Jon 264 Posted March 6, 2013 A3659 Sponsored by Assemblyman Peter J. Barnes, III District 18 (Middlesex), Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson, District 37 (Bergen) Revises definition of destructive device to include certain weapons of 50 caliber or greater. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A4000/3659_I1.HTM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blake 50 Posted March 6, 2013 ... just bought a .50 beowulf ar double bc I just joined CJRPC and was told I can't shoot .50 cal there. What's with all the .50 cal hate lol. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DngrZne 0 Posted March 6, 2013 Just applied for 3 permits. Going to wait things out a bit to see what happens, but I'd like a S&W Model 500 in my collection... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maksim 1,504 Posted March 6, 2013 Just applied for 3 permits. Going to wait things out a bit to see what happens, but I'd like a S&W Model 500 in my collection... I would still get it. This is just plain stupidity... and I hope someone has a head on their shoulders to stop this madness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DngrZne 0 Posted March 6, 2013 I would still get it. This is just plain stupidity... and I hope someone has a head on their shoulders to stop this madness. If it wasn't a handgun that the NJSP would definitely know about I would seriously consider it. Unfortunately they would have a record and its too much money to have them decide its illegal right after I buy it. I'd like a Barrett too, but I hear they are tough to come by these days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walt of Destiny 412 Posted March 6, 2013 The proposed legislation was changed to include a "muzzle energy" descriptor of 12,000ft/lbs. or greater. Basically only the 50 BMG is considered a destructive device by that reckoning. The Beowulf does not fit that descriptor by a long shot. This was beaten to death on another thread. IMHO The 50 bans at ranges are for the BMG. I've seen SOCOMs and Beowulfs on the 100 yd line at CR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walt of Destiny 412 Posted March 6, 2013 I'll cite the thread in a minute Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walt of Destiny 412 Posted March 6, 2013 http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/49617-50-cal-ban/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DngrZne 0 Posted March 6, 2013 Wasn't the consensus that the way the law is written now it would ban all .50+ caliber firearms as well as anything with a muzzle energy greater than 12,000ft lbs? The only exemptions seemed to be shotguns and maybe muzzle loaders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MPA 0 Posted March 8, 2013 because assemblyman greenwald says, you can shoot down an airplane. look it up he said it on assembly floor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,569 Posted March 8, 2013 The proposed legislation was changed to include a "muzzle energy" descriptor of 12,000ft/lbs. or greater. Basically only the 50 BMG is considered a destructive device by that reckoning. The Beowulf does not fit that descriptor by a long shot. This was beaten to death on another thread. IMHO The 50 bans at ranges are for the BMG. I've seen SOCOMs and Beowulfs on the 100 yd line at CR. IMO, the proposed bill bans ALL 50 caliber rifles and handguns, or any OTHER caliber firearm which attains 12,000 ft lbs of energy. So IMO, .50BMG, .50AE, .500SW, .50GI, .50Beo, etc. will be banned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walt of Destiny 412 Posted March 8, 2013 The rejiggered proposed bill: "which shall 33 include a 12.7 mm equivalent of 50 caliber or greater or any other 34 metric equivalent, or a copy or duplicate of any such weapon 35 regardless of caliber that is capable of firing a projectile that attains 36 a muzzle energy of 12,000 foot-pounds or greater in any 37 combination of bullet, propellant, case, or primer. The provisions 38 of this paragraph shall not apply to a smooth bore shotgun or rifle 39 barrel shotgun or any shotgun ammunition generally recognized as 40 suitable for sporting purposes in this State" Link to revised bill: http://www.njleg.sta...000/3659_R1.PDF I think you're right. I mistook to "or" for an "and" we may be screwed if this goes through the process without further changes, pork and concessions. We may be screwed anyway. The bothersome thing, on this very forum, is the subtle concession to this bill if it doesn't ban 12 ga rifled slug barrels. Loss of our liberty for one means loss of liberty for all. If they wanted to ban hunting, I'd be right there with you hunters protecting your rights. How about everyone does the same for the 50 cal? Just because they exempt the slug barrels DOES NOT MAKE IT OK. Or at least it shouldn't. Shall not be infringed, right? I am always under the assumption that this is a pro2a forum. If they make us turn on each other over the "it doesn't affect me" attitude then it's going to be tough. We must stand together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parker 213 Posted March 8, 2013 Imagine being told your prized 1886 Winchester, chambered in .50 Win. Express, built at the turn of the 19th century, that sells for about 5-figures today, would be illegal to own? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob B 103 Posted March 23, 2013 It looks like the bill that would ban .50 cal has been amended. The amendments appear to do two things: 1. Narrowed to exclude muzzleloaders and shotguns. 2. Expanded to include copy's of existing .50 cal guns that can achieve a muzzel energy of 12,000 ft lbs, regardless of caliber. The Senate will likely be hearing this bill in the next few weeks. I am a bit flummoxed by this new provision. What, besides a rifle that can shoot the .50 BMG, is capable of achieving a muzzel energy of 12,000 ft lbs? What exactly are they going after? I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A4000/3659_R1.PDF Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 23, 2013 What TF this code is a mess without JS. Yes, there are firearms that have more energy. Far more. Non-NFA, Non-DD, even with rifled barrels. Sorry, I tried, but I'm not retyping it. Go look them up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recon Racoon 49 Posted March 23, 2013 20mm Lahti Anti-Tank rifle, 20mm Anzio Iron works bolt action rifle, 12.5x157mm Russian, and rail guns*. Seriously. Rail guns can achieve 12,000 ft lbs like its nothing. Problem is, they don't really exist outside of lab environments. And those need to be replaced after every shot because of blowback on the circuit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 23, 2013 .950 jdj energy is 38,000 lbf-ft and it is not NFA and not DD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recon Racoon 49 Posted March 23, 2013 .950 jdj energy is 38,000 lbf-ft and it is not NFA and not DD. Wouldn't smooth bore, black powder cannons fall under 12K Ft lbs also? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 23, 2013 Wouldn't smooth bore, black powder cannons fall under 12K Ft lbs also? I don't know but I would assume and also hope they are more energy. I want a cannon (BP) but they seem very expensive.Neither BP nor smooth bore falls under NFA as DD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred2 367 Posted March 23, 2013 To me, it looks like a preemptive strike on a workaround caliber. This prevents a .499 caliber round from skirting the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted March 23, 2013 As I recall this was discussed previously and both PK90 and myself agree that this revision will actually ban all .50 caliber cartridges and others of any caliber that can achieve the ME threshold. I looked at the ME generated by cartridges like the .338 LM and the .408 Cheytac and they don't come close - so doubt there is anything, handheld, under .50 that can surpass that threshold. My guess would be that the intent was to revise the bill so as to exclude cartridges like the .500 S&W magnum, .50 AE and those .50 caliber wildcats used in converted Glocks and 1911's (or maybe I'm just an optimist). But the revision is so poorly written that it really doesn't change the bill - with the exception of making it even more far reaching if there actually is something out there that can generate that kind of ME. Before making suggestions on revising it further, you need to find out what the intent was behind revising it to the ME threshold specification. Adios, Pizza Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbkid6974 1 Posted March 23, 2013 my only question is, does it really matter what they are trying to ban? the simple fact that they are trying pisses me off and we need to do everything in our power to stop them. i will continue writing and calling. if there is another rally i will try my best to attend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob B 103 Posted March 23, 2013 As I recall this was discussed previously and both PK90 and myself agree that this revision will actually ban all .50 caliber cartridges and others of any caliber that can achieve the ME threshold. I looked at the ME generated by cartridges like the .338 LM and the .408 Cheytac and they don't come close - so doubt there is anything, handheld, under .50 that can surpass that threshold. My guess would be that the intent was to revise the bill so as to exclude cartridges like the .500 S&W magnum, .50 AE and those .50 caliber wildcats used in converted Glocks and 1911's (or maybe I'm just an optimist). But the revision is so poorly written that it really doesn't change the bill - with the exception of making it even more far reaching if there actually is something out there that can generate that kind of ME. Before making suggestions on revising it further, you need to find out what the intent was behind revising it to the ME threshold specification. Adios, Pizza Bob I see. So you think that maybe they were trying to ban the .50 BMG and the equivalent without banning other .50 cal firearms, but they didn't take out the language that bans the other .50 cal center fire firearms, just the muzzle loaders, shotguns and rifled barrel shotguns. You might be right. Of course, the objective is to stop the bill altogether. I was just trying to understand what they were trying to do. It seems to me that the other arms mentioned above that could exceed 12,000 ft lbs are already banned because they are over .60 cal. Am I correct? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recon Racoon 49 Posted March 23, 2013 I see. So you think that maybe they were trying to ban the .50 BMG and the equivalent without banning other .50 cal firearms, but they didn't take out the language that bans the other .50 cal center fire firearms, just the muzzle loaders, shotguns and rifled barrel shotguns. You might be right. Of course, the objective is to stop the bill altogether. I was just trying to understand what they were trying to do. It seems to me that the other arms mentioned above that could exceed 12,000 ft lbs are already banned because they are over .60 cal. Am I correct? Where does it say that? Serious question, I don't remember seeing that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,569 Posted March 23, 2013 "Destructive device" means any device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontrolled combustion, including (1) any explosive or incendiary bomb, mine or grenade; (2) any rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces or any missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter of an ounce; (3) any weapon capable of firing a projectile of a caliber greater than 60 caliber, except a shotgun or shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes; (4) any Molotov cocktail or other device consisting of a breakable container containing flammable liquid and having a wick or similar device capable of being ignited. The term does not include any device manufactured for the purpose of illumination, distress signaling, line-throwing, safety or similar purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jon 264 Posted March 23, 2013 Merged with .50 cal ban discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recon Racoon 49 Posted March 23, 2013 "Destructive device" means any device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontrolled combustion, including (1) any explosive or incendiary bomb, mine or grenade; (2) any rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces or any missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter of an ounce; (3) any weapon capable of firing a projectile of a caliber greater than 60 caliber, except a shotgun or shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes; (4) any Molotov cocktail or other device consisting of a breakable container containing flammable liquid and having a wick or similar device capable of being ignited. The term does not include any device manufactured for the purpose of illumination, distress signaling, line-throwing, safety or similar purposes. Ten wouldn't that be a defacto ban on cannons then? And AFAIK they're legal to own under NJ law. At least thats what I've heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted March 24, 2013 It seems to me that the other arms mentioned above that could exceed 12,000 ft lbs are already banned because they are over .60 cal. Am I correct? I don't think anything else in a shoulder fired weapon comes close to that threshold, except a Lahti anti-tank gun (20mm) - and yes they are DD's. I was looking at some of the old African cartridges like the .505 Gibbs and the .470 Nitro Express - and again, not even close. Yes, I think someone was actually trying to cut us a break and just screwed-up because they had no idea what they were talking about. Of course I am probably more charitable than most. And, absolutely, the idea is to lose this bill altogether in any form. Good luck. Adios, Pizza Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Underdog 1,593 Posted March 24, 2013 What about rifled-barrel shotgun slugs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bob B 103 Posted March 25, 2013 The most recent version states: The provisionsof this paragraph shall not apply to a smooth bore shotgun or rifle barrel shotgun or any shotgun ammunition generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes in this State Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites