How do we come up of with conclusions that they are legal? Pretty much the exact same way.Ĭuomo and the NY State Police dodged my question about a magazine lock device by AR MAGLOCK. That would also include all of the other featureless compliant parts avalible that inspire 100% confidence in meeting legal requirements for some. Until the law is amended as to add a definition to what isn't considered "detachable", I would treat a fixed magazine in the same sense that I would understand the difference between a semi automatic vs a bolt action firearm Two different functions. I think generally we should be making judgements based on the text of the laws and not make it more confusing than it already is by splitting it apart and adding in hypotheticals. Why so many seem to be using that assessment as their way to understand these laws makes little sense to me. Anyone with a hacksaw and an oxy acetylene torch can make something into something. They should NOT be confused as they're quite different. You're right about there being no law about convenience being a factor, and something that is actually fixed VS something that is designed so that you can do mag dumps one after the other is not a matter of convenience, but a matter of functionality. It's specifically designed to be fixed and therefore the ability to change magazines isn't there. Just because you can modify a part or alter the gun doesn't change that you have a fixed magazine rifle. They wanted to also sell to NYer's too, making claims that it is a compliant option of the sort, even though it caused confusion, frustration and stupid ongoing topics like these for people.Ī fixed magazine serves the only function of being a fixed magazine. As stated, Making the release work in a different way doesn't make anything fixed, it was just a work around for california law for their specific definitions. The maglock's primary function is to allow magazine changes. I believe the basis of the firearm's actual functionality is what the law refers to, not hypothetical modifications or how permanent the function is. The design element of functionality MUST carry an important factor because that shotgun wouldn't be on shelves. It turns out the tubular shotgun is legal with a magazine that can at some point be taken out because it is not configured to accept detachable magazines. A tubular shotgun does not have the ability to accept detachable magazines unless it is reconfigured in such a manner that would enable that function. The other option so that this function is gone would be to use a specific component or part to reconfigure the weapon's functionality or manufacture it so it also doesn't have the ability to drop out and accept other magazines. When you install a button or other device to allow the magazine to come out and to accept other magazines, that design and functionality of that device is primarily to accept detachable magazines and nothing more. What is the firearm configured to actually do? What features does the firearm have? If a firearm is configured or manufactured in such a way to perform a specific action, then its ability to perform that action is either regulated or not depending on the actual functionality. All guns can be altered in some fashion to be illegal pretty much. Whether or not a tubular magazine can be taken off a shotgun, or this that and the other gun can be disassembled and changed isn't what is important.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |