Image 01 Image 03

Rifle used by Detroit Mom to defend family is illegal “Assault Weapon” in NY

Rifle used by Detroit Mom to defend family is illegal “Assault Weapon” in NY

In NY State, this mom would be a criminal and facing jail time because of cosmetic features on the rifle.

I saw the videotape below at Ace of Spades HQ, as well as at Hot Air, regarding a Detroit mother at home with her children when three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, attempted to kick open the front back door.

Fearing for her safety and that of her children, this mother used a rifle in self-defense. She didn’t hit any of the intruders, but it was enough to scare them off initially, and again when one of them tried again to break in:

Viewing the video, I wondered whether the rifle this mother used would be legal in New York State under the new SAFE Act, which was rushed through the NY State legislature on short notice after the Newtown, CT, school shooting.

The SAFE Act was irrational in many respects, including a 7-round magazine limit that was unworkable and ultimately thrown out by the courts, a requirement that even 10-round magazines not be loaded with more than 7 bullets, and a definition of “Assault Weapon” that relied on physical characteristics that were cosmetic and common.

The SAFE Act has led to a rebellion by upstate county legislatures, almost all of whom have voted to reject the SAFE Act. Even Martha Robertson, the liberal Emily’s List-backed Democratic challenger in my home NY-23 congressional District, says she is against the SAFE Act. The criminalization of otherwise law-abiding people has led numerous Sheriffs and police unions to call for repeal, and to ignore violations for now.

But the SAFE Act remains the law of NY. Would this Detroit mom who save herself and her family from the violence of the armed intruders herself be a criminal in NY because of her rifle?

I didn’t feel knowledgeable enough about weapons, so I turned to someone who does have that knowledge, Bob Owens, Editor of Bob explains in the text below, which he forwarded to me, that the rifle would be an illegal “Assault Weapon” under the SAFE Act, not available for new purchase and required to be registered by April 1 for those who owned it prior to the SAFE Act. In NY State, this mom would be a criminal because of cosmetic features of her rifle.

Here is Bob’s analysis:

This firearm used by the mother as reflected in the video is the Hi-Point 995TS. It is a pistol-caliber carbine, chambered in 9x19mm caliber. It weighs 6.25 pounds empty, uses a proprietary 10-round magazine. It uses a simple semiautomatic action that fires one shot per trigger pull. The manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) for this model is $285, making it far cheaper than many handguns. For this reason, it is often chosen as a home defense firearm buy people on a tight budget.


The incident is regarded as a near textbook case of an armed citizen defending herself in her home against criminals, using an inexpensive carbine designed for precisely this sort of short range defensive scenario.

It is also a scenario that will soon be impossible in New York, thanks to that state’s “assault weapons” laws banning citizens from purchasing this and similarly effective home-defense arms.

While the Hi-Point 995 was specifically designed to comply with the federal assault weapons ban passed in 1994 (a law that expired ten years later in 2004), New York’s assault weapons laws have gone beyond that, culminating in the NY SAFE Act.

The SAFE Act expanded New York’s existing “assault weapons” ban:

Section 37 of the bill amends Penal Law § 265.00(22) in order to strengthen New York’s assault weapon ban, expanding its reach and making it easier to enforce. The proposed amendments replace the existing ban consisting of and a “two-feature” test adopted from the now-expired federal assault weapons ban with a clearer “one-feature” test. The “two-feature” test bans any gun that is semi-automatic, has a detachable magazine (in the case of pistols and rifles), and possesses two features that are commonly associated with military weapons. The “one-feature” test would ban semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines that possess one feature commonly associated with military weapons. This section also adds to the list of “features” that characterize a banned weapon.

Penal Law § 265.00(22) defines that list of features affecting a rifle like the Hi-Point 995 as follows:

(a) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a thumbhole stock;
(iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(v) a bayonet mount;
(vi) a flash suppressor, muzzle break, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor, muzzle break, or muzzle compensator;

The Hi-Point 995 is a semiautomatic rifle with the ability to accept detachable magazine, and has “one feature” in the characteristics list (a pistol grip). It is now defined as an “assault weapon” under New York law.

It is worth noting that none of the characteristics that New York legislators have chosen to list as features affect the accuracy, rate-of-fire, or ability to reload any firearm. Unfortunately, the removal of some of the banned features (pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, second handgrip, etc) make it more difficult for some disabled individuals to efficiently use these firearms, including our combat-wounded.

Young families in New York can no longer buy, sell, or trade inexpensive home defense carbines such as the Hi-Point 995 in the State of New York. Anyone currently in possession of such a firearm must register it with the State by April 1, or they will be considered a criminal.

In addition to the restrictions on the rifle used in this incident, the NY Safe Act also bans the family from using a fully-loaded standard-capacity magazine, and insists that the firearm must use a downloaded magazine containing just seven rounds of ammunition:

Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law § 265.00(23) to ban all large capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under the original assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. Magazines that can hold more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currently possessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain seven rounds of ammunition. Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines that are curios or relics.

Putting just one more cartridge into the grandfathered magazine turns a law-abiding citizen into a criminal in New York State. Yes, it is absurd. Yes, it is completely arbitrary. Still, it is the law.

Detroit Mom Rifle Defend Home Invaders


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I could be wrong(usually I am)but this seems to fall into the, ‘if you can’t convince them with facts, dazzle them with bullshit’ thingy.

Just in case:

NO, I do NOT mean this post of P.J. but the state of mind, in *New York.
*includes the brand new People’s Republic of New York City, obviously.

I have always believed that in order to consciously decide to kill, you yourself have to be willing to die.

Maybe, it’s something more…something deeper. Maybe, deep in the sub conscience, maybe even the soul, you are already dead.

This theory is demonstrated in the video by the thug that ran back into the house after already being shot at.

    Disagree. I am willing to kill, if that is the (unintended) side effect of preserving my own life.

    My intent in the act would be the latter, not the former, but I can accept the former as needed.

      Browndog in reply to pjm. | February 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm

      OBVIOUSLY, I wasn’t referring to self defense, acts of war,etc.

      Substitute “murder” for “kill” if that helps you. Unless you want to parse that too.

      Gees, I really didn’t think I needed to write a legal brief to get my point across.

        “OBVIOUSLY, I wasn’t referring to self defense, acts of war,etc.”

        There was no such ‘obviousness’ in anything you said. In fact, the obcious thing, here in this self-defense thread, would be that self-defense is the assumed context.

        ‘Parse kill vs murder’ indeed. If I kill someone who is threatening my life at that moment in order to preserve my own, I did not ‘murder’ them. Not legally, not morally.

        I’m glad you didn’t try to ‘write legal brief’, you’re OBVIOUSLY incapable of it.

    Phillep Harding in reply to Browndog. | February 21, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    Sounds like ivory tower thinking.

Remember they lady who testified before congress that although she was trained and had a license to carry a concealed weapon, due to legislators writing confusing laws she took her gun out of her purse, locked it in the glove compartment and then went into a fast food place to meet her mom and dad and a mass murderer? Just after that she buried her mom and dad.

Why any rational person would chose to live in New York, unless they are a liberal in the city, is beyond me. The weather sucks, taxes and prices are extremely high, and the government is dedicated to telling you how to live your life. I suppose it appeals to those who enjoy being told what to do.

    I live in NYC and I love it. (I’m a small-government, minimal taxation Classical Liberal.)

    I am, of course, frustrated and at times incensed by the stupidity of people and our elected officials – especially as regards individual freedom – but all in all it’s a great place to live.

    Believe it or not we have neighborhoods where people know each other; there is great food, lots of fun things to do, and the city can be beautiful.

      I had to laugh when I read your comment. I live in a city of 8,500 and I enjoy going into a large city to take advantage of the amenities available there that are lacking in a small town. I’m sure there are many more that I’m unaware of that I would take advantage of if I knew about them.

      Your second paragraph was the high point for me, I could say the same thing, almost word for word about where I live. The difference is that if I have a problem with what one of our city officials does I can tell them about it the next time I see them in the grocery store, Wal-Mart or lodge.

      Another difference? The guy who gives CCW training? The police lieutenant. Notice I said “the police lieutenant”, since we only have the one.

      I’d love to go to New York some time, there are a lot of things I’d like to see but I doubt it, too many people for me. I get nervous in cities of 40,000 and 8 million in one place would probably cause catatonia in me. Enjoy yourself.

        The image of NY is Manhattan but there are beautiful brownstone areas as well where the density is no where as dense as in mid-town or wall street.

        I love rural areas and I love big cities. There is something energizing and beautiful about both.

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | February 21, 2014 at 10:09 am

Yep, those cosmetic features turn an otherwise utilitarian firearm into a wicked, mean assault weapon.

Maybe what NY State wants is for firearms to look less menacing, with lots of expensive design features. For example, rifles could have pink colored stocks, or perhaps thumb holes stocks in place of those mean looking pistol grips. Also, some enterprising soul could figure out how to have multiple 7-round magazines immediately available to the user of said firearm; for example to have 49-rounds at the ready, load up 7-such NY approved magazines and have them automatically rotated into use as needed.

Of course, the rational approach would be for Cuomo to accept that the Safe Act is totally irrational and idiotic to boot.

There seems to be a Mushroom Media embargo of the civil disobedience that seems to have spontaneously broken out in Connecticut over their new, hysterical gun legislation.

I think…and hope…this will be a growing response to laws that prejudice people in their rights. Laws like ObamaDoggle.

Watch New York and Kulhifornia for their responses.

Makes me wonder why Putin cares about Kiev when he already has New York City as a soviet client city.

This mom shows the true American spirit by defending her home and family instead of fleeing as the liberals would recommend. She just proved the value of “Stand you ground” law and put thugs on notice that she means business.

In addition to the restrictions on the rifle used in this incident, the NY Safe Act also bans the family from using a fully-loaded standard-capacity magazine, and insists that the firearm must use a downloaded magazine containing just seven rounds of ammunition:

Like seeing this terminology about magazine size. Not sure what is standard in this firearm, but suspect that it is probably similar to the standard 30 for AR-15s. Calling 10 round magazines “large capacity” is about as ridiculous as it gets. Those attempting to ban certain sizes of magazines don’t get to decide what is standard sized, rather that is the prerogative of manufacturers and those buying the firearms and magazines.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Bruce Hayden. | February 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Whoops – 10 round magazines are standard for this firearm.

      Phillep Harding in reply to Bruce Hayden. | February 21, 2014 at 3:30 pm

      I have never seen anything larger than a 10 cartridge for the 9mm. It’s about the same size as a pistol mag.

        Ragspierre in reply to Phillep Harding. | February 21, 2014 at 5:43 pm

        You can find at least a 15 round magazine, though I’ve not heard good things about its reliability.

          Phillep Harding in reply to Ragspierre. | February 22, 2014 at 2:17 pm

          Thanks. I’ll have to start digging.

          The 10 round is hard to load to full capacity without an aid. Maybe the 15 will be easier when I’m out at the range.

          Never had a bit of trouble with mine, which the LGS sold for wholesale to get rid of what they had back before it became a fad gun. (heheheh)

TrooperJohnSmith | February 21, 2014 at 2:12 pm

Of course it is illegal in Nuh Yoik. It threatened the lives of three Obama voters.

I don’t suppose that NY gun law makes any distinction between carbine and rifle?

CNN was lauding her less-than-stellar marksmanship this morning as a “perfect example” of why SYG is so heinous. “See? This woman fired a warning shot, she gave the attackers a chance to know she was serious and to run away before using deadly force.”
Seriously? The one time I shot a High-Point carbine, I found it to be minute-of-barn accurate and parts fell off. Yes, fell off.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Eric M. | February 21, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    To channel Ron White for a moment: “It fell off! It fell the fu*k off!” 😆

      Believe me, that is what I was thinking. The bolt retracting handle was a regular 1/4″ bolt and it fell out while I was shooting. Our Department got them for free and they were worth every penny.

        Ragspierre in reply to Eric M. | February 21, 2014 at 5:46 pm

        One word: Loc-tite.

        They are cheap and fun to shoot. But cheap. I have one with a laser that would be the THIRD gun I’d reach for at night in an emergency.

        Maybe the fourth… But I’m not tellin’…

    healthguyfsu in reply to Eric M. | February 22, 2014 at 1:12 am

    My first thought at the picture was holy crap what a POS

I’m wondering if you could argue the meaning of “conspicuously”…sort of like saying “it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.”

One person’s “conspicuous” in another person’s “hidden”.

The High Point did it’s job so like them or not as a low cost firearm it worked. The so called “Saturday Night Specials” as a case in point, was a blow to low income people who are probably most at risk. Can’t afford a gun to protect yourself from criminals? Too bad, those evil cheap guns are gone.

High Point also put on their facebook page that they have gotten in touch with Detroit Police or the news agency that they’ll clean up that rusty old gun she used for free. Good publicity for them and good public relations. I’ll guess the homeowners don’t really know much about cleaning their guns.

Lastly, the Chief of Police in Detroit said about a month or so ago that residents should arm themselves as the force can’t always protect them. I’m sure many liberal heads exploded that day.

    healthguyfsu in reply to 4fun. | February 22, 2014 at 1:19 am

    To your last point and comment by the police chief, I can’t believe how many idiot liberals think the police are supposed to protect us from everything and prevent crimes.

    My simple scenario to them: If we posted a guard officer in every single home and residence in America where someone was on duty 24/7 would that guarantee crime prevention and protection? (to which the reasonable response is no)

    On average, there is ONE policeman for about every 400 people in America. As I understand it, that is how many police officer jobs there are and is not indicative of how many are on duty at any given time. So how is this force that is 1/400th the size of the proposed scenario above (on a day with all hands on deck at once) expected to carry out these functions effectively?