Jump to content

NJ2ARights

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About NJ2ARights

  • Rank
    Forum Dabbler

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm somewhat new to this forum and was curious if the below law has been addressed by the forum readers yet. I find the below law particularly troubling, as it seems to be a 'catch-all' law. I would be curious as to how this was discussed by the legislative body. As written, the statute is too broad. From the below code, a "firearm component" could be a screw. Further, it places limits upon "how" instead of "what" part is manufactured, which supports the fact that the law is arbitrary and not rooted in a legitimate purpose. This is akin to a law that states that marijuana is illegal if grown with artificial lighting - but otherwise, legally grown. The use of the word "facilitating" makes the statute even more onerous. WIth this law in place, problems develop for anyone wishing to make parts utilizing a 3D printer -- parts which are entirely legal to purchase. Arguably, it is reasonable to perhaps have a law that prohibits the 3D manufacture of a lower receiver *without* a serial number, but to restrict 3D printing of a magazine (5 rounds, 7 rounds, or 10 rounds) or a "firearm component" is entirely unjustified. I've seen a great many discussions on many varied topics but to me this law is among the most troubling in this state. In essense, if not challenged, it will provide a gateway to forthcoming additional laws that may be equally -- perhaps, more-- unjustified in other areas of New Jersey's firearm laws. § Sec. 2C:39-9(l). Manufacturing or facilitating the manufacture of a firearm using a three-dimensional printer. In addition to any other criminal penalties provided under law it is a third degree crime for: (1) a person who is not registered or licensed to do so as a manufacturer as provided in chapter 58 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes, to use a three-dimensional printer or similar device to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm receiver, magazine, or firearm component;
  2. I agree with you to the extent that the burden is on the state. But I believe my caution is with merit. Further, the above law is not limited to interstate firearms purchasing as the statute states (indicated by the bolded portions). I am a champion of differing points of view and I appreciate your comments. My intent was to provide some insight so that it perhaps saves some individual from a very bad experience. That insight is based upon personal experience practicing law, as well as experience as a former law enforcement officer. After having worked closely with prosecutors, I have a different view of how things typically work. Personally, I would err on the side of caution in New Jersey. But in NJ we still have the right to choose how to proceed. Well, at least today - who knows what will happen over the next 3 years in Trenton.
  3. I'm new to this forum, hence the late post/reply. From reading some of the posts it appears not all folks may be aware of the above-quoted law. One should be very conservative in their interpretation of the law. Because as "[W]reckelss" correctly points out, the authorities will give the most favorable interpretation of the law as it applies to their case. As we know, the general rule is that Federal law preempts State law. So, even if the NJ law is interpreted in a way favorable to a defendant under NJ law, based on what, if any, statements/admissions were made to prove a firearm was not manufactored, assembled, or otherwise created in NJ, the mere fact that it was transported into the state may lead to unintended consequences. Moreover, the term "obtained" may likely be looked upon as simply "receiving" without the explicit use of the term "possession". Therefore either side of the coin can be used here to charge an individual. Either as the transporter or the receiver of the firearm. Remember that the terms are not included in the law for purpose of aiding the public in reaching a meaning of the law. For that, one needs to consult the legislative record to attempt to properly understand the intent of a law. Here, it is very likely that case that the term "obtained" is chosen for its broad context. That is why it is chosen by the law-makers. It is for the courts to narrow. But I believe that term would likely cover assembly or any other acquisition of a firearm. Indeed, the law need not include the term "purchase" and the law would still serve its apparent intended purpose by the Federal legislators.
×
×
  • Create New...