NBC New York is Shocked to Learn Effect of SAFE Act

[Aguila Blanca]

I consider that contradictory.

For one, being "cosmetic" doesn't mean that there's no function whatsoever. It means that the function of the device isn't integral to the weapon. The gun functions without them.

No, it doesn't, particularly in the case of a pistol grip. The removed pistol grip must be replaced with a different design to replace the functionality in order for the weapon to be operable, i.e. functional.

The cosmetic features may serve some function, but they are not critical functions.

I purchased a neutered (i.e. "post-ban") AR-15 during the federal ban period. To be post-ban compliant it was not allowed to have a telescoping stock, a flash hider, or a bayonet lug. So I bought a rifle that didn't have any of those "features." It still shoots 5.56x45 / .223 ammo, and it still makes quarter-inch holes in paper at 200 yards. Clearly, then, the telescoping stock, flash hider, and bayonet lug are not critical necessities. In fact, I carried an original M16 for the better part of a year in Vietnam and I don't think I ever affixed a bayonet to mine. I don't think my unit were even issued bayonets. And folding/telescoping stocks hadn't even been thought of in 1968.

Ubiquitous? Aren't both the flash hider and the bayonet lug "ubiquitous" mostly through habit? Post-ban ARs don't have them. When the federal ban expired in 2004, I don't recall a huge rush by people with post-ban rifles to retrofit flash hiders (many had compensators anyway) or bayonet lugs. Have you EVER seen a civilian-owned AR-15 with a bayonet attached? Who cares if most of them have the lug -- virtually nobody uses it, so who cares.

Is the pistol grip "necessary"? No, it certainly isn't. It's attached to the lower receiver with a single screw. It can be removed and the rifle will fire just fine. The shooter's wrist angle will be a bit uncomfortable, but the rifle will never know the pistol grip isn't there.

In fact, the only "evil feature" of an AR-15 type rifle that's more or less critical is the detachable magazine, and it's even possible to make an AR-15 with a fixed magazine that can be loaded from the bottom through a trap door or removable floor plate.

 

[maestro pistolero]

This argument, by the same token, is a double-edged sword.

Any feature that supposedly benefits a gun owner in a self-defense scenario, also invariably benefits a gunman in a mass shooting.

This is true, of course. In fact, that is the fundamental nature of the Second Amendment right itself.

The Second Amendment banks on the fact that the vast majority of us are good, and will be judicious in that use of force. The ratification of the amendment takes that cost/benefit analysis out of the hands of government.

The SAFE act will deny access to those features to only those who will comply. No one capable of a mass shooting is going to hesitate in the slightest to disregard those restrictions. This indisputable fact makes the SAFE act antithetical to the core purpose of the amendment, i.e. to equalize the playing field for the law-abiding.

If the idea is as it seems, to slowly choke off the supply of these weapons, it is futile. With easily tens of millions of full featured rifles in circulation, there is essentially an unlimited supply of them which criminals will not hesitate to find and use. A supply side approach to an issue in which there is an unlimited supply is moronic and doomed to fail.

Could you imagine a law at the time of founding that would have limited the amount of powder one could possess to 10 shots-worth? Would a scofflaw have complied with that in the late 1700s?

If there is no meaningful loss of performance in the absence of these features, then what on earth is the rational basis for the law?

If there IS a disadvantage to a rifle lacking any of these features, it will only hurt those of us inclined to comply.

Arguing that these restrictions aren't so bad is a strange position to see on a gun rights forum.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If there is no meaningful loss of performance in the absence of these features, then what on earth is the rational basis for the law?

Who here (or anywhere, for that matter) ever said or wrote that there was a rational basis for the law?

I would say you have put your finger on the crux of the issue, except that you're WAY late arriving at the realization that the law has no rational basis. It's nothing but an extension of the same, flawed thinking that led to the federal AWB in 1994. The anti-gun forces had to ban something. They have no knowledge of how guns work, so the best they can do is to try to eliminate what they perceive as particularly dangerous firearms based on how scary the gun looks. In other words, based entirely on cosmetics.

Suppose you have a modern, "free state" Bushmaster AR-15 carbine, complete with telescoping stock, flash hider, and bayonet lug. I have my post-ban configuration carbine with fixed stock, no flash hider, and no bayonet lug. If both rifles are handed to the same person at a range, do you seriously believe that your "evil" configured carbine will shoot significantly better than mine at 100 yards? If we are both in a building defending against the invading zombie horde, do you honestly believe that the folding stock and bayonet lug give you any advantage whatsoever compared to my plain vanilla post-ban configuration?

I don't think so. My post-ban AR-15 is actually pretty close to what I carried in Vietnam, so I feel absolutely comfortable with it. Having never needed a bayonet in real combat, I think I can get by without a bayonet in the civilian world. Flash hiders, at best, dissipate flash, they can't eliminate it. I don't think my lack of a flash hider makes any significant difference. And the ones with compensators? That's worse for muzzle flash than a bare muzzle.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Who here (or anywhere, for that matter) ever said or wrote that there was a rational basis for the law?

Nobody here, to my knowledge. But I'm sure the proponents of the law would say it's rational.

I would say you have put your finger on the crux of the issue, except that you're WAY late arriving at the realization that the law has no rational basis.

This is not a late breaking epiphany for me. I have been following gun laws and gun bans for almost thirty years. I make the point about rational basis today because of it's relevancy (in my opinion) to the subject matter.

They have no knowledge of how guns work, so the best they can do is to try to eliminate what they perceive as particularly dangerous firearms based on how scary the gun looks. In other words, based entirely on cosmetics.

All true except the part about cosmetics. Those features have a function (whether or not it's a critical function), therefore they are not cosmetic. Functional is literally an antonym to cosmetic.

Suppose you have a modern, "free state" Bushmaster AR-15 carbine, complete with telescoping stock, flash hider, and bayonet lug. I have my post-ban configuration carbine with fixed stock, no flash hider, and no bayonet lug. If both rifles are handed to the same person at a range, do you seriously believe that your "evil" configured carbine will shoot significantly better than mine at 100 yards?

With only those features missing, no.

If we are both in a building defending against the invading zombie horde, do you honestly believe that the folding stock and bayonet lug give you any advantage whatsoever compared to my plain vanilla post-ban configuration?

Again, no, in the scenario you describe. You are, of course, correct that a bayonet lug is almost never used in combat for actually mounting a bayonet. In any case, a bayonet essentially turns a rifle into a spear and I am not certain that completely banning spears would be constitutional, either.

Collapsible stocks and pistol grips, on the other hand, are very functional in tight quarters and can help with weapon retention (example: home invasion with multiple assailants).

One handed control of the weapon during mag changes and malfunction clearances are greatly expedited by a pistol grip.

A telescoping rifle stock might also become more important at intermediate and longer distances for accurate fire. I know when I go prone with my M4 styled AR, I get a lot more stability by extending the stock all the way. For me, and I suspect a lot of other people, that is functional, therefore not cosmetic.

In any case, the antis argue that these features which extend functionality (to whatever degree) make a weapon too dangerous to qualify for 2A protection.

I am saying that once it's a gun, it's already lethal. Lethality is precisely the point of a firearm in the 2A context. If banning secondary features doesn't reduce their lethality, it's irrational . . . and therefore unconstitutional.

To whatever degree the laws actually do reduce lethality of weapons that are in common use, they are also unconstitutional on a pure 2A argument.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Personally, probably from my lack of experience in handling pistol grip rifles, I find that a pistol grip is awkward. I prefer a thumbhole stock or even traditional rifle stock. I have no trouble with one hand control. You might ask (and I'd agree) isn't there practically no difference between a thumbhole and a pistol grip? I don't know, it must be the angle or something, I prefer the thumbhole.

In any case, I think the proof that the banned features are cosmetic is that the redesigns all comply with the law and sell the person a gun that's functionally identical in 99% of cases.

Also, the reverse is true. The singular change that dramatically slows the operation of the gun is the elimination of the detachable magazine. There are already designs of ARs with permanently affixed magazines that otherwise retain EVERY other "evil" feature. Their function, as per original design, is dramatically handicapped.

So, guns that have only cosmetic changes, the example of the hammerhead adapter or NY compliant not-quite-pistol-grip-not-quite thumbhole stocks do not changed the function of the gun.

I agree that many of these features may have very minor effects on actual operation but there has to be a rational end to that argument. For example, a friend of mine has an AR with a front sight but no rear and a scope. That front sight is cosmetic (looks stupid in my opinion). However, if he removed it, the balance of the gun would be *ever so slightly* changed. Does that make it "functional" or other than cosmetic?

Also, I say that these features are cosmetic simply by the effect that the ban will have. That being... None. If they banned a bunch of features and some nutbag gets a NY compliant AR and goes on a rampage, how different will the end results be? None whatsoever. Therefore, what they've done is make killing people with a gun that looks a certain way different than killing people with a different looking gun. It would be like banning all gun colors except blaze orange. I could argue that black is functional rather than cosmetic because it's harder for me to hide with an orange gun but for the nutbag that goes on a rampage does it make a difference? Nope.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Also, I say that these features are cosmetic simply by the effect that the ban will have. That being... None. If they banned a bunch of features and some nutbag gets a NY compliant AR and goes on a rampage, how different will the end results be? None whatsoever. Therefore, what they've done is make killing people with a gun that looks a certain way different than killing people with a different looking gun. It would be like banning all gun colors except blaze orange. I could argue that black is functional rather than cosmetic because it's harder for me to hide with an orange gun but for the nutbag that goes on a rampage does it make a difference? Nope.

Perhaps a better example of this would be those individuals who have started out with a very conventional-appearing rifle (a Ruger 10/22 or Mini-14), and then swapped out the stock and "accessorized" it to demonstrate just how "evil" the same (mechanically) firearm can appear.

 

[barnbwt]

Wow, these people really are idiots. Not only did they forget to exempt their precious LEOs in their haste, they really and truly thought they were banning all semi-autos by forbidding pistol grips.

Let this be a warning to you NY'er's; this last push was a bungled attempt to ban all semi-auto's. I doubt they'll make the exact same mistakes next time, so you can be assured the next round of infringement will attempt to eliminate auto-loaders entirely.

TCB

 

[44 AMP]

Cosmetics have a function..

And I agree with the use of the term cosmetic for these items, as they enhance the appeal of the firearm, not its basic function.

Remember that these features were "picked out" by the class of people that thinks these guns spray 30 bullet clips per second, that a barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up, and that magazines are used up and thrown away when empty.

And the people complaining how the law doesn't make them any "safer" are simply now seeing the reality of the bill of goods that they bought into. It was a lie then, its a lie, now, and apparently some folks aren't happy when they finally realize they got lied to...

Remember the mindset of these people, anything that makes the gun easier to use, or they THINK makes the gun easier to use makes them less safe.

Bayonet lugs are bad, because the think the ability to put a knife on the end of a rifle makes it more deadly. I point to the rash of drive by bayonettings in recent years as proof of that...

Flash suppressors (flash hiders haven't been in common use in generations) were put on the "bad" list, supposedly because they allow the use of rifle grenades. Again, such a common everyday item in street crime...

Pistol grips, folding stocks, handguards, etc., all enhance the utility of the arm, therefore making it easier to kill large numbers of people, and so, must be bad...

ITs not rational, it is fear driven hysteria, promulgated by self righteous people, possessing little or no education about firearms, and having an infallible belief in the validity of their opinions, despite knowing next to nothing about guns, other than the fact that "they kill".

Its a bad law, based on several stupid concepts.

The biggest of these is that people who are intent on committing murder (mass, serial, or any other kind) are going to obey other laws, governing what physical features a firearm has.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

It's like banning racing stripes and spoilers to control speeding.

 

[Mike1234]

It's like banning racing stripes and spoilers to control speeding.

Good analogy.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Flash suppressors (flash hiders haven't been in common use in generations) were put on the "bad" list, supposedly because they allow the use of rifle grenades. Again, such a common everyday item in street crime...

That's not the reason I understood for prohibiting flash hiders. The reason I have heard (and I very clearly remember standing in a gun shop at the expiration of the federal AWB in 2004 and listening to this conversation between the store owner and a reporter who was trying to get a leg up on the blood that was soon to be running in the streets) is that flash hiders make it so the person you're shooting at can't see the muzzle flash.

Yes, that's it ... you read me correctly. The flash hider conceals the shooter's location from the shootee, thus making any firearm equipped with a flash hider super-ultra-deadly and uber-eeeeevil because it's invisible. And, yes, the anti-gun people really believe this stuff. It can't come from anywhere else, because anybody who knows anything could not possibly make this stuff up.

 

[maestro pistolero]

The reason I have heard . . . is that flash hiders make it so the person you're shooting at can't see the muzzle flash.

Yep. That was the conventional "wisdom" at the time.

Far worse than merely lacking a rational basis, their introverted logic and facts are literally the antithesis of rational.

 

[Mike1234]

What amazes me is how confident some of these ignorant people often appear to be on TV but if one looks beyond that false facade one can see the internal doubt of their knowing they really have no idea what they're talking about. They know in their own hearts they're just mindless ignorant talking mouths.

 

[patriotic]

SAFE Act

What gets me is that there is no grandfather clause. I have a post ban AR-15 rifle and to make it NYS compliant I had the bayonet lug removed, the telescopic stock replaced with an A2 stock and the flash suppressor replaced with a pinned and welded compensator. After all that expense The SAFE act came into effect and made my AR illegal. Isn’t there any way we can fight this BS?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Vote and the courts - however, I wouldn't hold my breath in NY for the former and it is not clear that the current SCOTUS will overturn such laws.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What gets me is that there is no grandfather clause. I have a post ban AR-15 rifle and to make it NYS compliant I had the bayonet lug removed, the telescopic stock replaced with an A2 stock and the flash suppressor replaced with a pinned and welded compensator. After all that expense The SAFE act came into effect and made my AR illegal. Isn’t there any way we can fight this BS?

???

Do you mean you have a pre-ban AR-15 that you converted to be (federal) post-ban compliant? The term "post-ban" refers to a configuration that was legal during the now-expired federal AWB, and post-ban configuration did not allow telescoping or folding stocks, flash hiders, or bayonet lugs.

As to fighting it, there is a lawsuit (actually, IIRC, a couple of lawsuits) in the courts challenging the NY SAFE Act. The case was a partial victory on a couple of points for our side, and is now being appealed in pursuit of the rest of the law. To help, you could contribute to the organizations that are backing the lawsuit(s).

 

[44 AMP]

NY passed its own version of the 94 AWB, and it did not have any sunset provision. There are no "post ban" guns in NY, because the NY "ban" is still in place. And the "SAFE ACT" added more restrictions to the earlier requirements.

Working with others, voting out the politicians who put the laws in, supporting the lawsuits to get the bad laws tossed, these are about all you can do, and in NY, the deck is heavily stacked against you. Sorry.

The sad fact is that the only way to make these people happy with your AR is if it was not in NY state. They don't like it, and probably don't much like you, for having it. And they are going to keep working to make such laws to make it as difficult and expensive as possible, if you are so "foolish" as to continue to want to keep it.

There are only three things you can do.

Live with it, and be mentally and legally prepared for the day when your rifle, no matter what features you have had removed, becomes contraband, because if they can do it, they will.

Work to get the politicians and laws changed.
Admittedly not an easy task in NY, but still worth fighting the good fight, politically.

Arrange your life so you can move to a more gun friendly state. Not something everyone can, or is willing to do, but its the only way to ALMOST get out from under the heel of NY govt.

And I say ALMOST, for a reason. I grew up in northern NY. Love the country. Left there almost 40 years ago, and won't go back. Don't like the taxes, or the gun laws (and they are much worse now than they were then), and I especially don't care for getting crap because I enjoy firearms. (you can get that anywhere, but for some reason, lots of New Yorkers seem to thinks its their duty to give you crap, for any, or no reason...)

I had a NY pistol permit. 30 YEARS after leaving the state (permanently), NY contacted me, and informed me that, since I was no longer a resident, my permit was no longer valid. And they wanted it back!

A non-laminated piece of paper, about the size of a driver's license. 30+ years down the line. And they wanted it back! Also, they wanted to know where the pistols listed on it were....

They did not get the reply they wanted.....

But that's why I said "ALMOST"...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

NY passed its own version of the 94 AWB, and it did not have any sunset provision. There are no "post ban" guns in NY, because the NY "ban" is still in place. And the "SAFE ACT" added more restrictions to the earlier requirements.

You are mis-using the term "post-ban." ALL AR-15s sold in NY between 1994 and when the SAFE Act kicked in are "post-ban" firearms. The same applied across the line in Connecticut, which also had a state AWB that pretty much mirrored the federal ban but didn't expire in 2004.

The term "post-ban" refers to a firearm configured to be legal under the "two evil features allowed" provisions of the federal, NY, and CT AWBs. The AR-15 that I purchased in 1995 or 1996 is a "post-ban" configuration. It has the detachable magazine and the pistol grip. It does not have a bayonet lug, a flash hider, or a collapsible stock. It's basically a cosmetically-neutered AR-15. That's what "post-ban" refers to ... it means "post" the adoption of the ban, not "post" the expiration of the ban.

The part that irritates the nanny-staters is that, to look at my post-ban compliant AR-15 and a pre-ban AR-15 side-by-side, the average person doesn't see any difference. Looking at them, you don't see the collapsible stock moving so my stock is shaped a bit differently, but it's also shaped exactly the same as the M16s all our guys carried in Vietnam, so it still looks plenty militar6y and plenty scary. You have to look really REALLY closely to see the absence of a bayonet lug, so that doesn't help much. And most folks don't know what a flash hider is, how it works, or what it looks like, so the fact that my post-ban rifle doesn't have a little thingie on the end of the barrel also doesn't make it look less scary to the uninitiated. Mine DOES have a standard A2-style carry handle, just like what I carried in Vietnam, so that's what most people see when they look at it, and that's why even though mine was fully AWB-compliant when it was purchased DURING the ban period, it still looks to the ordinary person on the street just like a Vietnam-era M16 military rifle.

And that's why the banners keep chipping away at us, with their "creeping incrementalism." Some of them truly don't know the difference between a fully automatic M16 and a similar-appearing semi-automatic AR-15. Some of them do know the difference, but they also know they don't dare just ban semi-autos in general because that would antagonize too large a cross-section of the firearms owners community all at once to go down. So they impose their bans bit-by-bit, "evil feature" by "evil feature," gradually tightening the noose on gun ownership, until one day they get to the point where even a Ruger 10/22 will be illegal.

And then they'll come after the bolt actions.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

And then they'll come after the bolt actions.

You mean the sniper rifles?

 

[Tom Servo]

You mean the sniper rifles?

Yes, just like the one used by Charles Whitman. Won't someone please think of the children?

Some of them truly don't know the difference between a fully automatic M16 and a similar-appearing semi-automatic AR-15.

For the most part, they do. In the leadup to the 1994 bill, there was a concerted effort to confuse the two. Most news programs that covered the issue would show footage of machine guns being fired when they talked about it.

The VPC, who came up with the term "assault weapon," acknowledged as much.