New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 265.10 (2026)

Manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 265.10 Manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement of weapons
           and dangerous instruments and appliances.
  1. Any person who manufactures or causes to be manufactured any
machine-gun, assault weapon, large capacity ammunition feeding device or
disguised gun is guilty of a class D felony. Any person who manufactures
or causes to be manufactured any rapid-fire modification device is
guilty of a class E felony. Any person who manufactures or causes to be
manufactured any switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle
knife, undetectable knife, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles,
metal knuckles, throwing star, chuka stick, sandbag, sandclub or
slungshot is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
  2. Any person who transports or ships any machine-gun, firearm
silencer, assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device or
disguised gun, or who transports or ships as merchandise five or more
firearms, is guilty of a class D felony. Any person who transports or
ships any rapid-fire modification device is guilty of a class E felony.
Any person who transports or ships as merchandise any firearm, other
than an assault weapon, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife,
undetectable knife, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal
knuckles, throwing star, chuka stick, sandbag or slungshot is guilty of
a class A misdemeanor.
  3. Any person who disposes of any machine-gun, assault weapon, large
capacity ammunition feeding device or firearm silencer is guilty of a
class D felony. Any person who disposes of any rapid-fire modification
device is guilty of a class E felony. Any person who knowingly buys,
receives, disposes of, or conceals a machine-gun, firearm, large
capacity ammunition feeding device, rifle or shotgun which has been
defaced for the purpose of concealment or prevention of the detection of
a crime or misrepresenting the identity of such machine-gun, firearm,
large capacity ammunition feeding device, rifle or shotgun is guilty of
a class D felony.
  4. Any person who disposes of any of the weapons, instruments or
appliances specified in subdivision one of section 265.01, except a
firearm, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor, and he is guilty of a class
D felony if he has previously been convicted of any crime.
  5. Any person who disposes of any of the weapons, instruments,
appliances or substances specified in section 265.05 to any other person
under the age of sixteen years is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
  6. Any person who wilfully defaces any machine-gun, large capacity
ammunition feeding device or firearm is guilty of a class D felony.
  7. Any person, other than a wholesale dealer, or gunsmith or dealer in
firearms duly licensed pursuant to section 400.00 of this chapter,
lawfully in possession of a firearm or semiautomatic rifle, who disposes
of the same without first notifying in writing the licensing officer in
the city of New York and counties of Nassau and Suffolk and elsewhere in
the state the executive department, division of state police, Albany, is
guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
  8. Any person, dealer, firm, partnership or corporation who
intentionally designs or transforms a firearm, rifle, shotgun or
machine-gun to resemble a toy gun by either altering or concealing the
original color or surface of the gun with the purpose of selling such
weapon is guilty of a class D felony.
  9. Any person who modifies a microstamping-enabled pistol or
microstamping component with the intent to prevent the production of a
microstamp is, for a first offense, guilty of a class B misdemeanor, and
for a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
For the purposes of this subdivision, it shall not be unlawful to
replace the microstamping component of a microstamping-enabled pistol
when the component is damaged or in need of replacement with another
valid microstamping component for the safe use of the firearm or
replacing such pin for a legitimate sporting purpose that is only used
for that legitimate purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Maloney v. Singas, 351 F. Supp. 3d 222 (E.D.N.Y 2018).
Maloney v. Singas, 351 F. Supp. 3d 222 (E.D.N.Y 2018). · cites it 4× “01(1) as applied to nunchaku is unconstitutional, the Court also invalidates the portions of N.Y. Penal Law § 265.10 (" Section 265.10") that apply to nunchaku.”
Earsing v. Nelson, 212 A.D.2d 66 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · cites it 3× “Contrary to Service’s argument, a private cause of action may fairly be implied from Penal Law § 265.10 (5), which prohibits *71 the sale of air guns to children under 16, and General Business Law § 399-s, which requires the posting of a sign to that effect in stores where air…”
Herdzik v. Chojnacki, 68 A.D.3d 1639 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff alleged that defendant parents violated Penal Law § 265.10 (5) and that their son violated Penal Law § 265.”
Merola v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 683 F. Supp. 935 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “Merola was charged *937 with violating N.Y. Penal Law § 265.10 (7), which prohibits the unlawful disposition of firearms.”
People v. Widger, 126 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “Defendant contends that it was error for the court to admit into evidence sawed-off shotgun barrels which were found in defendant’s house as they constituted evidence of uncharged crimes (Penal Law § 265.10 [6]; § 265.15 [5]). The People contend this evidence was properly…”
DiSilvestro v. Samler, 32 A.D.3d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “, 3 Misc 3d 357, 358 [2004]; Adamowicz v Shafer, 155 Misc 2d 695 [1992]) and thus under Penal Law § 265.10 (5), the Sanders were prohibited from disposing of it to Daniel.”
Sanseviro v. New York, 158 F. Supp. 3d 131 (E.D.N.Y 2016). “” N.Y. Penal Law § 265.10 (3). Nevertheless, § 265.”
Imberman v. Kelly, 37 A.D.3d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “Such a transaction, undertaken without first notifying the License Division, would constitute a misdemeanor violation of 38 RCNY 5-26 (a) and Penal Law § 265.10 (7). Petitioner also failed to surrender two of his rifles until a later date, rather than immediately, as directed.”
People v. Landon, 175 Misc. 2d 861 (1998). “The above-named defendant stands accused of three counts of defacement of weapons (Penal Law § 265.10 [6]), three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.”
People v. Parker, 2026 NY Slip Op 02345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2026). · cites it 2× “[*2] Regardless of whether or not defendant's constitutional challenge to the same probation condition through his facial challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 265.10(2)(a) and (b) under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments is waived by the valid appeal waiver…”
Duquin, Robert v. Chameli, Andrew (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “The Chameli defendants sought contribution from Wal-Mart on the theories that Wal-Mart was negligent per se because it sold a -2- 417 CA 11-01808 paintball gun to plaintiff in violation of Penal Law § 265.10 (5), and that Wal-Mart was negligent in the marketing and sale of…”
Duquin v. Chameli, 94 A.D.3d 1410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “The Chameli defendants sought contribution from Wal-Mart on the theories that Wal-Mart was negligent per se because it sold a paintball gun to plaintiff in violation of Penal Law § 265.10 (5), and that Wal-Mart was negligent in the marketing and sale of paintball guns.”
N.Y. Penal Law § 265.10(2)(a): 1 case
People v. Parker, 2026 NY Slip Op 02345 (N.Y. App. Div. 2026). “[*2] Regardless of whether or not defendant's constitutional challenge to the same probation condition through his facial challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 265.10(2)(a) and (b) under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments is waived by the valid appeal waiver…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.