Jump to content

JSF01

Members
  • Content Count

    481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

13 Good

About JSF01

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular
  • Birthday 05/08/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. JSF01

    Anyone own a VZ 52 Rifle

    If the price is good I'm always interested. I figure that with the more time that passes, it's only going to get harder to find and the VZ52 is fun to shoot (especially since it flings spent casings at people who don't expect it to ).
  2. JSF01

    Anyone own a VZ 52 Rifle

    I own one and have used and own a small amount of 7.62x45. ( I think I have 400 rnds) Las time I looked on gun broker it was about a $1 a round. I had gotten lucky an in one of the facebook groups I am in some one posted a picture of thier VZ52 they just bought but was still looking for ammo. Some one else that worked in a gun shop in the Midwest they had a bunch in the back for years and he would check with the owner how much for any one interested which of course I said I was. When he came back the next day and said $5 for a box of 15, there were two or three people that saw the post before me that were interested but for what ever reason decided they were only interested in 2-3 boxes each. I immediately said I wanted half of all he had (and the only reason I didn't say all was because a lot of people had been interested in buying some, and felt it would be kind of a dick move not to give more people a chance) .
  3. JSF01

    What's this?

    Miranda is irreverent to holding politicians responsible for bad laws, but if politicians had passed laws that infringed on Miranda's right's then yes they should be held responsible regardless of how vial Miranda was. Such a proposed amendment is more then just enforcing other amendments, it would be providing guidance on how to interpret All the amendments and the constitution it's self. SCOTUS made a poor decision on that in order to get the compromise necessary in order to appease enough Justices to make a generally favorable ruling because the Justices are making decisions based on their own personal beliefs and not what was actually written (which they pretty much have been doing for close to 100 years now). I think you are missing my point. At least according to every one here right now all M1 carbines are illegal in NJ regardless of whether or not they are actually labeled as M1 Carbines based on the fact the law states "M1 Carbine Type". While that interpretation is completely valid it does cause a discrepancy. The M1 Carbine is not the only firearm that is identified with the qualifier of "type". Two other common ones being "Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms" and "M14S Type" both of which plenty of people in NJ currently own. So based entirely on current NJ law and active interpretations of said law, tomorrow police could start arresting everyone that owns AK and M14S variants regardless of what the receivers say because they are a "Type" that is banned. There doesn't need to be any grace period because the law has been on the books already for 30 years and they have been using that interpretation of "type" just as long. It's no different then if for the past 30 years the speed limit on a road has been 55 mph, but the police never ticketed any one doing less then 70 mph. they don't need a grace period to start ticketing people going faster then 55 mph since that has always been the speed limit. Bringing it back to the point my AWB example was illustrating, despite the fact that the interpretation of the law could legitimately change in an instant and no one could argue it, people still risk owning those firearms. The same would hold true for holding politicians responsible any unconstitutional laws they pass especially when you give meaningful and set rules on how things are to be interpreted. If it's questionable and they deem it important enough they can try to pass an amendment that would allow it. Ultimately the Constitution and it's Amendments are the supreme laws of the land, so when politicians vote for unconstitutional laws they are in fact breaking the law. And this thread needs more Pics so here is the Super Duper NJ Illegal Combo
  4. JSF01

    What's this?

    Lets break this down, the Miranda case is completely irrelevant to the discussion since it did not overturn any laws As to NJ's Assault weapon ban, there are plenty of good arguments that could take it to SCOTUS over the last 30 years. The Judges allowing their personal political beliefs to inform their decisions instead of what the law was intended to mean doesn't change the fact the law is inherently unconstitutional. The 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." which means that the states could put limitations on freedom of speech or firearms. Key word there however is "could". The 14th amendment however changed that which applies the Bill of Rights to the states too. I never said holding politicians responsible would be easy or even viable in reality, The Idea that any politician would willingly vote to be held responsible for their actions is laughable. You were asking for possible improvements to the system not what was practical to accomplish in reality. If they were making a new law then sure they'd have to have at minimum some type of compliance period. In the of NJ's AWB it's not a new law, it's not even technically a new interpretation as it's already interpreted that way, just look at the "Not M1 Carbines" also being illegal. It's just a matter of NJ Police not having enforced state laws up to that point. Is it likely to play out that way in reality, I doubt it but there is nothing stopping it. Again of course this is not how our system works, these were ideas on how it could be improved. This along with any question of interpretation, the interpretation to be chosen will always be the one where government gets the least amount of power over the individual is the one to be chosen, would fix many of the issues facing are current system. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it would be a great improvement
  5. JSF01

    What's this?

    There will always be people that would want that power. How is it really any different then say owning firearms in NJ? Look at the assault weapons ban list, besides the M1 Carbine there are a number of firearms which have the qualifier "type" after the name which people have variations of. The AG could tomorrow just declare them all illegal and immediately start arresting people and you'd just be out of luck. Despite that plenty of people do own those variations of firearms. Same thing applies to political positions even if there was personal risk. It would however make politicians extremely cautious when passing new laws, and encouraging them to keep the laws they do pass as narrow as possible.
  6. JSF01

    What's this?

    Pretty much, the trick is how do you ensure they follow the intent and not just what they can get away with through loop holes.
  7. JSF01

    What's this?

    I can think of some improvements to make things better not that it will ever happen. Things like make it so politicians are personally held responsible if they pass any legislation that is found unconstitutional, and all laws are to be interpreted in the spirit that they were intended and any issues are to be interpreted in the way which gives the government the least amount of power over the individual.
  8. JSF01

    What's this?

    Problem is without something black and white written down there is nothing stopping them from making judgements based on what they personally believe instead of what the law. actually says.
  9. JSF01

    What's this?

    I really believe there should be an amendment passed saying that laws need to be interpreted consistently and in the event of an inconsistency you the default interpretation the one that is least government intrusive.
  10. JSF01

    What's this?

    Hmm well I did not know that, I never really paid attention to non surplus M1 Carbines before, and just been going off what I was told in the past.
  11. JSF01

    What's this?

    I am definitely not betting my freedom on that, since In the end I have no interest of retraining to NJ. I thought the deal with those Plainfields, Universals and others is that they were all marked M1 Carbine which was what made them illegal. Just like how any rifle marked AR-15 is illegal regardless of manufacture is illegal, but any AR-15 marked something else is legal.
  12. JSF01

    What's this?

    Well believe it or not, Things are not quite what they seem. This particular "M1 Carbine" was made Howa in Japan in the 1960's for the Thai police which was the only export of them outside Japan. From the numbers I could find the contract was for 10,000 of which eventually 300-800 were surplussed into the United States making them a bit rare (I have seen it claimed as low as only 50 but I have found enough reports of sales that it's unlikely to be that low). Now what really makes this thing interesting and why I really debated even posting this is because technically those are trick questions in the OP. See while Howa did make M1 Carbines for the JSDF and every one calls these M1 Carbines, doing some research I discovered that Howa never sold M1 Carbines to the Thai police. The contract with the Thai police was for 10,000 of the M300 rifles which was a hunting variation made for Japanese hunters. This means that this is not an M1 Carbine but a M300 which, unless there has been some very recent change to NJ laws, would technically makes this NJ legal and therefore I shouldn't be looking at any jail time if I did bring it into NJ.
  13. JSF01

    What's this?

    So I picked this up from my FFL today, So can any of you guys stuck in NJ Identify it and how much Jail time am I looking at for bring it to NJ? * Edit I just realized I probably should have put this into the general firearms discussion category as it's not actually military surplus
  14. The Japanese firearm prices are not to bad, though they seem to have been climbing relatively quickly in the past couple of years. II am personally expecting the last ditch to really climb in the next couple of years.
  15. That is not to bad at all
×