You are correct that a literal interpretation would say that a standard rifle with a magazine inserted cannot accept a second magazine.
Didn't say anything about "accept". What I said was to be considered detachable, it also must first be considered "attachable".. A standard magazine is not attachable in my lower because there is nothing there to hold it after my maglock is removed.
But it still accepts that magazine no? And if you let go of it, it detaches. Nowhere does it say that in other to detach it must attach. All it says is that it must accept a magazine that detaches.
Standard bullet button equipped rifles were were also sold. Rifles with the MR2 were also sold. In 2 separate cases, the gun shop owners faced charges for that. Albion NY for the bullet button rifles and the other was Jackson for the MR2. I can’t remember where his gun shop was.
A magazine that doesn't lock into place hasn't been "accepted". No reasonable person or court would suggest otherwise.
Why bother responding at this point? It’s like trying to explain that the earth isn’t flat. Let him believe what he wants. The joke is on him.
So I guess we can have standard rifles now with this amazing loophole. Just pull out your magazine release entirely.
Yes.
I put plumbers putty in the hole first so a drill bit and an Allen key will get me to where I need to go if it ever comes to that without any problems. Easy peasy!!
So what’s the issue? Why isn’t it more popular?
That is probably the second most popular compliance method besides featureless. Maybe 1st. What are you talking about ?
I’m talking about no magazine release period. Just insert a magazine into the mag well and hold it.
Oh, I thought you meant disabling it so that it wouldn't function, not removing it entirely.
Well that’s what I’ve been talking about being that someone here said that it needs to lock in place to have the ability to accept.
It needs not only the ability to lock in place, it needs the ability to be detached without any "gunsmithing". The first goes to the ability to accept and the second goes to the detachable magazine.
It’s almost like it needs to ... attach in order to ... detach Stop wasting your time. A legal scholar he is not!
The inability to do something right now does not mean the inability to do it forever.
There was one case against a person named Perkins here in NY where he had AR’s with the MR2s. They charged him with a few counts of Assault Weapons and his argument was that they had fixed magazines. At the Grand Jury trial, he quoted out of state laws on what makes a fixed magazine detachable and it was throw out by the court because it didn’t apply here. It was scheduled to go to trial and he appealed. An appellate court reviewed the case and also ruled that out of state definitions did not apply and the charges against him for the assault weapons were valid but threw out the assault weapons charges because an illegal search was conducted to acquire the weapons. They wrote in their footnotes that the charges were valid to stand for the assault weapons but no determination can be made if MR2’s makes a magazine not detachable since it was thrown out due to the illegal search.
Because that is not what the law says.
What part of the law contradicts that ?
Dude, AR’s aren’t for you. Go to bed.
See the above case.
I see your above cases. They did not make any determination aside from "out of state definitions do not matter here". And even those are not binding.
That’s my point entirely. Thanks. That’s also why so called experts say to go as far as using epoxy or high strength glues that require heat.
