joejaxx

From NJSA 2C:39-4e: "e. Imitation firearms. Any person who has in his possession an imitation firearm under circumstances that would lead an observer to reasonably believe that it is possessed for an unlawful purpose is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree." Of course I doubt this kid has a blasted *NERF GUN* for an unlawful purpose. This law was meant for criminals who take for example training guns and then paint them black to go around robbing people. Now this 7 year old kid is going to have this on his record.

They normally do not do this? That is sad They seem more than willing to contact or go to FFLs to request 4473s in investigations but not give notice for something like this?

Same to you

Thank you for the well wishes everyone I really appreciate it. I ended up buying a 1945 manufactured, Department of Defense 1960s Rebuild M1 Garand. Yeah the problem is I keep buying tons of other guns instead haha Do not worry I will eventually get my non-NJ-crippled fully legal FN SCAR 17S.

You know what is funny? From Mcdonald: Then we have from Heller (with SUCH AS being the key phrase here): This is what New Jersey politicians are pretty much doing: So the New Jersey AG wants to selectively read and modify the text decision to their liking.

Here is New Jersey's response (it has not been updated on the docket archive yet): LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I PLAINTIFFS ANJRPC AND SAF DO NOT HAVE STANDING, AND THEIR CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED POINT II THIS COURT SHOULD DENY PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL A. The Challenged Provisions Do Not Implicate the Second Amendment Right to Possess a Handgun in One’s Home for Purposes of Self-Defense and Thus Are Presumptively Valid or Pass Rational Basis Review 1. The Second Amendment Does Not Encompass a Right to Carry a Handgun Beyond One’s Home 2. The Challenged Provisions Are Presumptively Lawful or Pass Rational Basis Review B. Alternatively, Even If the Challenged Provisions Implicate a Protected Second Amendment Right, They Satisfy Any Standard of Review 1. The Reasonable Regulation Test Is the Appropriate Standard of Review 2. The Challenged Provisions Satisfy Any Standard of Review NJ_AG_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

This would be called the Thune Amendment

Where is the "HELL NO!!!" option for both? We have the carry case going on right now in New Jersey. Also I am waiting for the Thune Amendment to be reintroduced in March.

LLLMFFFAAAOOOO

Oh no I am talking strictly about carry as this case would only bring up the issue of carry in New Jersey to the Supreme court and none of the other things you listed (those would have to be brought up in other lawsuits). While it would be nice to get carry with a district court decision in our favour I would rather have the Supreme Court do it. New Jersey would have its ill intended carry laws struck down for the entire country to see. This should be very entertaining.

While having a decision in our favour would be nice, I actually hopes he sides with New Jersey and this goes to the Supreme Court. I want New Jersey to get an even bigger spiked,steel toe boot up their a** (along with national attention). I am sure we can wait a bit more after this ruling to get a Supreme Court decision as we have been waiting forever already. New Jersey is the poster child of failed gun control and I would like to see a national grandstand while these unconstitutional provisions are struck down with fire. Also in furtherance of the original post: New Jersey should be filing their response on Wednesday (Jan 26th) to our Motion for Summary Judgement.

Nice firearm purchases!

Have you been there before? What kind of stuff do they have there normally?

How is Brick Armoury still a vendor on this forum after all of these posts exposing shady business practises? lol

How long does it normally take you?

It is PERFECTLY LEGAL as long as the pistol is not on the ban list or a clone of a weapon on the ban list. The 1911 is not on it so you are good to go. Now if it was a MAC10 or an UZI clone I would suggest otherwise

Mall Ninjas:

Hello, If that chassis has a telescoping or collapsing stock (as it looks like from the manufacturers website) then your M1A would not be legal in that configuration. An adjustable cheek piece is fine though.

Title: Rep. McCarthy seeks to ban high-capacity ammo magazines Source: http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/10/5805421-rep-mccarthy-seeks-to-ban-high-capacity-ammo-magazines

Even if the BATFE does not consider them flash hiders, I would never put ones of these on a clone of a named weapon on the assault weapon ban blacklist in New Jersey when the manufacturer blatantly advertises that their muzzle device sports flash suppression as a feature.

Link says it is a hybrid flash hider/muzzlebrake (No-GO on an AR in NJ).

Super nice USN!

Rofl we knew this was going to happen. I actually hope the district court sides with New Jersey to so it can go to the Supreme Court for the New Jersey case. New Jersey has been without carry for years so I am sure we can wait a few extra months for the Supreme Court to hear the NJ case. Hopefully the Supreme Court will lodge its huge spiked steel toe boot up New Jersey's a**.

The Magpul PRS stock is adjustable and legal on a AR15 since it does not collapse. The Magpul UBR stock collapses. Also the folding/collapsing stock restriction only applies to firearms on the list or the clones of said rifles.