Whether the item can be modified (hint: everything can be modified) is immaterial. She is banning the sale of a completely LEGAL item. You keep going on about an illegal item (it isn’t) that can be MADE to be illegal. The item in question can (and is) be assembled into a LEGAL version of the same firearm that would need to be modified to make it ILLEGAL.
This is exactly the things that happen when you start trying to ban things that have no business being banned (AR-15’s) due to cosmetic features.
I don’t disagree, but there are still limits to “freedom”.
WANT TO BREAK IN AND STEAL STUFF? BUY MY LOCKPICK KIT AND MY DVD “How I made millions of dollars stealing jewelry!” Also, the contact info of my FAVORITE FENCE is included for an additional payment of $99.99. What are you waiting for? Start burglarizing today!
Arguably that above ad copy is “free speech”, and the items being sold are legal. (a lockpick kit, instructional DVD, and the contact information of a criminal)
But combined, it appears to be active participation in crime.
Understood, but what if instead the ad said that this new kit would allow you to get into YOUR own house in the event you lose your key. Or it could be used to start a business whereas you open peoples doors for a fee, but OTOH, it could also be used to break in to others houses.
Look, if they wanna ban the sale of AR15s, that’s their right (It wont do actually anything significant but it will make them feel better). And if they wanna expand this to kits- that’s their right also. But pass a fucking law, dont sneak in around the back door.
While it’s true they have fulfillment centers, that’s not impactful in any way. Look at the law I cited. It’s prohibited subject to fines. If you think a different vendor could engage in these sales, you’re super wrong.
That’s fine. So again, Detroit could pass a law saying that bringing a foreign made car into the city is a billion dollar fine. But does that mean they can actually get a federal court to apply that fine to a Toyota dealer in Texas?
Any jurisdiction can pass any law they want. It’s enforcing it when the actor is not within their borders that is the hard part
If a Texas Toyota dealer is actually bringing the car into Detroit, then the dealer or some employee thereof is physically present in Detroit, which makes that person subject to Detroit’s laws, AND subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Detroit court system. If they are shipping the car to Detroit, things get dicier, and under International Shoe and its progeny, the court would have to determine whether the dealer had sufficient minimum contacts in Michigan to bring the dealer under the jurisdiction of the Michigan courts.
Domesticating a New York judgment in a Texas or Oklahoma or Florida court is not nearly as difficult as you seem to be imagining, and once that happens, all enforcement measures allowed under Texas or Oklahoma or Florida law become available.
I’m not saying it’s difficult. I’m just pointing out that in this case, we are talking about a package mailing service being the “agent” that carries the illegal item from a state where it is perfectly legal, where Federal laws says it is perfectly legal, into a state where it is not legal.
In the car dealer case, assume it’s a similar generic car transportation service.
And really I’m just asking the question - if individual states can do this, why should the courts in the other state, or the Federal government, respect their laws?
The “back door” is trying to get around laws against selling an item by requiring the buyer to assemble said item upon arrival.
Normally we don’t consider items that require assembly to be separate from the assembled item for the purposes of sale. If you have a law against explosives, then a kit to make the explosives is also illegal, for example.
It’s even true in common language: do you tell someone who claims they bought their table from IKEA that they are wrong and that they really bought a kit to build a table? No, the fact they had to assemble it themselves doesn’t change the fact that they bought a table from IKEA.
Even in prohibition, when they would sell wine kits, they at the very least tried the legal fiction of telling people that they shouldn’t use it for that purpose. These companies are blatantly admitting their purpose is to sell guns that haven’t been assembled.
What these people are doing is selling prohibited guns, publicly advertising they are selling prohibited guns, and encouraging the illegal activity of manufacturing prohibited guns. Why should this require a special law to stop?
Then it becomes a manner of determining the intent. If the state can prove you are actually selling them for the intent of breaking the law, then you would also be breaking the law. However, doing so is much less straightforward.
This is the reason why I believe those cheeky prohibition era kits, which had “Don’t do this as it will make wine, and that is illegal” statements, were never prosecuted. It’s not that they couldn’t have proven it, but that it would take time and resources better spent on stopping all the other ways alcohol was illegally trafficked.
But it’s possible such language is enough. Too bad these companies already showed their hand by saying their kits were for making prohibited guns. They thus admitted their purpose was to sell unassembled guns. So I doubt any fig leaf “warning” would suffice.
Ok, a generic car transportation service operating in Michigan is expected to know Michigan laws, which means a reputable company is either going to refuse to deliver an item they know is illegal at the delivery address or is going to require you to idemnify them.
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” --U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 1
If the New York courts render a judgment affecting people or companies subject to the jurisdiction of the New York court system (as defined by New York law), the courts in other states are generally bound to respect it, with very few and limited exceptions. In particular, “you could not get that judgment under Texas law” is NOT one of the exceptions. The Texas courts will respect it because Texas expects the New York courts to respect Texas judgments; that’s how the federal system works.
Okay, I’m confused. According to the link in the OP:
It seems reasonable that a law prohibiting the possession, manufacturing, or sale of an assault weapon would also cover a kit for making an assault weapon. What else are you going to do with a build-your-own-assault-weapon kit besides build your own assault weapon? What does the OP think these kits are for if it’s not manufacturing assault weapons?
The point being lost by posters here, and deliberately obfuscated by the NY AG, is that an AR-15 80% lower is usable in the manufacture of legal firearms. It is factually untrue that an 80% lower can only be used to manufacture an illegal firearm.
This is an example of a NY-legal AR-15. It looks a bit weird because the factors that make a rifle an “assault weapon” in NY are a pistol grip and/or muzzle device (ex. flash suppressor, compensator) and/or collapsible stock. A rifle without those features is not restricted. It is legal to build one yourself, whether with a pre-manufactured receiver (legally a firearm) or a receiver you make yourself (like from an 80% kit).
Because- we live in a Democracy. Once in a while Politicians leave a loophole in a law. When someone runs in and uses that loophole what they are doing is perfectly legal, even if ethically shady. All the Politicians have to do is fill the loophole. If they dont want to, then the loophole remains open. The NY State legislature could fill this loophole in one day. Why havent they?
We dont allow government by fiat- this is why we dont like trump and his attempts to do so.
So until the** Legislature** fixes the law, the loophole remains open. If you dont like it, write them.
The kit isn’t “for making an assault weapon”. The kit is for making a NY-legal rifle. It’s literally an 80% lower receiver and a jig for completing it. Once you’ve got a 100% complete lower, you can add additional parts to turn it into a functional, and perfectly-legal-in-NY rifle.
