Just a quick question about assault riles in NYC. If my AR-15 is legal in NYS because technically it is not an assault weapon as defined in the NYS gun laws, is it legal in NYC? I read on NYPD's website that assault rilfes are not legal in NYC but getting back to what I just said, it's technically not considered an assault rilfe. OR, do they not care and consider all AR's and AK's etc to be illegal. Any info you guys have would be appreciated.

First, if you live in NYC, my condolences.  If not, just stay out of NYC with any and all firearms unless you're just passing through in a vehicle and they're all locked up and unloaded in the trunk.  Anything else and you're asking for trouble.  The NYPD, if given the opportunity, will try and lable a Red Ryder 200 shot range model air rifle an "assault weapon"  if they find you with one.

I believe NYC/NYPD has list of guns that are not approved.   Better yet, ask NYPD licensing division to see if they can forward you a copy of approved/disaproved firearm list.

If you are in NYC, and not just passing through , QUICKLY, without stops, and have an AR-15, take it apart, and leave NYC.

Now.

You are breaking the law. Ignorance of this law will not excuse you.

I thought NYS considers an AR-15 an AW:

An "assault weapon" means (a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; (v) a grenade launcher; or (b) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; (iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine; or (c) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics: (i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (iv) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm; or (d) any of the weapons, or functioning frames or receivers of such weapons, or copies or duplicates of such weapons, in any caliber, known as (i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (All Models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (Sc-70); (iv) Colt Ar-15;(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; (vi) SWD M 10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; (vii) Steyr Aug; (viii) Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (ix) Revolving Cylinder Shotguns, such as (or Similar to) the Streetsweeper and Striker 12; (e) 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; (iv) a rifle, shotgun or pistol, or a replica or a duplicate thereof, specified in appendix A to section 922 of 18 U.S.C. as such weapon was manufactured on October 1, 1993. 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; or (v) a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or any of the weapons defined in paragraph (d) of this subdivision lawfully possessed prior to September 14, 1994.

Read the law you posted again.  NYS is bad, but not as nonsensical as NYC; yet.  They word after detachable magazine is "two."  Not to have two or more of the following features.

New York City Administrative Code 10-301

Quoted Text

16.  "Assault weapon."
    (a)  Any semiautomatic centerfire or rimfire rifle or semiautomatic shotgun which has one or more of the following features:
    1.  folding or telescoping stock or no stock;
    2.  pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
    3.  bayonet mount;
    4.  flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor;
    5.  barrel shroud;
    6.  grenade launcher; or
    7.  modifications of such features, or other features, determined by rule of the commissioner to be particularly suitable for military and not sporting purposes. In addition, the commissioner shall, by rule, designate specific semiautomatic centerfire or rimfire rifles or semiautomatic shotguns, identified by make, model and/or manufacturer's name, as within the definition of assault weapon, if the commissioner determines that such weapons are particularly suitable for military and not sporting purposes. The commissioner shall inspect such specific designated semiautomatic centerfire or rimfire rifles or semiautomatic shotguns at least three times per year, and shall revise or update such designations as he or she deems appropriate.
    (b)  Any shotgun with a revolving-cylinder magazine.
    (c)  Any part, or combination of parts, designed or redesigned or intended to readily convert a rifle or shotgun into an assault weapon.
    (d)  "Assault weapon" shall not include any rifle or shotgun modified to render it permanently inoperative.

Quoted from bradleyjg

New York City Administrative Code 10-301

The key word here being New York City as in NYC, or CITY.  The post I pointed out was quoting the law as it applies to the rest of the state which allows for ONE evil feature, in other words No More Than TWO.  I think both laws are unconstitutional as they infringe on New Yorkers' right to keep and bear arms.  NYC laws are garbage.  Not just the gun laws.  There is a parking regulation racket.  

I wasn't disagreeing with your post Vintovka1891, I was just answering the OP's question.

NYS allows one 'evil' feature, NYC none.

Quoted Text

(c)  Any part, or combination of parts, designed or redesigned or intended to readily convert a rifle or shotgun into an assault weapon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean you cannot even own, say, a rifle stock with a pistol grip by itself?  As in not attached to the rifle, but just sitting in a parts bin.

Quoted from Steve K

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean you cannot even own, say, a rifle stock with a pistol grip by itself?  As in not attached to the rifle, but just sitting in a parts bin.

You can own that in the city, but you can't attach it. Technically you can own all the parts to an AR or AK in the city...except the receiver.

   The NYC Administrative Code applies only to NYC residents, not residents of the rest of the state. Also, the NYC Administrative Code does not apply, to NYC residents, when they leave the borders of NYC. That's why and how NYC residents can own or possess long guns, without a NYC long gun permit, if those long guns are kept outside the borders of NYC.
   NYC has always had a list different from that of the state. They have their own handgun licensing and caliber/barrel length restrictions, also.
Gary

For a time I lived in NYC and legally had an M-1 Carbine with 30-rd mags. As I understand the law, any AR/AK type weapon with a pistol grip is NG. M-1 Garands, M1A1/M-14s and M-1 Carbines are all gtg in NYC since their stocks have no protruding PGs and you must have a long-gun permit for them.  

Quoted fron dv0042

"The NYPD, if given the opportunity, will try and lable a Red Ryder 200 shot range model air rifle an "assault weapon"  if they find you with one."


That;s because they are afraid you'll shoot your eye out!

Quoted from Steve K

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean you cannot even own, say, a rifle stock with a pistol grip by itself?  As in not attached to the rifle, but just sitting in a parts bin.

I couldn't find any case law, but I would err on the side of safety and not possess such spare parts in NYC.

This is not legal advice, if you need legal advice seek competent counsel in your jurisdiction

I appreciate everyone's answers. This kind of info isn't the easiest to find. Especially when it pertains to NYC.

Make sure you take my sling off of your rifle before NYPD confiscates it. Thanks.

AR-15 are not legal in NYC in any way shape form or modification

What about a Saiga? Does it qualify as an AK? What if you get it chambered in 223 or 308? My friend is considering getting one but lives in NYC he is gonna call the NYPD num they have on the form monday Ill keep you guys posted but does anyone know?

I could be wrong, but as long as the Saiga only has 5-round magazines, I think your friend is OK.

When I registered my Garand, I was told I could only possess 5-round clips, and that I had to grind off the bayonet lug.  A real shame too, as I did it.  Now that I'm out of the city, I guess I need to look into fixing that, but I've not gotten around to it yet.

Packman

Quoted from Ben_Dog

What about a Saiga? Does it qualify as an AK? What if you get it chambered in 223 or 308? My friend is considering getting one but lives in NYC he is gonna call the NYPD num they have on the form monday Ill keep you guys posted but does anyone know?

Sorry my man, even the Saiga is an "assault weapon"...*threw up in my mouth a little*...in NYC due to its AK receiver. Damn shame, ain't it?!

Quoted from Packman

I could be wrong, but as long as the Saiga only has 5-round magazines, I think your friend is OK.

When I registered my Garand, I was told I could only possess 5-round clips, and that I had to grind off the bayonet lug.  A real shame too, as I did it.  Now that I'm out of the city, I guess I need to look into fixing that, but I've not gotten around to it yet.

Packman

WAIT A MINUTE...Rifle/Shotgun bureau...in QUEENS...let you register a GARAND? Those dry old hags told me a Garand was an "assault weapon" and i cannot register it.

Quoted from Lamont

WAIT A MINUTE...Rifle/Shotgun bureau...in QUEENS...let you register a GARAND? Those dry old hags told me a Garand was an "assault weapon" and i cannot register it.

Yes indeed, they let me register it.  I wrote a respectful letter asking about the legality of registering the Garand purchased from CMP, and I received a reply that as long as I only possessed five round clips and removed the bayonet lug, they had no problem with it.  I returned the registration certificate with a copy of the letter, and received the stamped copy back in a matter of days.

Now, because I was on the radar, I fully expected to have a visit from a friendly officer to check out my rifle, so I did indeed grind off the bayonet lug from my beautiful piece of millitary history shortly after receiving it from the CMP.  I didn't want to risk the felony rap by not doing it.  Sad, I know.

Quoted from Packman

Yes indeed, they let me register it.  I wrote a respectful letter asking about the legality of registering the Garand purchased from CMP, and I received a reply that as long as I only possessed five round clips and removed the bayonet lug, they had no problem with it.  I returned the registration certificate with a copy of the letter, and received the stamped copy back in a matter of days.

Now, because I was on the radar, I fully expected to have a visit from a friendly officer to check out my rifle, so I did indeed grind off the bayonet lug from my beautiful piece of millitary history shortly after receiving it from the CMP.  I didn't want to risk the felony rap by not doing it.  Sad, I know.

Wow, when I asked, I was told no because its clip held 8...3 over the limit and it has a bayonet lug. I did'nt even know they made 5 rounders for Garands. Yeah it is a shame you have to alter a piece of history like that. Thanx for the info Packman, next stop: CMP Store!

I'd take a Springfield '03 also.

Hm, AR-15 surely will not get passed by NYC laws.  I have another question tho, presumably AR-15 is legal on the island if certain modifications are made.  My question is : even the modifications are made, wouldn't that still be a copy or duplicate of the Colt AR-15?  The modified firearm would certainly not be an exact copy, but the interpretaton could go to a bad direction if wanted to.  Well, that's is only my thought.

Quoted from Steel Baby

Hm, AR-15 surely will not get passed by NYC laws.  I have another question tho, presumably AR-15 is legal on the island if certain modifications are made.  My question is : even the modifications are made, wouldn't that still be a copy or duplicate of the Colt AR-15?  The modified firearm would certainly not be an exact copy, but the interpretaton could go to a bad direction if wanted to.  Well, that's is only my thought.

I posted a thread about that exact question a few weeks ago.

http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/m-1264297359/s-0/#num0

Most of the replies were vague, guesses, products of folklore and hyper-interpretations of the law. I think I upset a few people because I kept stating the answers were not satisfactory. If a Bushmaster or any other brand of semi-auto AR is legal in NY State, I still haven't heard an explanation as to why.

Well, it's like if one changes the door handle of a ferrari, it's no longer a ferrari.  If I second guess the law, it would read " If certain undesirable components (from the standpoint of law makers) are removed or modified to a less destructive alternative from Colt AR-15 or its clones, then the law will look the other way. As this will satisfy AR-15 enthuthiasts 2nd Constitutional right and provide revenues to firearm industry and local distributors".  I think it's word game and very few would want to play.

Quoted from Steel Baby

Well, it's like if one changes the door handle of a ferrari, it's no longer a ferrari.  If I second guess the law, it would read " If certain undesirable components (from the standpoint of law makers) are removed or modified to a less destructive alternative from Colt AR-15 or its clones, then the law will look the other way. As this will satisfy AR-15 enthuthiasts 2nd Constitutional right and provide revenues to firearm industry and local distributors".  I think it's word game and very few would want to play.

If Hyundai makes a car that looks like a Ferrari, would you consider that a Ferrari or a Hyudai?

Quoted from ligun

If Hyundai makes a car that looks like a Ferrari, would you consider that a Ferrari or a Hyudai?

Actually, in the context of Government acquisition and procurement it would, in fact, be a Ferrari, even if Hyundai made it.

Quoted from BLAMMO

Actually, in the context of Government acquisition and procurement it would, in fact, be a Ferrari, even if Hyundai made it.

I deal daily with government acquisition people and I have to disagree totally.  

Fortunately for us, the gungrabbers, when they were writing the law, did not use than use the phrase "equivalent functionality", they used the phrase "copy".  Legally they are completely different concepts.

Quoted from ligun

I deal daily with government acquisition people and I have to disagree totally.  

Fortunately for us, the gungrabbers, when they were writing the law, did not use than use the phrase "equivalent functionality", they used the phrase "copy".  Legally they are completely different concepts.

And there you go pointing out their mistakes for them. If I see those words "equivilant functionality" in a new AWB I'm coming over there and kicking you in the nads.  

Quoted from Steel Baby

Hm, AR-15 surely will not get passed by NYC laws.  I have another question tho, presumably AR-15 is legal on the island if certain modifications are made.  My question is : even the modifications are made, wouldn't that still be a copy or duplicate of the Colt AR-15?  The modified firearm would certainly not be an exact copy, but the interpretaton could go to a bad direction if wanted to.  Well, that's is only my thought.

   There is an exception, in the statute, for any AR-15 or look-alike, which was manufactured before the date of the statute's enactment.
Gary

Quoted from Pacman
"I fully expected to have a visit from a friendly officer"

Your firendly neighborhood Bloomberg officer:

An "assault weapon" means (a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; (v) a grenade launcher;


Take the Bushmaster "Post-Ban Carbine" in stock configurations. According to the definition here of "assault weapon", this does not qualify, by their own murky words.

Quoted from ligun

I deal daily with government acquisition people and I have to disagree totally.  

Fortunately for us, the gungrabbers, when they were writing the law, did not use than use the phrase "equivalent functionality", they used the phrase "copy".  Legally they are completely different concepts.

The AR-15 is an open design in the public domain. Anyone can build one. Even though Colt originally developed it, the Government can go to any supplier, as long as they meet the specs.

Using the car analogy, if the Government went to Ferrari, paid them to develop a vehicle, took those design specs to Hyundai and had them build it, you could call it a Hyundai, a Ferrari, a kumquat or whatever you want, but they would be the same thing. Interchangeable parts and all (as long as they are built to and meet the same specs).

A Bushmaster IS an AR-15.

Quoted from BLAMMO

A Bushmaster IS an AR-15.

Fortunately for gunowners, the courts and the BATFE disgree with you.

This is really a ridiculous word game.  If law makers who participated making this law are here, they probably would laugh their heads off seeing us debating the holes they deliberately left.