TexasCHLforum.com

No, but it would not surprise me. the Nassau DA is rabidly ant-gun, to the extent that he forbids his office's employees -- public employees -- from owning a handgun or having a concealed handgun license.

Nassau County was also the jurisdiction that tried to ban "deceptively colored" guns and force owners of them to turn them in for destruction without compensation.

OK, I ran across this. Can't make head or tail out of it yet, but it seems similar to what you were asking...

http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum ... 650.11837/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AndyC wrote:

shop owners were breaking the law by temporarily modifying the weapons to appear as though they lacked the required characteristics of an assault weapon. However, the temporary modification was easily reversible, thereby making them full-fledged assault weapons.

As opposed to half-fledged made-up names for items that only exist in libtard laws?

I just LOVE the way this is written to make it all sound so sinister


Gimme a break

Obviously, these gun shop owners are idiots for purposely circumventing even a law as stupid as New York's but something about this makes me hope they might fight the law on some Constitutional grounds

We all know how a collapsible stock makes a rifle soooo much more dangerous.

AJ80 wrote:We all know how a collapsible stock makes a rifle soooo much more dangerous.

Yeah them shorter stock home defense weapons allow people to turn corners in hallways easier so they can defend themselves ... this must be stopped.
I fail to see constitutional authority to limit any home defense weapon by artificial criteria "it's got a carry handle" "it's easier to use inside the home to defend family" etc.

Makes as much sense as Headlines "Gun store raided, Guns found"

Isn't EVERY "ASSAULT WEAPON" (military weapon?) used to DEFEND some place? I mean if "both sides"
use them in war ... one side must be using them defensively.... "it's just common sense"
Ergo, at least HALF the "assault weapons" are used for "defense"

(Making it shorter retains that "defensive half" ... Only eliminating the "assaultive" part.)

Glad I live in Texas, some of them States have strange laws.

Actually, I think the DA is putting out incorrect information. The New York Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Ban was similar to the expired federal law, except it did not have a sunset provision. It grandfathered existing pre-ban semi-autos and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". So you can still own pre-1994 SAW's in New York. The NY also depended on the ATF's classification of what a semi-auto assault weapon is... What these dealers are going to have to do is argue that their modifications to newly manufactured guns (pinning the stocks, removing flash hiders, etc.) made the guns legal.

AJ80 wrote:We all know how a collapsible stock makes a rifle soooo much more dangerous.

That's only part of the point here, another aspect is the continuing attempt to claim that hunting is the only legitimate purpose for owning a gun --so "no one" needs handguns or semi-auto shotguns, or anything but single shot or bolt action rifles. Once this concept is established for the ignorant, then it becomes easier to ban various handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

austinrealtor wrote:

AndyC wrote:

shop owners were breaking the law by temporarily modifying the weapons to appear as though they lacked the required characteristics of an assault weapon. However, the temporary modification was easily reversible, thereby making them full-fledged assault weapons.

As opposed to half-fledged made-up names for items that only exist in libtard laws?

I just LOVE the way this is written to make it all sound so sinister


Gimme a break

Obviously, these gun shop owners are idiots for purposely circumventing even a law as stupid as New York's but something about this makes me hope they might fight the law on some Constitutional grounds

What's really sinister is the continued attempt by our left-wing media to claim that "hunting" is the only legitimate reason for owning a gun ---especially since they all hate hunting and would ban it too if they could. But once they sell the notion that guns are only for hunting, banning all kinds of guns gets easier.

I'm trying to figure out the "hunting" relationship with "consent" in the third amendment.

The relationship of "defense" and "consent" considering armed "soldiers/militia" in the third amendment isn't too hard to figure out.

AndyC wrote:The plot thickens....

At some point, don't plots become so thick that they're solid?

Dave2 wrote:

AndyC wrote:The plot thickens....

At some point, don't plots become so thick that they're solid?

Yeah, like buried in the Giants Stadium End Zone under tons of concrete kind of solid...