Still able to Register "Assault Weapons"?

FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
10,711
Location
Adams, NY
So, doing an annual re-certification of Handgun Licenses (be sure to check yours, it's every three years now) there's a page for "Assault Weapons" including a Toggle to "Register" AW's
Now I though that Ship had already Sailed, and while I diametrically oppose the Registration and Ban, I would bring my Colt SP-1 up from Alabama to use with Detachable Magazines IF it could be done legally...When the Law was first enacted there was a provision for persons who unknowingly had the classified firearm to Register without penalty but that was over a decade ago (Jan. 2013)
"Traps" never look like an ambush waiting to happen.
 
Tisto

Tisto

.308 Win
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
6,501
Location
Tonawanda
As I remember, the deadline was set, then there was a 1 year grace period. I don't think you're able t register anything without them coming to visit you. Maybe, just maybe you could register one if you just moved here, but even then I think they would visit you and relieve you of your property, therefore negating the whole registration problem.
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
10,711
Location
Adams, NY
Tisto said:
As I remember, the deadline was set, then there was a 1 year grace period. I don't think you're able t register anything without them coming to visit you. Maybe, just maybe you could register one if you just moved here, but even then I think they would visit you and relieve you of your property, therefore negating the whole registration problem.
Click to expand...
That was my understanding and concern as well...They wouldn't find one here and I have a Residence in Alabama, but that might not preclude them from obtaining a Search Warrant...NY Has this habit of passing Laws then going back to administratively alter them or their execution.
The Bridge to compliance might be washed out and not seen until you're in the water.
GTN said:
For the aw registration?
Click to expand...
Looks that way, and on the web page it looks like maybe the early registrations have to be updated to a new format? "UPDATE YOUR REGISTRATION" toggle...maybe that's just to remove guns you no longer have?
 
Bigfoot

Bigfoot

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
18,007
Reaction score
46,702
Location
On the Trump Train
All my assualty stuff has long been at the bottom of Lake Deep as Fuck. It was a tragic day, it's known around these parts as the day of the Crappy Capsize.

It was a horrendous day; a day that would have killed 10 ordinary men, but I somehow made it back to shore alive. But all my assaulty stuff sank to the very bottom of Lake Deep as Fuck.

After the Crappy Capsize, I meant to replace those guns, but in the meantime, the news media convinced me that guns are icky, so I never did. I no longer own any icky guns.

True Story.

-
 
Last edited:
M_F

M_F

.45 acp
Messages
271
Reaction score
281
Location
Long Island
Yes and No. The original safe act AW registration deadline was in 2014, while there is wording about a 30 day grace period if you “unknowingly failed to register” I wouldn’t risk it with how NY is. You can still buy and register an “antique AW” (NY’s made up definition not the Feds) if the gun is more than 50 years old.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1696.png
    IMG_1696.png
    180.5 KB · Views: 4
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,342
Reaction score
40,737
Location
Western NY
M_F said:
Yes and No. The original safe act AW registration deadline was in 2014, while there is wording about a 30 day grace period if you “unknowingly failed to register” I wouldn’t risk it with how NY is. You can still buy and register an “antique AW” (NY’s made up definition not the Feds) if the gun is more than 50 years old.
Click to expand...
Yeah but when does that 30-day grace period end? It’s certainly not forever and is probably buried somewhere in the preamble of the law. If that 30-day thing was indefinite no one would ever get convicted for having an assault rifle and yet we know many that have been. Their lawyer would simply say they don’t know and unless they were part of a gun forum where it has been beaten to death for years how could they prove you knew?
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
10,711
Location
Adams, NY
M_F said:
Yes and No. The original safe act AW registration deadline was in 2014, while there is wording about a 30 day grace period if you “unknowingly failed to register” I wouldn’t risk it with how NY is. You can still buy and register an “antique AW” (NY’s made up definition not the Feds) if the gun is more than 50 years old.
Click to expand...
No, I believe they changed that to prohibit ALL magazines over ten rounds...You see, they changed terms, definitions, and restrictions with other Legislation long after the passage of the SAFE Act. (see the CCIA and other firearm Legislation passed in the sane session) Tangent: Within the time specified by the Legislature, and "Ammunition Background Check" was not feasible or doable, certainly not by the NYSP so they Farmed it out to a Third Party Provider years late and around the same time passed the Licensing requirement for Semi-auto Rifles (which does not exist) so they adopted using Handgun Licenses with an arbitrary endorsement...

My thought was that with all the changes and work-arounds they used to comply with the Laws, the dismal registration numbers they had to be sued in Court to be released, they they MIGHT have left the Window open in hopes of future compliance, that or their System is so fucked up (P-12's on Handguns are years behind) that the original registrations were insufficient, so they wanted recertifications to be updated with a "New Registration". I suppose one could call the number provided on the Recertification Web Page, but that's usually a folly of opinions and assertions of "no, you can't do that" with every question.
 
Z

Zerex

.308 Win
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
2,512
Location
Rome, NY
I am one of the 23,000 gunowners, who registered a total of 43,000 Assault Weapons, back in 2013.

I can use them at the range openly......no fear.

Amazing...........they believed that maybe 3 million AW's were in NYS..............I guess everyone sold them, like in Ct?

I figured it was no different than a Pistol Permit.

Remember, Mag Locked guns may be a felony waiting to be discovered, when you wife yells at you.

Live to fight another day.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,342
Reaction score
40,737
Location
Western NY
Zerex said:
I am one of the 23,000 gunowners, who registered a total of 43,000 Assault Weapons, back in 2013.

I can use them at the range openly......no fear.

Amazing...........they believed that maybe 3 million AW's were in NYS..............I guess everyone sold them, like in Ct?

I figured it was no different than a Pistol Permit.

Remember, Mag Locked guns may be a felony waiting to be discovered, when you wife yells at you.

Live to fight another day.
Click to expand...
Certain maglocks yes, but ones that follow the law and prevent a mag from detecting or being inserted no. There are plenty made for California law that fail at this. Be wise.
Also what will you do when NYS bans semiautomatic rifles? It’s coming. All my stuff is legal so I’m not worried about nothing.
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
10,711
Location
Adams, NY
Consulting with my adopted Son who is a Sgt. with the SP, he knew nothing of it, and admonished me NOT to trust them! Which is enough for me.

I know of a couple guys that registered some or all of their Weapons AND Magazines (mags are part of those Registration numbers they're embarrassed about) so that they Could use them as they wanted, in their original configuration, and 12 years later they haven't tried to confiscate or order surrender, but that doesn't mean they won't...the other class of AW Owners even more compelled to Register were those in Law Enforcement: IIRC they were advised to do so because if they were caught with unregistered Rifles that they would be fired and lose any retirement/benefits they had, so I expect a lot of those numbers to be these folks.

Registering them IS like having a Handgun Licenses, and look what a shit show that is, and you want more...and the Dysfunctional NY Legislature can't understand why a thousand people move out of New York every day.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,342
Reaction score
40,737
Location
Western NY
FP1201 said:
Consulting with my adopted Son who is a Sgt. with the SP, he knew nothing of it, and admonished me NOT to trust them! Which is enough for me.

I know of a couple guys that registered some or all of their Weapons AND Magazines (mags are part of those Registration numbers they're embarrassed about) so that they Could use them as they wanted, in their original configuration, and 12 years later they haven't tried to confiscate or order surrender, but that doesn't mean they won't...the other class of AW Owners even more compelled to Register were those in Law Enforcement: IIRC they were advised to do so because if they were caught with unregistered Rifles that they would be fired and lose any retirement/benefits they had, so I expect a lot of those numbers to be these folks.

Registering them IS like having a Handgun Licenses, and look what a shit show that is, and you want more...and the Dysfunctional NY Legislature can't understand why a thousand people move out of New York every day.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think LEO had to register them if they were still on the job. They only had to if they were retired. Even then I know some retired guy and I don’t think they registered them. I have never asked them but I’m almost certain many didn’t.
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
10,711
Location
Adams, NY
Saltwater60 said:
I didn’t think LEO had to register them if they were still on the job. They only had to if they were retired. Even then I know some retired guy and I don’t think they registered them. I have never asked them but I’m almost certain many didn’t.
Click to expand...
Could be, there was a lot of dissent, scuttlebutt and third party innuendo going on back in 2013-2014
There are five Cases vying for certiorari at SCOTUS and it's been foretold (again) "These are the Cases that if won, restore out Gun Rights" but we've seen how that works out for us...gotta wonder what sort of legal gymnastics the Legislature has in its file cabinets waiting for just such a loss...remember, it was days after the Bruen decision that twat-waffle Hochul called an "emergency session" and passed without review or input from the Public the CCIA, just like Party-Tits Cuomo did with the un_SAFE Act days after the Sandy Hook School Shooting, you've got to believe they had this already written, just waiting for the Flag to drop.
 
Tisto

Tisto

.308 Win
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
6,501
Location
Tonawanda
Zerex said:
I am one of the 23,000 gunowners, who registered a total of 43,000 Assault Weapons, back in 2013.

I can use them at the range openly......no fear.

Amazing...........they believed that maybe 3 million AW's were in NYS..............I guess everyone sold them, like in Ct?

I figured it was no different than a Pistol Permit.

Remember, Mag Locked guns may be a felony waiting to be discovered, when you wife yells at you.

Live to fight another day.
Click to expand...
Please show me in the law a definition of a compliant vs non-compliant magazine lock. I'll wait. [JEOPARDY music playing]
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,342
Reaction score
40,737
Location
Western NY
FP1201 said:
Could be, there was a lot of dissent, scuttlebutt and third party innuendo going on back in 2013-2014
There are five Cases vying for certiorari at SCOTUS and it's been foretold (again) "These are the Cases that if won, restore out Gun Rights" but we've seen how that works out for us...gotta wonder what sort of legal gymnastics the Legislature has in its file cabinets waiting for just such a loss...remember, it was days after the Bruen decision that twat-waffle Hochul called an "emergency session" and passed without review or input from the Public the CCIA, just like Party-Tits Cuomo did with the un_SAFE Act days after the Sandy Hook School Shooting, you've got to believe they had this already written, just waiting for the Flag to drop.
Click to expand...
It a the same with magazine limits. Cops are exempt from that while on the job. After retirement they are supposed to go to 10 rounders like us losers.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,077
Reaction score
15,798
Location
Rochester
Saltwater60 said:
Certain maglocks yes, but ones that follow the law
Click to expand...
Isn't the law just a vague statement of "cannot accept a detachable mag" and has no actual constructive information?
I don't recall the law saying "you have to use epoxy", yet the State Police keep stating that is required.
FP1201 said:
"These are the Cases that if won, restore out Gun Rights" but we've seen how that works out for us.
Click to expand...
Yeah. S.C. really needs to get off their ass and do their job.
Four Boxes Diner says Roberts believes the S.C. only has a certain amount of political capital and doesn't want to spend too much of it.
I say the S.C. shouldn't give two shits about "political capital" since they are SUPPOSED to be unbiased and apolitical.
Roberts needs to be fired and replaced by someone who has read and understood the Constitution and is willing to do their job!
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
10,711
Location
Adams, NY
Grimscale said:
Isn't the law just a vague statement of "cannot accept a detachable mag" and has no actual constructive information?
I don't recall the law saying "you have to use epoxy", yet the State Police keep stating that is required.

Yeah. S.C. really needs to get off their ass and do their job.
Four Boxes Diner says Roberts believes the S.C. only has a certain amount of political capital and doesn't want to spend too much of it.
I say the S.C. shouldn't give two shits about "political capital" since they are SUPPOSED to be unbiased and apolitical.
Roberts needs to be fired and replaced by someone who has read and understood the Constitution and is willing to do their job!
Click to expand...
The NYSP will not issue any sort of ruling/law, just a vague interpretation they'll use to arbitrarily deny you...It's easier to tell you "no" than possibly be put on the spot for an answer.
"Detachable" isn't defined in the Law.

detachable

adjective​

  1. That can be detached.
  2. Designed to be unfastened or disconnected without damage.
removable

adjective​

  1. Admitting of being removed.
  2. Able to be removed.
  3. Capable of being removed or taken away or dismissed.
    "removable partitions"
Bullet Buttons that keep the Magazine from being detached (dropped) from the Rifle without the use of Tool(s) to remove the magazine have been installed by the thousands since the passage of the SAFE Act...the few people that have gotten jammed up did so because THEY fucked around with the modification...There isn't anything on a gun that can't be "removed" which differs from "detached" and this is something the State really doesn't want to go to Trial because it could expose the whole Law for the bullshit that it is.
 
Tisto

Tisto

.308 Win
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
6,501
Location
Tonawanda
FP1201 said:
The NYSP will not issue any sort of ruling/law, just a vague interpretation they'll use to arbitrarily deny you...It's easier to tell you "no" than possibly be put on the spot for an answer.
"Detachable" isn't defined in the Law.

detachable

adjective​

  1. That can be detached.
  2. Designed to be unfastened or disconnected without damage.
removable

adjective​

  1. Admitting of being removed.
  2. Able to be removed.
  3. Capable of being removed or taken away or dismissed.
    "removable partitions"
Bullet Buttons that keep the Magazine from being detached (dropped) from the Rifle without the use of Tool(s) to remove the magazine have been installed by the thousands since the passage of the SAFE Act...the few people that have gotten jammed up did so because THEY fucked around with the modification...There isn't anything on a gun that can't be "removed" which differs from "detached" and this is something the State really doesn't want to go to Trial because it could expose the whole Law for the bullshit that it is.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. We already had this conversation right here on this forum, years ago.

When the ATF has a broad that puts a barrel in a vise then takes a 5 foot pipe and slips it over a wrench, then uses it to remove a pinned and welded muzzle device (destroying the barrel in the process) all so she can proclaim that "pinned and welded" is no longer an acceptable solution to the "Permanently affixed" stipulation.

Give me the right tools, and I can remove the magazine from ANY gun.
 
Z

Zerex

.308 Win
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
2,512
Location
Rome, NY
The law says CAPABLE of accepting a detachable mag....no time limit set.................just dont destroy the gun...........

A Judge might say to the prosecutor, to bake the SOB aluminum lower in an oven at 350* , far past the melting point of epoxies...but still safe for the lower.............and voila mag only held in by rubber.

Capable is the killer, without destruction. Pretty logical.

Tig Welding in a cut down aluminum mag to an AR lower, might pass muster. Same with Mig welding in a steel mag to a G3 or Fal...destruction and defacement likely..but would still likely fire.

CAPABLE and intent......

But using a mag loader, is a pain.
AR lowers are so cheap..........

At some point, the NYS law prohibiting transfer to other registered AW owners, or prohibiting additional guns to be registered, or to allow anyone to register, should be an ez pick off the legal tree..........
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
36,342
Reaction score
40,737
Location
Western NY
Grimscale said:
Isn't the law just a vague statement of "cannot accept a detachable mag" and has no actual constructive information?
I don't recall the law saying "you have to use epoxy", yet the State Police keep stating that is required.

Yeah. S.C. really needs to get off their ass and do their job.
Four Boxes Diner says Roberts believes the S.C. only has a certain amount of political capital and doesn't want to spend too much of it.
I say the S.C. shouldn't give two shits about "political capital" since they are SUPPOSED to be unbiased and apolitical.
Roberts needs to be fired and replaced by someone who has read and understood the Constitution and is willing to do their job!
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re correct on the law but remember the bullet button and there is another one where you separate the upper and lower and then it accepts a new mag. I’d say those ones would not be legal IMO. Of course anything is a guess at best but these seems to almost surely to run afoul of the law.
 
Z

Zerex

.308 Win
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
2,512
Location
Rome, NY
The Camden case likely did not include epoxy................it might have saved the day if it had been slathered in the mag well.

No Encon office could have gotten it out with simple tools in this case..................might have set a precedent............there may be other cases of non arrests, with epoxy used successfully, that we are not aware of.

Don't get fucking arrested on principle at this point in time............them bars are cold steel.

I complied because I love guns......thank God Garands were exempted...over 50 years old.
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
10,711
Location
Adams, NY
Tisto said:
My point exactly. We already had this conversation right here on this forum, years ago.

When the ATF has a broad that puts a barrel in a vise then takes a 5 foot pipe and slips it over a wrench, then uses it to remove a pinned and welded muzzle device (destroying the barrel in the process) all so she can proclaim that "pinned and welded" is no longer an acceptable solution to the "Permanently affixed" stipulation.

Give me the right tools, and I can remove the magazine from ANY gun.
Click to expand...
ATF is also the ones that wired a FAL Kit to a Board and got it to fire once...
I'm a Law abiding Citizen and do not own or manufacture class III items, but I have knowledge of and machinery to do so.
BATFE actually have standards that define "permanent" and are said to generally be used by State Labs when examining/determining items...no idea if the NYSP adhere to that or their own.
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
10,711
Location
Adams, NY
Zerex said:
The Camden case likely did not include epoxy................it might have saved the day if it had been slathered in the mag well.

No Encon office could have gotten it out with simple tools in this case..................might have set a precedent............there may be other cases of non arrests, with epoxy used successfully, that we are not aware of.

Don't get fucking arrested on principle at this point in time............them bars are cold steel.

I complied because I love guns......thank God Garands were exempted...over 50 years old.
Click to expand...
Garand doesn't have any of the "evil features" use a Detachable Magazine denoting an "Assault Weapon" neither does the SKS in its original configuration.
M1 Carbine with the Barrel Band Bayonet Lug makes it an AW
The Fifty Year Rule was essentially moot with the Registration requirement of it and the magazines when they did away with ANY magazines over ten rounds.
The State isn't going to change to the benefit of Gun Owners unless SCOTUS corners them and they're forced to do some sneaky and subversive shit like they did with the CCIA.
This time around, someone other than NYSRPA will have to bring it to SCOTUS: last one was a huge financial hit, and sadly the Association received more money for outside the State than from New Yorker's, oh and by the way the "doesn't do anything for New York" NRA funded the Bruen case to the tune of over 2.2 million Dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top