one shop says he has gotten what amounts to an OK from the state, in the form of a letter from a State Police lawyer confirming that AR-15-style guns should be legal as long as they lack the characteristics prohibited by the law.
"It's basically an AR-15 without the features," said James Tresmond, a western New York lawyer representing H&H Firearms, a Lackawanna gun shop that's seeking to sell such a rifle.
"People are champing at the bit" for the modified rifle, said Justin Reickart, who with his wife operates H&H.
He aims to offer an AR-15-style rifle with the pistol grip permanently removed, and without banned accessories such as a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug.
Look at the result of your laws. Go on, look at it. It's hideous.
ReplyDeleteI agree, glad mine doesn't look like that....
DeleteThis problem is as old as the first AWB. You'd think these people could come up with a definition that works. But, meanwhile, don't you find something wrong with people who work so hard to circumvent laws. Wouldn't truly law-abiding people accept laws even if they don't agree with them without looking for ways to get around them?
DeleteMike, I think a better term would be complying with the new laws. You often like to speak to your belief that behavior regarding gun must be constrained by law.
DeleteIt works the same way with any other product that is regulated by law. The manufacturer uses the regulations to design a product that buyers want and is legal to market.
If they had just come out and passed a total ban to include confiscation as Senator Feinstein is quoted as wanted, there wouldn't be all this whining. But, they likely couldn't sell that.
So if you want to get picky, these people are truly law-abiding. They are following the letter of the law enacted by the state.
They can't come up with a good definition because there is nothing special about "assault weapons". If there was something extra super deadly it would be easy to define, don't you think? Instead you guys ban benign features- and this is what an AR-15 looks like without those features.
DeleteMikeb, the problem is twofold:
Delete1. The term, assault weapon, is a nonsense term. It was invented in an effort to fool the masses, but since it has no basis in reality, attempts at bans will always have loopholes and imprecision.
2. Since "assault weapon" bans are unjust, it's natural for good citizens to find work-arounds. That's what happens when the law is designed to burden good people instead of forbid bad behavior.
That's a helluva spin to call it "complying with the new laws." Could you really say that with a straight face?
DeleteMikeb, if these laws weren't a Byzantine violation of basic rights, they'd be funny.
DeleteMike, keep in mind that New York's Governor signed a message of necessity to bypass the mandated minimum three day debate period to push the law through without debate and also minimize the opportunity for citizens to contact their elected representatives to tell them their position.
DeleteBy doing this, they managed to pass a law that had enough problems with it that they had to go back and make even more changes to it. For example, they forgot to include the obligatory law enforcement exemption that would allow law enforcement to use standard size magazines, though I would argue that it suggests that is places a lower value on regular peoples' lives.
They also didn't notice that no one makes 7 round magazines for many modern pistols. Ooops! So they fix that by saying that you can just load seven rounds in the standard magazine. But we WILL charge you if you happen to miscount the rounds.
You often like to say that people need to be constrained by law to change behavior. Well, the law got passed, and people are obeying, also known as complying with the law that was passed by modifying the firearms to be compliant with the SAFE Act. Not unlike car manufacturers complying with government regulations when they were required to market vehicles with seat belts.
If you have a complaint, it should be with the authors of the legislation, not with the manufacturers, who are having to follow the law.
I suppose if the government came out with new CAFE standards for automobiles, and the manufactures met those standards, that would be called "circumventing the law". Because they really just wanted them to stop making internal combustion engines, but couldn't say so.
DeleteI have to admit the number 7 struck me as a bit odd.
Delete" it's natural for good citizens to find work-arounds."
DeleteYes Greg we know, you work hard to circumvent the law, you told us.
It's a number less than ten, which shows the direction gun control groups are going.
DeleteBut you're right--seven isn't divisible by two. ;)
The good news is that human beings are vastly more creative than those who seek to control them. Of course, it would be better if we didn't have to keep fighting idiotic laws in the first place. But I've yet to hear a good reason why a bayonet lug or other such cosmetic features are things to get worked up about.
ReplyDeleteRight, the founders fought to the death for idiotic law.
DeleteThe fight was for the right to put laws on paper and create a better society. It worked. Sorry to hear you think that effort is idiotic.
When mere humans make the laws, they make mistakes, but not the kind of mistake you make by flaunting the law.
Those founders created a society that recognized freedom as a value. Control freaks can't stand that.
DeleteRight, gun controllers hate freedom. HA HA HA HA HA HA
DeleteCongrats! Your law has resulted in an AR that is far more ergonomic for "spraying fire from the hip!"
ReplyDeleteThat is actually a good thing Anon. Another term for firing from the hip is unaimed.
DeleteI know. I'm just enjoying some schadenfreude in the fact that their ban resulted in an ugly gun that is more suited for such foolish, unaimed shooting than the original gun that they were terrified of.
DeleteWhy is this a problem? This time last year you were insisting that an Assault Weapon Ban was needed and that the ban was not merely "cosmetic." You explained that the pistol grips and other banned features needed to be banned because they made the guns more lethal.
ReplyDeleteHere, this gun doesn't have the offending features. What's wrong with it?