But it does have to be registered, and in most states you do have to purchase insurance.
And I wouldn’t have a problem with describing a car which was unregistered or unregistrable as an “illegal car”. The validity of this description would not depend on whether I thought the registration requirement or the restictions on registration were silly or not.
The law at the time defined them as such. You may not like it, but in New Jersey in 2004, they were legally defined as assault firearms.
Possession was illegal unless you had a license or other authorization.
Thanks, man.
This may be semantics to some, but allow me to retort…
What does “illegal” mean as the OP is using that term? I think that’s the side road we’re down currently.
If that’s the case, let us all turn our books to the same page.
An “assault rifle” is a rifle that:
(1) Is Select Fire. That’s full-auto or semi-auto at the flick of a switch.
(2) Fires an “intermediate” cartridge or round. That’s more than a pistol, but less than a
full power battle round, say .308 or 7.62X something.
(3) Has a detachable magazine.
That’s it. The only rifles that qualify - that most people can get their hands on - are the AK-47, an M-16 / M-4, or an HK of some flavor. Yes, others exist, but they’re rare collectors items, not something you can steal from a pawn shop.
Fully automatic weapons are legal in most of these United State, provided they are registered with the BATF. I’ll skip the usual details and exceptions. They just are, OK?
So what is illegal about them? Some jurisdictions may deny ownership of certain weapons, but that doesn’t make the gun illegal. Possession of one may be, but it’s that act that’s illegal, not the gun itself. That may sound like I’m splitting hairs, but I’m trying to fight ignorance here! The simple solution is to not have such a creature where they’re not wanted, say, New Jersey! Take it Philly & you’re golden. Plus, you’ll need it there!
This is true.
This is sadly true. I want another couple of Norell 10/22’s, but John wants 10 grand for the triggers now.
An understandable misunderstanding, but not exactly true.
While the BATF does issue a tax stamp for each NFA registered item, there is not actually a law requiring you to keep it near the weapon. That’s not to say it’s not a good idea; all of my originals stay in the safe, and color copies typically stay in the case. Now, because I switch cases, weapons, & other bags, I just keep a notebook in both my trucks with copies of everything in those clear page protectors. Should Deputy Dave out in BFE wonder about the provenance of my toys at 8pm on a Saturday night, I can promise you the ATF won’t pick up the phone if he calls!
There are some guys, who believe it or not, don’t like to cooperate with LEOs asking questions about their NFA stuff, and maintain that only a federal agent has the right to demand proof of registration. I’m all about transparency, and I’ve introduced more than a few cops to NFA toys at a range or on a traffic stop. Plus it never hurts to have more than one set of prints on a gun!
This is a hot topic now, and my interpretation is on the side of the maker, but I have too many toys, not to mention good sphincter tone, to be the one who risks it all and walks that plank first!
I read the the OP.
I went back & read the OP & the link. Anyone go to the trouble to find out what kind of & what caliber or gauge the firearm is?/ was? I won’t hunt that hard because this type of thing does not surprise me.
Makes a big difference as to wither a child of X size could see it, get to it or operate it.
Could not tell if it was real or not without opening an semi auto pistol or are we talking A long weapon? If a revolver, then the stupid is off the chart. If it was found by a security person and they are that untrained or experienced that much, Target has even bigger problems because that person should just do and Eddi Eagle & call a cop. ( IMO ) Not be any sort of security other than door greater.
Now, any guesses as how many stores that have proper signage up about ‘No Weapons’ that this actually prevented any crime or criminal from entering that store or prevented any shooting?
In this case, I lean towards it being done on purpose. They have in-store video. If the perp does not ‘die by cop’ we will get much wild headlines, incorrect reporting, actually incorrect reporting is all we will get. We then can get out panties all in a twist then also.
This silly pre-party panty twisting that has already tangenaided into about 4 different directions is getting hard to follow. :rolleyes:
I eagerly await the next installment when the headlines come out about the arrest & trial. :dubious:
I regret bringing up the tangential question. I would like to request that we end the “assault rifle” hijack and get back to the main question in the OP. Thank you.
It may have been lost in the debate over definitions but my previous post was an attempt to answer your original question.
IIRC, endangerment statutes generally require an ascertainable victim. So the prosecution would have to show that a particular child was actually within the zone of danger (i.e, where he might actually fire the gun.)
And I thank you and the others who tried to answer the actual question.
And I suppose you think that your actual professional knowledge somehow outweighs my uninformed guessing.
Okay, I was wrong. I though Reckless Endangerment worked like a DUI charge - it could be considered as a general risk without requiring a specific individual being threatened.
Not really. It’s not my field and it’s not a bar tested topic so I could well be wrong.
Sorry, Ms. Bean.
No worries. 
In NH at least, Reckless Conduct doesn’t require a specific person to be in danger.
It could be interpreted either way in NY; The law says: A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person.
So the issue is how do you interpret the meaning of “another person”. Does it have to be a specific identifiable person or can it just be a hypothetical generic person?
This is false, of course. You can make any modifications you like on a Corvette and no registration or insurance are necessary to do so.
The requirements you mention are only relevant if you then proceed to operate it on a public road. Operating a car on private property has no restrictions anywhere that I’m aware of, this is why the concept of a car being ‘street-legal’ exists. (Indy 500, anyone?)
An apples-to-apples comparison of firearms regulations and automotive regulations:
On private property: Cars are unregulated while kept and operated on private property. Firearms have significant regulation even while kept and operated on private property, varying by jurisdiction.
Operating on public roads: As a prerequisite to operating a motor vehicle on the roads that the government maintains, licensing, registration, and sometimes proof of insurance are required. No such option exists for operation of a firearm on such a public road - discharge of a firearm on a public road is highly illegal except under unusual circumstances. States will not issue licenses that allow this for any price.
I’ve never understood why some people seem to be under the impression that cars are more regulated than firearms- the reverse is very clearly the case.
A person can build anything he wants and fly it as long as he stays under 300’ from the ground and within their property boundary. at least you used to could.