Ny handgun laws

[phil930]

Hi everyone
I was hoping someone could answer a question.
I live in NY and am getting my pistol permit. I saw a good
Deal online for a handgun but the clip is 17 rounds
But in ny it has to be only 10. Could I buy the gun with the
17 and then also buy a 10 round clip then switch it out for the 10? How does that work? Thanks alot

 

[Limnophile]

I assume possession of a 17-round magazine would be illegal. Look for the same gun with a 10-round mag, or ask the dealer to switch mags. If 17-round mags are illegal to possess in NY, the online dealer (presumably outside NY) won't ship them to you.

 

[mikejonestkd]

You can buy it and have it shipped to your local FFL for the transfer, just ask the seller to not ship the high cap mags.

 

[phil930]

handgun in ny

hi everyone
I am hoping someone can answer a question for me.
I live in NY and am getting my handgun permit, I know the law says a clip cant hold over 10 rounds. If I bought a handgun online which held 17 rounds and also bought another clip w 10 rounds, would I be able to legally purchase it and have the 10 round switched out for the 17? thanks

Phil

 

[Kvon2]

Usually it will depend on who you are buying it from. I would say get in touch with them and explain the situation.

 

[GJSchulze]

Make sure 10 round magazines are available for it first. My Springfield Xdm 9mm 5.25 only comes with 19 round magazines and no one makes any other capacity magazines.

If you can't find a 10 rounder, you can block or pin the mag to accept only 10, but you will have to make it so you can't undo it "readily" as the law states. That means using tools to undo it and not a simple screwdriver.

NY penal code 265.36: "... that can[not] be readily restored or converted to accept more than 10 rounds"

 

[rickyrick]

Possibly move this to the correct forum

 

[James K]

"you can block or pin..."

If I understand correctly, that would have to be done before the magazine was shipped into NY state, so "you" can't do it, the seller would have to. If he can't, and can't obtain a 10 round magazine, then the gun has to be shipped without a magazine and you have to obtain a 10 round one later.

It is a good idea when ordering on-liine to make sure that legal magazines are available and that the gun will ship with one or more.

Jim

 

[TXAZ]

A friend had a similar problem in Cali. He offered to swap the 15 round / higher capacity mag that came with his gun for a 10 rounder, with an ad on backpage in Phoenix. He was quickly successful.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Whatever you do, do not accept delivery of the illegal magazine. The FFL may be able to accept it for LEO clientele, but you can't.

Check with your local FFL and see what he tells you, for a start.

 

[44 AMP]

Let me get this strait, so we're on the same page..

you are ordering a gun that comes with a 17rnd mag, and will buy a 10rnd to replace the 17rnd and so be NY legal.

is that right?

I don't know the exact wording of the NY law, and that WILL make a difference. Find out, and possibly get actual legal advice. The NY FFL who you will have handle the transaction is a pretty good place to start, we assume he has a handle on the law, as it affects his business.

Don't bother to ask the police, its not their job.

In general, even if there is a grandfather clause, it would not apply to your situation.

What MIGHT be legal is for your FFL to retain the prohibited high capacity mag, so you don't break the law by taking possession of it, and deliver your gun with the legal 10rnd mag.

Talk to your FFL, and go from there.
Sorry I can't be of more help.

 

[GJSchulze]

If I understand correctly, that would have to be done before the magazine was shipped into NY state, so "you" can't do it, the seller would have to

You are right that he legally can't, but it can be done within NY. I had mine done by the FFL that I bought the gun from. He happens to be a deputy sheriff and that may be the difference. Large cap magazines are legal for LEO, so obviously someone can bring them into the state. You just have to find the right person. If the OP lives anywhere near Canandaigua, NY I can give him the name of the person who did mine. Otherwise you will either have to find an FFL that will do it or have it down before it's shipped to you.

However, if you can just buy 10 round mags, that's easier and you can probably have the gun seller sell the large mags.

Before the SAFE Act passed, pre-ban large cap magazines were legal and all Open and Limited division USPSA shooters used them. When the law passed they all had their magazines pinned or blocked. I believe most did it themselves.

I don't know the exact wording of the NY law, and that WILL make a difference.

Here is the relevant code. When reading any of these codes you need to read all relevant other parts because they may add on, subtract, and/or exempt parts of other codes. I say this because the first part of this mentions magazines manufactured before 9/13/1994 and is referring back to 265.02, paragraph 8. Remember, you shouldn't watch how laws or sausages are made.

S 265.36 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding
device.
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large
capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured before September
thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully
possessed such large capacity feeding device before the effective date
of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this
section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or
converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition.
An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such
a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or
lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by
law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is
unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable
presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition
feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been
contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed
that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a
class A misdemeanor.

The key factor is the interpretation of what "readily" means. It seems to be used in other laws and states, but is never defined. I and others choose to take it to mean quickly or on-the-spot. If you need to cut a rivet or unglue the base plate (mine are hot glued), then that probably meets the definition of "not readily." If they meant "not ever" they wouldn't have used "readily."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm glad I don't live in New York. Now I'm really confused.

S 265.36 Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding
device.
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large
capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured before September
thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully
possessed such large capacity feeding device before the effective date
of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this
section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or
converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition.
An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such
a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or
lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by
law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is
unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable
presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition
feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been
contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed
that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a
class A misdemeanor.

September 13, 1994, was the date of the long-since expired federal AWB. Aside from the fact that the first sentence of this law as quoted isn't a sentence and the second half of the "sentence" doesn't say anything because it doesn't have a verb, the law quoted above addresses only "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" manufactured before the effective date of the federal AWB. But that ban expired in 2004, so since then gun makers have been cheerfully manufacturing "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" for almost twelve years. How does this law in any way apply to magazines manufactured after[/i] September 13, 1994?

I must be missing something, but I passed remedial reading. What am I not seeing?

 

[44 AMP]

manufactured before the effective date of the federal AWB. But that ban expired in 2004, so since then gun makers have been cheerfully manufacturing "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" for almost twelve years.

This is true, but not the point here. The NY law (passed about the same time as the 94AWB) DID NOT SUNSET with the federal law. It is still the law in NY, and while gunmakers have been cheerfully making those "proper" size magazines again and selling them for 12 years, they HAVEN'T been selling them to New Yorkers, other than recognized LEOs.

The sunset of the 94AWB in 2004 had no legal effect on the NY (or other states) laws. Those laws written and passed without a sunset clause, are, will, and do remain in full effect until the state determines otherwise through the usual processes.

The additions to the original 94 NY law in the years since have made it even more confusing. I've re-read that quotes section several times, and I am still not certain of how all of it should be applied.

 

[GJSchulze]

Thank you, 44Amp. You said it better than me.
Aguila, I tried to explain that at the beginning and is what I meant by "laws and sausages;" you don't want to watch how either are made. You can't read only one section of the penal code, because subsequent sections modify previous sections.

If you where to only read an earlier section of 265 you would read that possession of any firearm is always prohibited. It isn't until a few sections later that it lists all the exemptions which includes having a pistol permit.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ Well you DID write that the section I quoted (from your post) was the relevant section of code. I took your word for it. Apparently it wasn't "the" relevant section of code, it was just one of several relevant sections?

 

[wogpotter]

De Debi is in de details

If its illegal to transfer then you could probably just not transfer it. Just buying a reduced capacity after it arrived. If its illegal to posses it you can't, even for the one moment that its "yours" during the transfer before its "transferred" to someone else like the dealer.

For example here "behind enemy lines" in MD its illegal to transfer or import "hi cap" magazines, but not to possess them. If you previously owned them, before relocating here, its OK you're not "importing", if they are old enough, then they're "grandfathered" so its OK as well. But you can't buy them (in MD). There's no law saying you can't buy them out of state & then bring them in.

Confusing, huh?

 

[Spats McGee]

I don't want to derail our new member's thread here by embarking on a discussion of MD law, but . . .

. . . . For example here "behind enemy lines" in MD its illegal to transfer or import "hi cap" magazines, but not to possess them. . . . There's no law saying you can't buy them out of state & then bring them in.

Ummm, buying them out of state and bringing them in . . . is "importing" them.

 

[mete]

It's crazy to try to explain Stupid ! But we did gain with SAFE as we went from 7 round to 10 limit ! Politicians have always introduced and passed laws that they know nothing about .

 

[GJSchulze]

Apparently it wasn't "the" relevant section of code, it was just one of several relevant sections?

Yes. I didn't really want to look for and quote every relevant section. Actually I was also confused by the way it read at first. Think of computer code or a story where you aren't allowed to delete anything, but can only add on amendments and changes referring back to previous parts. It's even worse when you read only the bill that makes the changes, like the SAFE Act. It only references the parts that are being changed and does not quote them except for perhaps one when sentence is being changed.