M14 Forum


M1 Banned in NY?

This is a discussion on M1 Banned in NY? within the Gun Rights forums, part of the Gun Forum category; Originally Posted by GARRARD Since the M1 doesn't have a detachable magazine, I don't think it falls into the "assault weapon" category. but it DOES ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Gun Rights

49Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old January 16th, 2013, 12:52 PM   #31
Lifer
 
RetiredNSmilin308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Jacksonville, TX
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by GARRARD View Post
Since the M1 doesn't have a detachable magazine, I don't think it falls into the "assault weapon" category.
but it DOES have a bayonet lug. , and is therefore and "assault rifle" and banned in NY.


Last edited by RetiredNSmilin308; January 16th, 2013 at 01:02 PM. Reason: additions
RetiredNSmilin308 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 16th, 2013, 12:58 PM   #32
MGySgt USMC (ret)
 
Gus Fisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,067

Awards Showcase

I have not read the law, BUT if it bans ANY semi auto firearm that CAN hold more than 7unds, that means it effectively bans almost every semi auto pistol ever made.

Gus Fisher is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:05 PM   #33
Lifer
 
RetiredNSmilin308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Jacksonville, TX
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gus Fisher View Post
I have not read the law, BUT if it bans ANY semi auto firearm that CAN hold more than 7unds, that means it effectively bans almost every semi auto pistol ever made.
Pretty much, Gunny. Now you know why they chose 7 rounds instead of 8. If they said 8 then the Garand still would not b safe because of the bayonet lug, but the 1911 and the P-38 would have been safe too. I don't know of any but small pocket pistols that hold 7 rounds or less.

RetiredNSmilin308 is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:11 PM   #34
Old Salt
 
jbkf1003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western NYistan
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gus Fisher View Post
I have not read the law, BUT if it bans ANY semi auto firearm that CAN hold more than 7unds, that means it effectively bans almost every semi auto pistol ever made.
I've been looking at it non stop for 2 days. The key is it needs to have a 'detachable magazine' AND have one banned feature.

(A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS AN ABILITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE
44 MAGAZINE
AND HAS AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
45 (I) A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
46 (II) A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF
47 THE WEAPON;
48 (III) A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
49 (IV) A SECOND HANDGRIP OR A PROTRUDING GRIP THAT CAN BE HELD BY THE
50 NON-TRIGGER HAND;
51 (V) A BAYONET MOUNT;
52 (VI) A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, MUZZLE COMPENSATOR, OR THREADED
53 BARREL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, MUZZLE BREAK, OR
54 MUZZLE COMPENSATOR;
55 (VII) A GRENADE LAUNCHER

So if it does not have a magazine, it's GTG. The Garand enbloc clips may prove to be problematic as they hold more than 7 rounds. At the moment I believe to be 'legal' you'd have to load them to 7 rounds or less or use 5 round clips, and that's only clips you owned before the ban went in to effect, you cannot buy new 8 round clips (like they could tell the difference)....

Justin

jbkf1003 is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:17 PM   #35
Grunt
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: diamond bar calif
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Sarge View Post
Gentlemen, I fear that we are entering the transition time from the ballot box to the bullet box. The line in the sand has been drawn, and they crossed it. This unjust law will be a litmus test for other states to pass similar laws. If this isn't stopped here and now, other states will surely follow, knowing the sheep will lay down and surrender.
I can't express my outrage and anger here on this public forum.
i here ya,and am with you 100 %. but you and i knew this in 2008 . the last election was just about our last chance to fix this. i do not blame Romney. the media and academia are just to powerful. most voters are clueless as to what they are in for. me being 65 i might still live the American dream a little longer. our children will live under somebody's THUMB.
voters you sold your vote pretty cheep. i am a Viet Nam vet and would not risk my life for the folks running this country today. i flew old glory everyday up to the election. not now SORRY

notabiker is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:34 PM   #36
Lifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: thomastown mississippi
Posts: 3,129
how about the .30 carbine? the gov sells those also, & they have bayonet mounts & detachable magazines, but are also over 50 years old.

andyh1956 is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:35 PM   #37
Snappin In
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NY LI
Posts: 32
take a read.... it's soo full of badly defined and badly worded paragraphs, not even sure a lawyer could be 100% sure of the intentions of certain wordy paragraphs....

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013


There's a C&R clause in the bill that excludes a rifle from being an AW if manufactured 50+ years ago from the date of the bill.

It goes on to assign the same C&R to the large capacity "bullet feeding device" if it's unique to feeding that rifle and can't be used (non C&R) "replicas" of the same.
The bullet feeding device must have been manufactured 50 or more years ago from the date of the bill.

Now the clip in a garand does not feed the bullets, just holds them.
The bullet follower is the true "feeder" of the bullet. And the follower can't be removed from the rifle.
The enbloc isn't a magazine either.
But we gun nutz know that, don't know if others do and if the law will be interpreted that way. Seems it's up to the state police.

I've talked to a local NY FFL who's business revolves around the garand and carbine, and he's not sure. He has his lawyer looking at it, and he has calls into the state police. Until he has answers from both, he stopped selling ammo and the rifles to NYS residents cause he just can't make heads of tails of it either.

There's a statement about registering each feeding device, but gets confusing with it's wording about bringing into the state or leaving the state. I think you can get more of the feeding devices but have to register in 30 days, the language is terrible in many paragraphs.

The bill goes onto define the magazine or clip we hear them discussing in the news...
" "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device..."


So it seems to be even with a bayo lug there's a C&R for the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine.

But the clips for the garands maybe ok ? (but maybe the SA Garand made by SAI 15 years ago is gonna screw that?).

AO / Karh arms makes a m1 carbine clone, which I believe accepts the USGI mags. So could that screw the USGI carbine mags...?


Quote:
(G) PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE:

(I) ANY RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR PISTOL THAT (A) IS MANUALLY OPERATED BY
BOLT, PUMP, LEVER OR SLIDE ACTION; (B) HAS BEEN RENDERED PERMANENTLY
INOPERABLE; OR (C) IS AN ANTIQUE FIREARM AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.
921(A)(16);
(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT CANNOT ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE THAT HOLDS MORE THAN FIVE ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION;
(III) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT CANNOT HOLD MORE THAN FIVE ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION IN A FIXED OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE; OR
(IV) A RIFLE, SHOTGUN OR PISTOL, OR A REPLICA OR A DUPLICATE THEREOF, SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX A TO 18 U.S.C. 922 AS SUCH WEAPON WAS MANUFACTURED ON OCTOBER FIRST, NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-THREE. THE MERE FACT THAT A WEAPON IS NOT LISTED IN APPENDIX A SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT SUCH WEAPON IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON;
(V) ANY WEAPON VALIDLY REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER. SUCH WEAPONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (H) OF THIS SUBDIVISION;
(VI) ANY FIREARM, RIFLE, OR SHOTGUN THAT WAS MANUFACTURED AT LEAST FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, BUT NOT INCLUDING REPLICAS THERE OF THAT IS VALIDLY REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER;
Quote:
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, [manufactured after September thir-
teenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four,] that (A) has a capacity of, or
that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten
rounds of ammunition, OR (B) CONTAINS MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNI
TION, OR (C) IS OBTAINED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER OF THE
LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH AMENDED THIS SUBDIVISION AND HAS A
CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION; provided, however, that such term
does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and
capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition OR A
FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A CURIO OR RELIC. A FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS A
CURIO OR RELIC IS DEFINED AS A DEVICE THAT (I) WAS MANUFACTURED AT LEAST
FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, (II) IS ONLY CAPABLE OF BEING
USED EXCLUSIVELY IN A FIREARM, RIFLE, OR SHOTGUN THAT WAS MANUFACTURED
AT LEAST FIFTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT DATE, BUT NOT INCLUDING REPLI
CAS THEREOF, (III) IS POSSESSED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT PROHIBITED
BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM AND (IV) IS REGISTERED
WITH THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIXTEEN-A OF
SECTION 400.00 OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT SUCH FEEDING DEVICES TRANSFERRED
INTO THE STATE MAY BE REGISTERED AT ANY TIME, PROVIDED THEY ARE REGIS
TERED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THEIR TRANSFER INTO THE STATE. NOTWITH
STANDING PARAGRAPH (H) OF SUBDIVISION TWENTY-TWO OF THIS SECTION, SUCH
FEEDING DEVICES MAY BE TRANSFERRED PROVIDED THAT SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 400.03 OF THIS CHAPTER INCLUDING
THE CHECK REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SUCH SECTION.

Thanks from LoB
ramit is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:44 PM   #38
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
CAVman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: WYoming
Posts: 9,263

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyh1956 View Post
how about the .30 carbine? the gov sells those also, & they have bayonet mounts & detachable magazines, but are also over 50 years old.
Are you referring to the 'CMP' ?

CAVman in WYoming

CAVman is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:52 PM   #39
Old Salt
 
jbkf1003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western NYistan
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramit View Post
take a read.... it's soo full of badly defined and badly worded paragraphs, not even sure a lawyer could be 100% sure of the intentions of certain wordy paragraphs....

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013


There's a C&R clause in the bill that excludes a rifle from being an AW if manufactured 50+ years ago from the date of the bill.

It goes on to assign the same C&R to the large capacity "bullet feeding device" if it's unique to feeding that rifle and can't be used (non C&R) "replicas" of the same.
The bullet feeding device must have been manufactured 50 or more years ago from the date of the bill.

Now the clip in a garand does not feed the bullets, just holds them.
The bullet follower is the true "feeder" of the bullet. And the follower can't be removed from the rifle.
The enbloc isn't a magazine either.
But we gun nutz know that, don't know if others do and if the law will be interpreted that way. Seems it's up to the state police.

I've talked to a local NY FFL who's business revolves around the garand and carbine, and he's not sure. He has his lawyer looking at it, and he has calls into the state police. Until he has answers from both, he stopped selling ammo and the rifles to NYS residents cause he just can't make heads of tails of it either.

There's a statement about registering each feeding device, but gets confusing with it's wording about bringing into the state or leaving the state. I think you can get more of the feeding devices but have to register in 30 days, the language is terrible in many paragraphs.

The bill goes onto define the magazine or clip we hear them discussing in the news...
" "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device..."


So it seems to be even with a bayo lug there's a C&R for the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine.

But the clips for the garands maybe ok ? (but maybe the SA Garand made by SAI 15 years ago is gonna screw that?).

AO / Karh arms makes a m1 carbine clone, which I believe accepts the USGI mags. So could that screw the USGI carbine mags...?
Good info. I emailed my FFL but he's at the SHOT show. That's about what I make of it. It shows it was written in a hurry with no scrutiny.

Garand = no mag = ok

USGI Carbine = Ok as C&R (New Carbines need to be compliant, either no bayo lug or registered), I unfortunately have a Fulton Armory carbine built on their receiver.

Garand Clips Maybe Ok, if they don't define them as a ammo-feeding decvice (feed strip??)

Carbine mags are problematic unless you owned a 10 rounder that you now load 7 into.

Except I can't see where Preban Mags are no longer ok? Did you see that? The media reported that they were no longer GTG.

Thanks
Justin

jbkf1003 is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:01 PM   #40
Snappin In
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Highland, NY
Posts: 18
I live in NY. Would I be allowed to purchase 8rd en bloc clips online that are over 50 years old. These laws are so confusing...

Gunoholic is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:02 PM   #41
Inquisitor
 
GARRARD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tampa
Posts: 10,815

Awards Showcase

Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law � 265.00(23) to ban all large
capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds
of ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under the
original assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines that
hold more than seven rounds of ammunition.
Magazines that can hold
more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currently
possessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain seven rounds
of ammunition. Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines that
are curios or relics.

Thanks from jbkf1003
GARRARD is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:09 PM   #42
Old Salt
 
jbkf1003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western NYistan
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunoholic View Post
I live in NY. Would I be allowed to purchase 8rd en bloc clips online that are over 50 years old. These laws are so confusing...
Yeah, I don't know. That section is very confusing, talks about registering magazines withing 72 hours of when you get them. Who is going to register fundreds of clips? That I think that section is mostly written for magazines for antique collectables so you can still get them.

I think in the end an enbloc clip will not be considered a 'ammunition feeding device' since the magazine is builtin to the rifle. It would be the equivalent of banning 10 round m14 stripper clips. If they are not considered ammunition feeding devices, then them having more than 7 rounds in them is ok, and you can buy them all day long. Hopefully once it gets going how the AG is going to interpret it will give us some insight. But it is very hard to understand and badly written. The orig AWB was a lot more concise. I think it's ambiguity makes it dangerous, perfectly good law abiding fellow could get nailed with something stupid. If we can't understand it and we're trying, how can we expect the average non gun nut LEO to?


Justin

jbkf1003 is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:13 PM   #43
Snappin In
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Highland, NY
Posts: 18
That's right. LEO are going to have a tough time enforcing the laws. I really can't see registering en bloc clips. They don't have a S/N or any info really to have them registered. I can't wait 'till I move out of NY. How does North or South Carolina sound?

Gunoholic is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:33 PM   #44
Old Salt
 
jbkf1003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western NYistan
Posts: 1,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by GARRARD View Post
Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law � 265.00(23) to ban all large
capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds
of ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under the
original assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines that
hold more than seven rounds of ammunition.
Magazines that can hold
more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currently
possessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain seven rounds
of ammunition. Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines that
are curios or relics.
Thanks. found it It was way down...

S 46-a. The penal law is amended by adding two new sections 265.36 and
20 265.37 to read as follows:
21 S 265.36 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
22 DEVICE.
23 IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY POSSESS A LARGE CAPACI-
24 TY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE MANUFACTURED BEFORE SEPTEMBER THIRTEENTH,
25 NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR
, AND IF SUCH PERSON LAWFULLY POSSESSED SUCH
26 LARGE CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAPTER
27 OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS SECTION, THAT HAS
28 A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT CAN BE READILY RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT,
29 MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION.
30 AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT SUCH DEVICE IS OF SUCH
31 A CHARACTER THAT IT MAY LAWFULLY BE POSSESSED AND WHO SURRENDERS OR
32 LAWFULLY DISPOSES OF SUCH DEVICE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF BEING NOTIFIED BY
33 LAW ENFORCEMENT OR COUNTY LICENSING OFFICIALS THAT SUCH POSSESSION IS
34 UNLAWFUL SHALL NOT BE GUILTY OF THIS OFFENSE. IT SHALL BE A REBUTTABLE
35 PRESUMPTION THAT SUCH PERSON KNOWS THAT SUCH LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
36 FEEDING DEVICE MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED IF HE OR SHE HAS BEEN
37 CONTACTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR COUNTY LICENSING OFFICIALS AND INFORMED
38 THAT SUCH DEVICE MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED.
39 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE IS A
40 CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.


My head hurts..

jbkf1003 is offline  
Old January 16th, 2013, 03:01 PM   #45
Platoon Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: middletown nj
Posts: 324
NYers ought to sue under the 'undo hardship clause'

RUTGERS95 is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Gun Rights



Search tags for this page
is an m1 garand an assault rifle in ny
,
is m-1 garand considered an assault rifle in nystate?
,
is m1 garand an assault weapon in ny state
,
m1 carbine legal in ny
,
m1 carbine mag for sale li ny
,
m1 garand ny legal
,
m1 garand ny safe act of 2013
,
m1 garand safe act
,
ny safe act garand
,

ny safe act m1 garand

,
nys safe act and m1 garand
,
safe act compliant m1
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Moderator Tools
Display Modes




Top Gun Sites Top Sites List