# NY AG threatening companies for selling "ghost guns". Isn't this perfectly legal in NY? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724 "2019-09-23T20:36:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2019, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/61 "2019-09-28T04:20:01Z")
> [@Cleophus](#): > > It is factually untrue that an 80% lower can only be used to manufacture an illegal firearm. AFAICT, nowhere is anybody claiming that the sellers being leaned on by the NY AG’s office are selling materials that “can _ **only** _ be used” to manufacture an illegal firearm. What the cease-and-desist letter is claiming is that these materials “are _ **intended** _ for” manufacturing illegal firearms. If that is what they are intended for, and if it’s illegal in NY to sell or purchase them with that intention (neither of which conditions I personally have any certain knowledge about), then I don’t see that the AG’s office is out of line in demanding that they not be sold to New Yorkers. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The kit is for making a NY-legal rifle. Well, that seems to be one of the points that’s in dispute. After all, it is not unheard-of for manufacturers to claim one purpose for a product while clearly winking at a different purpose (see, e.g., [Prohibition-era concentrated grape-juice “bricks” containing insincere warnings about how to avoid letting them ferment into wine](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ingenious-brick-helped-wine-industry-survive-prohibition-180956412/)). ---
**Author:** ![Cleophus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e57/32.png) [@Cleophus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cleophus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2019, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/62 "2019-09-28T12:24:34Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If that is what they are intended for, and if it’s illegal in NY to sell or purchase them with that intention (neither of which conditions I personally have any certain knowledge about), then I don’t see that the AG’s office is out of line in demanding that they not be sold to New Yorkers. How does the NY AG know they are intended for illegal firearms manufacture? The cease-and-desist offers no evidence the kit manufacturers intend them for illegal purposes. They did not present any sting operations yielding comments saying “this would be make a great machine gun” or “this is perfect for a hit” or anything like that. Just an assertion. If there were evidence, there would be prosecution, not a letter. > [@](#): > > Well, that seems to be one of the points that’s in dispute. I don’t understand how this can be disputed. I posted an example of an NY-legal AR-15. Here is its product page from a major firearms manufacturer: [Ruger NY-legal AR-556](https://ruger.com/products/ar556/specSheets/8513.html), maybe I should have added that too to reinforce that it’s a mainstream product. There is no federal law that makes it illegal to manufacture a firearm for personal use, and no NY law restricting that. I don’t know why you think the Prohibition example is relevant. It was universally illegal to make alcoholic beverages at that time. _It is not illegal to make or own an AR-15 in NY_. Why do you think 80% lowers are only used for illegal purposes? ---
**Author:** ![Cleophus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e57/32.png) [@Cleophus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cleophus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2019, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/63 "2019-09-28T12:34:08Z")
Also, it is interesting that the C&D partially quotes the NY assault weapons law regarding how “assault weapon” is defined by things like pistol grips and stocks, but these are not part of a lower receiver. This is an 80% lower: [Note the filled in areas in the rear that have to be machined out by the end user](https://www.80-lower.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/products-AR2180-BAL_3.jpg). That is what makes it an “80%” lower and not a firearm yet (80% is just a popular descriptor, BTW. The ATF defines the firearm/not firearm threshold by ability to receive a trigger group and hammer, not by counting machining steps). If the alleged illegal product depends on the end user’s choice of accessories not supplied to determine the legality of the final result, doesn’t it weaken claims of intent? ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2019, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/64 "2019-09-29T08:26:10Z")
It’s back to the endless matter of gun control and ways to evade restrictions on certain weapons. Ultimately, it boils down to just one question; if you are assembling a weapon, then the weapon should be registered, which means that it must comply with any local laws. Or at least, that is the European point of view, requiring registration and permits. The issue here is that you are creating a gun out of parts, and if I understand correctly, one that can also bypass any restrictions on automatic fire. The other point is that the gun does not have a serial number. Of course, the more skilled can make their own gun out of parts, my understanding is that a simple submachine gun can be cobbled together by anyone with a well equipped workshop, although the magazines are the hard part. You could make such a homebrew weapon anywhere, in the USA or Europe, but in the latter case it would be illegal evan as a collection of parts, let alone when assembled. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2019, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/65 "2019-09-29T09:08:56Z")
> [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > It’s back to the endless matter of gun control and ways to evade restrictions on certain weapons. Ultimately, it boils down to just one question; if you are assembling a weapon, then the weapon should be registered, which means that it must comply with any local laws. Or at least, that is the European point of view, requiring registration and permits. The issue here is that you are creating a gun out of parts, and if I understand correctly, one that can also bypass any restrictions on automatic fire. The other point is that the gun does not have a serial number. Of course, the more skilled can make their own gun out of parts, my understanding is that a simple submachine gun can be cobbled together by anyone with a well equipped workshop, although the magazines are the hard part. You could make such a homebrew weapon anywhere, in the USA or Europe, but in the latter case it would be illegal evan as a collection of parts, let alone when assembled. Doesn’t really boil down simply to anything, because in virtually all the relevant cases the local laws are against new sale and purchase of the weapons in question. In virtually every case weapons legally bought before the ‘ban’ are still legal. In some cases of state laws now there are requirements to register ‘grandfathered’ semiautomatic ‘assault weapons’, for example in CA, but not in NY. So if the state (not to mention US federal govt) can’t push through a law which comprehensively bans the weapon itself, but only bans selling/buying them, it’s always going to be a matter of interpretation what constitutes selling one, what exact gun, and whether parts count. If the law were basically different than what it is…the issue would be different. 🙂 You mention automatic weapons which are not relevant to the case in question because those are subject US federal laws which require registration and strict licensing that results in relatively very few such weapons legally possessed as compared to the far larger number of semiautomatic rifles covered under the political moniker ‘assault weapons’. It’s just illegal to convert legal semi-automatic weapons into automatic everywhere in the US, and there’s no live\* issue of constitutionality there. The federal BATF makes regulations against commercial production and sale of particular semiautomatic weapons the BATF deems too easy to convert to automatic, and that involves some of the same jargon about receivers, trigger groups and so forth, but that’s not the issue in the NY AG action. \*internet ‘constitutional scholars’ can always posit that any gun law ‘should’ be found unconstitutional in the US but as a practical matter the National Firearms Act of 1934 and later _automatic_ weapons laws haven’t been successfully legally challenged over a long period. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2019, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/66 "2019-09-29T21:56:02Z")
> [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > It’s back to the endless matter of gun control and ways to evade restrictions on certain weapons. Ultimately, it boils down to just one question; if you are assembling a weapon, then the weapon should be registered, which means that it must comply with any local laws. Or at least, that is the European point of view, requiring registration and permits. … _Every_ euro nation? :dubious: Anyway, while all that is nice, and may be the law in Luxemburg, it is NOT the law in New York. That’s the whole point. Under _current NY laws,_ these parts and the guns from them are totally legal. It’s a loophole, sure, and the legislature could close it in a day. They have not seen fit to do so. Thus the AG is making up his own laws. You can argue it \*should \*be illegal, but it’s NOT illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/67 "2019-09-30T01:33:34Z")
> [@Cleophus](#): > > I don’t understand how this can be disputed. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Under _current NY laws,_ these parts and the guns from them are totally legal. Re-quoting, again, the relevant parts of the NY AG’s cease-and-desist letter complaining about > [@](#): > > […] the sale and advertisement to residents of New York of unfinished lower receivers and firearms components that are intended for the assembly of assault weapons, as defined by New York State law. N.Y. Pen. L. § 265.00(22). Assault weapons are illegal in New York, and the sale and/or advertisement of these products violates New York law. […] > > New York law criminalizes the possession, manufacture, sale, and transportation of assault weapons, which are defined as any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of several enumerated secondary characteristics, including a pistol grip or a stock that folds, telescopes, or bears a thumbhole. N.Y. Pen. L. §§ 265.00(22); 265.02(7); 265.10(1)–(3). Yet those are precisely the purposes of the products that your website(s) appear to offer for sale to New Yorkers. […] > > These sales also contravene New York’s consumer protection statutes, which prohibit “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts” as well as “deceptive acts or practices” or “[f]alse advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce.” N.Y. Exec. L. § 63(12); N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. §§ 349, 350. You can argue with the AG’s office all you want about whether the assertions made in the letter are true, and as I have pointed out several times before, IANAL and have no personal knowledge of the legal issues involved. But it seems pretty obvious that if the AG’s office is saying that something is illegal and some other people are saying it isn’t, then its legality is disputed. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/68 "2019-09-30T03:52:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Re-quoting, again, the relevant parts of the NY AG’s cease-and-desist letter complaining about But there’s no evidence that sellers are advertising their product intended for the assembly of illegal weapons. The AG could write a similar letter to Amazon telling the to cease providing aid to terrorists by selling them books that facilitates terrorism. I hope they hash it out in court, and the residents of NY through their tax dollars pay the legal fees of the sellers so they can sell more weapons into the state of NY. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/69 "2019-09-30T04:47:44Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Re-quoting, again, the relevant parts of the NY AG’s cease-and-desist letter complaining about > You can argue with the AG’s office all you want about whether the assertions made in the letter are true, and as I have pointed out several times before, IANAL and have no personal knowledge of the legal issues involved. But it seems pretty obvious that if the AG’s office is saying that something is illegal and some other people are saying it isn’t, then its legality is disputed. The NY AG’s wouldnt have to issue a cease-and-desist letter if the law was clear. They’d just arrest people. The law isnt clear, and it could be cleared in one day- why hasnt the legislature taken that day? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/70 "2019-09-30T18:49:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The NY AG’s wouldnt have to issue a cease-and-desist letter if the law was clear. They’d just arrest people. :dubious: Really? You’re arguing that cease-and-desist letters are sent out by an attorney general **only when the issue is too legally dubious to justify filing suit?** That seems very implausible. Because AFAIK, plenty of AG cease-and-desist letters **are** followed up by filing suit if the recipient doesn’t comply. Case in point: [the NJ AG’s lawsuit against a company that ignored a cease-and-desist letter about selling large-capacity magazines to NJ customers](https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases19/pr20190619a.html). While I personally can’t pronounce on the legal merits of the NY AG’s position (as I believe I’ve mentioned before), I’m not at all persuaded by your attempt to argue that they wouldn’t even have sent a cease-and-desist letter if their position was valid. AFAICT from the letter, the targeted recipients have five days to explain, if they choose, why they think no enforcement action should be taken against them; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that no valid justification for taking enforcement action against them exists. > [@Bone](#): > > But there’s no evidence that sellers are advertising their product intended for the assembly of illegal weapons. AFAICT (and again, IANAL), the AG’s letter seems to be cautioning the sellers that they are not taking adequate measures to **disclaim** such an intention: > [@](#): > > Any misrepresentation or omission on your website that it is a criminal offense under New York State law to manufacture and/or possess assault weapons—the very purpose for which those products are intended and designed—is a deceptive trade practice that may subject you to disgorgement of all income resulting from such fraudulent and illegal practice, restitution to consumers, and penalties of up to $5,000 for each individual violation […] You seem to be arguing that since the items in question can also be used to make legal weapons, then they’re obviously not intended for the purpose of making illegal ones. This is the part that’s reminding me a bit of Prohibition-era sellers of grape-juice concentrate being shocked, shocked! at the insinuation that anybody might be using their totally legal product to manufacture any illegal beverage. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/71 "2019-09-30T19:25:26Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > AFAICT (and again, IANAL), the AG’s letter seems to be cautioning the sellers that they are not taking adequate measures to **disclaim** such an intention: > > You seem to be arguing that since the items in question can also be used to make legal weapons, then they’re obviously not intended for the purpose of making illegal ones. This is the part that’s reminding me a bit of Prohibition-era sellers of grape-juice concentrate being shocked, shocked! at the insinuation that anybody might be using their totally legal product to manufacture any illegal beverage. That’s not my read. The AG is not cautioning about not taking adequate measures - the letter states even sellers stating that manufacture of an assault weapon is illegal, or any other additional communications prohibiting illegal conduct is not sufficient to overcome the AG’s presumption that the website has the intent to sell illegal weapons. Here’s an example that is similar. In CA, it is currently illegal to buy, or import into the state any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. In NV, there isn’t a limit on the size of magazines individuals can purchase. As neighboring states, this creates an opportunity for unscrupulous people to purchase a legal magazine in NV and bring it across the border into CA. There are even stores like Bass Pro Shops that are in NV, but pretty close to the border. Should stores in NV be prevented from selling magazines to people who go into their stores? Bass Pro Shops goes even further. They ask for ID before selling the magazines, and if you are a CA resident, they will not sell to you. This isn’t required, but they do it anyways to help customers comply with the law. That is what the NY gun sellers are doing. They are selling a legal product, but they are warning people to only use it in the way it was intended, to comply with the law. But that is not enough for the AG. Apparently even the potential for illegal activity is equivalent to engaging in that illegal activity. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/72 "2019-09-30T19:38:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That is what the NY gun sellers are doing. They are selling a legal product, but they are warning people to only use it in the way it was intended, to comply with the law. Which sellers are you referring to? [AFAIK the NY AG’s office](https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/09/23/cease-and-desist-why-ny-cracking-down-these-gun-sites/2417875001/) did not disclose the identities of the recipients of the cease-and-desist letters, but is claiming that they are **not** adequately warning customers to comply with the law: > [@](#): > > New York’s Attorney General issued a cease and desist order Monday to more than a dozen websites […] > > A spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office said the names of the sites are being withheld […] > > The [cease-and-desist] order accuses the websites of fraudulent business practices for selling to New Yorkers and failing to notify that purchasing an assault weapon in New York is illegal and could result in prison time or fines. > > “The sale of such products to New Yorkers gravely endangers the public welfare by promoting the possession of illegal weapons and obstructing law enforcement investigations into the misuse of these weapons, and constitutes a criminal offense under New York State law,” the order reads. > > Under the order, the sites have five days to show why they should not face enforcement actions from the state, which could include a fine of $5,000 for each transaction completed. > > The sites were also ordered to preserve all records pertaining to the sale of the lower receivers. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/73 "2019-09-30T19:49:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Which sellers are you referring to? [AFAIK the NY AG’s office](https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/09/23/cease-and-desist-why-ny-cracking-down-these-gun-sites/2417875001/) did not disclose the identities of the recipients of the cease-and-desist letters, but is claiming that they are **not** adequately warning customers to comply with the law: That’s not what the letter says, kinda. It may say that, but the part you quoted also basically says that no amount of warning is sufficient. You quoted that part: > [@](#): > > Any misrepresentation or omission on your > website that it is a criminal offense under New York State law to manufacture and/or possess > assault weapons—the very purpose for which those products are intended and designed—is a > deceptive trade practice that may subject you to disgorgement of all income resulting from such > fraudulent and illegal practice, restitution to consumers, and penalties of up to $5,000 for each > individual violation of Article 22-A of New York’s General Business Law This means it doesn’t matter how much people are cautioned against engaging in illegal acts, because the presumption is that the very purpose for which those products are intended and designed is illegal. Of course, that’s clearly false and the AG is wrong. Any seller of an 80% lower is going to be very clear on the legality of the product, and how it may, and may not be used. No seller is going to encourage illegal behavior - it results in massive fines, loss of license, and federal prison. You’re right, there is no specific seller listed. If you could find any seller that encouraged illegal activity, then they should be shut down and prosecuted. 80% lowers are not illegal - they aren’t even firearms. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/74 "2019-09-30T20:14:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Of course, that’s clearly false and the AG is wrong. Hmmm. If so, it sounds as though it would be easy for the companies targeted by the cease-and-desist letter to provide valid reasons why enforcement action against them is not warranted. I mean, what we’ve got at this point is evidently a matter of opinion where the NY AG’s office is unambiguously claiming that they have valid legal grounds for requiring the unidentified sellers to cease and desist their marketing and selling of these items to NY customers, and you clearly believe that the NY AG’s office is deliberately making unjustified claims to pressure the sellers into desisting from legal activities that they have no valid grounds for prosecuting. Absent a better-informed legal opinion competently explaining for the lay mind the relevant jurisprudential details (which for all I know may not even exist yet until and unless such a case is actually heard by a NY court), we are now in _“Uh-huh/Nuh-uh”_ territory, where I have no way of determining whether your opinion is more correct than the NY AG’s or vice versa (did I mention that IANAL?). ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/75 "2019-09-30T21:32:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Hmmm. If so, it sounds as though it would be easy for the companies targeted by the cease-and-desist letter to provide valid reasons why enforcement action against them is not warranted. I suppose they could await their day in court, because there is nothing that requires the AG to be responsive to valid reasons. Even if the targets of these letters are 100% in the clear, this type of action by the AG could be burdensome. This is similar to a [SLAAP lawsuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation), where the goal is harassment or to get the targeted through burdensome legal expense. For a target of SLAAP litigation, would you also be sanguine saying that it would be easy for the target to demonstrate their speech is actually protected? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/76 "2019-09-30T22:05:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > For a target of SLAAP litigation, would you also be sanguine saying that it would be easy for the target to demonstrate their speech is actually protected? Well, I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it already, but IANAL. If somebody asserted definitively that the plaintiff in a SLAAP case was making charges that were legally groundless, then I’d be inclined to think it sounded as though it would be easy for the defendant to provide valid reasons why their speech is actually protected. Of course, providing valid reasons is not automatically the same thing as winning your case, and of course, an AG’s office cease-and-desist letter is not the same thing as a SLAAP lawsuit. We’re back in the same territory of opinion where you opine that the AG’s office is wrong, and the AG’s office appears to think they’re not wrong, and I have no way of independently determining the legal rights of the matter. On account of not being a lawyer, and all. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/77 "2019-09-30T22:13:08Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it already, but IANAL. If somebody asserted definitively that the plaintiff in a SLAAP case was making charges that were legally groundless, then I’d be inclined to think it sounded as though it would be easy for the defendant to provide valid reasons why their speech is actually protected. It sounds like it’d be easy for the defendant, but it’s not. The evidence is the various states that have passed anti-SLAAP legislation. They did this because it’s actually not easy to provide valid reasons, at least not economically. Could be the same thing here. You have the AG of NY, vs a small manufacturer that could employ like 18 people. I wonder who has more resources to withstand litigation. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/78 "2019-09-30T22:22:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The evidence is the various states that have passed anti-SLAAP legislation. They did this because it’s actually not easy to provide valid reasons, at least not economically. I think you’re mixing up “providing valid reasons” with “winning your case because of your valid reasons”, which I explicitly tried to distinguish between. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/79 "2019-09-30T23:25:40Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Hmmm. If so, it sounds as though it would be easy for the companies targeted by the cease-and-desist letter to provide valid reasons why enforcement action against them is not warranted. Clearly there are differences of opinion, and the AG isnt going to write a letter that sez: “It _could_ be that…”- so again I ask, why doesnt the NY Legislature just close the loophole? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724/80 "2019-09-30T23:37:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you’re mixing up “providing valid reasons” with “winning your case because of your valid reasons”, which I explicitly tried to distinguish between. It doesn’t make any difference. The goal is to harass and cost these companies money. You seem to be avoiding the merits, avoiding the reasoning, and assuming that the AG has positive intent. That’s fine since it probably fits your thinking on the matter. But if you understand the purpose of a SLAAP lawsuit, it should be pretty clear the potential for abuse here. [Here’s a site that received one of the AG letters.](https://www.80-lower.com/blogs/80-lower-blog/new-york-just-tried-to-ban-80-lowers-and-ar-15-build-kits/) When you look at one of these items, this is what is stated on the page: > [@](#): > > Shipping Restrictions > Shipping of various parts and/or accessories are prohibited to states and locales (ie New Jersey, California, New York, etc…) with restrictions against certain parts and/or accessories or “assault weapons” (i.e. states with high-capacity magazine restrictions, manufacturing of semi-automatic weapons, etc…). It is your responsibility to be aware of your local firearms laws before purchasing from our website or machining a firearm. We try our best to keep our shipping page current, but laws change daily. > > [80-Lower.com](http://80-Lower.com) only ships within the United States. Federal legislation dictates we cannot ship our products internationally. Going to the [shipping page,](https://www.80-lower.com/pages/shipping-returns/) you can see even more description. There’s a lot there, but one section says this: > [@](#): > > New York > New York law criminalizes the possession, manufacture, sale, and transportation of assault weapons, which are defined as any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of several enumerated secondary characteristics, including a pistol grip or a stock that folds, telescopes, or bears a thumbhole. > > Please be aware of your local firearms laws, as this may not be a complete list. From this, the AG says the website has the intent to sell assault weapons. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that it’s BS. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ny-ag-threatening-companies-for-selling-ghost-guns-isnt-this-perfectly-legal-in-ny/840724.md?page=5)