Tag Archives: NY SAFE

I Hate The Term “Assault Weapon”

And this is just one of the many reasons why. I keep seeing crap about the Buffalo shooter illegally “modifying” his Bushmaster XM-15 rifle (when some dumbass isn’t calling it an “AR-15” which happens to be a Colt trademark). Case in point:

Buffalo shooting suspect learned to modify his gun on YouTube. The videos are still online.
The 18-year-old suspected of targeting and fatally shooting 10 Black people in Buffalo, New York, wrote in what are believed to be his online journals that he learned how to illegally modify his rifle by watching YouTube videos. The suspect appeared to link to the videos in Discord chat logs, and the videos were still available on YouTube as of Thursday evening — five days after the shooting.

The advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund called on YouTube to remove these videos, saying that they violate YouTube’s community guidelines banning videos that show how to install gun accessories like high-capacity magazines.

Since thus far the only “modification” I’ve heard about is that he had 10+ round magazines, I was very curious as to exactly how he “modified” the rifle. What do the supergeniuses at Everytown say?

Based on a review of the shooter’s writings and public news reports about the weapon used in the shooting, the shooter may have watched this video to equip his Bushmaster rifle with an Anderson Manufacturing magazine release after removing the Mean Arms MA Lock in violation of New York’s assault weapons regulations.

Ah. So Everytown believes the chumbucket might have removed the magazine lock and installed a conventional magazine catch so that he could swap out magazines in a normal manner.

I’ll pause for a moment, to see if you can spot the problem with that. It’s possible you won’t, if you live in neither New York… nor California.

All “assault weapons” are not created equal. Except in a few jurisdictions that have defined the term in law, it’s meaningless. For instance, In Georgia there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.”

But in New York, there is such a thing.

California has also defined “assault weapon.”

But the definitions differ in each state.

In California, the powers-that-be decided that you should not be able to swap magazines normally. There, an AR-pattern rifle must be equipped with a magazine lock that makes normal operation impossible. So if the Buffalo, New York scumbag wanted to travel to California, purchase a California-compliant rifle, and modify it to allow normal mag swaps, he might want to remove an MA Lock and replace it with an AA mag release.

But New York does not ban mag releases, as California does (I’m open to correction, if someone can find such a restriction in the law). They just say you can’t insert a magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.

So the Buffalo bastard would have zero reason to “modify” his rifle by removing a feature not there in the first place, and replacing it with a feature it already has.

The Everytown dimwits assumed that As California Goes, So Goes the Country. If California requires something then surely every other state must do the same, right?

Nope.

It is possible that the Bushmaster the shooter purchased was California compliant as well as New York compliant. The manufacturer/distributor could have simplified production by combining the worst of both states, just so they wouldn’t have complicate their production lines with two products, each with limited appeal. To date, I have not seen a picture of the specific firearm used; I don’t know if it was dual-compliant.

But that doesn’t make the Cal-required mag lock the law in New York. In NY, installing a normal mag release would not be an “illegal modification.”

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Another Country Heard From: Mere Suggestions

On the one hand, you might think this is good news for NY staters.

Some NY agencies to stop enforcing gun law
When the SAFE Act became law, it emerged as one of the most controversial pieces of legislation on the books in New York.
[…]
In Erie County, including in Buffalo, people kept getting charged with a crime under that part of the law even though federal judges had struck it down.
[…]
Those defendants will soon see those charges dropped, said Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn.

And in the future, that charge will no longer be prosecuted in the county under his administration, according to Flynn.

Charges dismissed. Excellent.

On the other hand, the provision was struck down years ago. Why were they enforcing it at all?

On the gripping hand…

Rulings from federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court ARE NOT BINDING ON STATE AGENCIES, so the 2013 and 2015 rulings on this part of the SAFE Act amount to MERE SUGGESTIONS, according to Flynn. It is up to individual county district attorneys to decide whether they will abide by the rulings of federal judges, he said.

Federal court rulings are not binding? Since when?

It isn’t like he’s in one federal court district, and the ruling came down from the other district. The ruling against the magazine limit (7 rounds in a 10-round magazine) was upheld by the 2nd Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. the 2nd Circuit covers the entire state, not to mention Connecticut and Vermont.

Yes, rulings are binding, if we still have a system of law, if New York (and Erie County) are still part of the United States of America.

It’s… nice that Flynn decided to obey the court. This time. But I’m deeply troubled by a district attorney who thinks it’s optional. Not according to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

And Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

States do not get to pick and choose with which “suggestions” they feel like complying. For instance, if the folks convicted under that unconstitutional provision were to sue in federal court for deprivation of rights under color of law, and win, Flynn doesn’t get to say, “Nah. We ain’t paying up. The Constitution doesn’t apply to us.”

Unless he’s acknowledging that he has seceded from the Union. Perhaps Flynn sees federal taxes as optional as well.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail