JackDaWack

You really think ur flying under the radar with this one?

3 questions, was this at a private practice? and was this the only doctor you ever saw? how long ago was this?

Yeah old news, some places still haven't caught on but I'm sure all online sales will eventually collect NJ tax.

I don't see a hair line fracture opening up like that at the end of the muzzle. That thing tore and peeled open. At a place where pressure is the least, for smallest amount of time... It doesn't matter how strait the crack is, most steel when hardened will crack like that.

I believe the state will do what the state wants to do, no doubt. Personally, I DO think that is exactly what happened. Airsoft became something new and the state was negligent in enforcing them as firearms. My biggest issue here is not that they loosely enforce them as firearms. They don't enforce it at all, and in one instance they got a conviction when the issue went completely unchallenged. They are commonly charged as imitation firearms far more often, and the few instances of people getting in trouble just for simple possession.... the cases seem to vanish.. The other obvious point is that the state government doesn't require ANY permits or licensing to purchase them, and have knowingly allowed it to take places for decades. I think a better answer or understanding to this issue is that you CAN be charged with an airsoft gun as a firearm, but if it's simple possession your probably going to see it dropped. I wouldn't even put it past most cops to just treat an airsoft gun like a BB gun until you have to hire a lawyer. Which is why i would never just treat them as a toy. I would like to know where it became common place to NOT do paperwork for an airsoft gun, who made that decision? To me, that is the number one reason the state would never follow through on such a charge for merely possessing one. The other primary issue is that the state also would need to be prepared to treat most of these airsoft guns as full machine guns.

I Included the denial for appeals to give some insight as to what took place during the trial. It clearly indicated that the defendant, Norman, did not attempt to argue that airsoft guns were not included in the statute. PLease keep in mind that a conviction does not set a precedent, an appeals ruling would. In this case the appeals doesn't say that airsoft guns meet the definition of law, just that the jury was correctly instructed and not misguided. I don't disregard it being a nail in the coffin, but this is an extreme case involving a criminal. Against this record, defendant now appeals raising the following arguments. POINT I THE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING POSSESSION OF A WEAPON FOR AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE WERE DEFICIENT BECAUSE THE COURT NEVER ASKED THE JURORS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE AIRSOFT GUN WAS A TOY OR WHETHER IT WAS SO BROKEN AS TO NO LONGER RETAIN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A WEAPON.   THE COURT ALSO ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT ON THE LESSER–INCLUDED OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF AN IMITATION FIREARM FOR AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE.  (Not Raised Below) POINT II THE PROSECUTOR COMMITTED MISCONDUCT BY ATTACKING NORMAN'S CREDIBILITY ON THE BASIS THAT HE WAS UNFAITHFUL TO HIS GIRLFRIEND.   THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO LIMIT THE PROSECUTOR'S CROSS–EXAMINATION AND IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THAT NORMAN'S BAD ACTS WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING GUILT, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO OBJECT.  (Not Raised Below) POINT III BECAUSE THE AIRSOFT GUN WAS A TOY, THE JUDGE ERRED IN IMPOSING A TWELVE–YEAR EXTENDED–TERM SENTENCE UNDER THE GRAVES ACT. None of the arguments raised by defendant have merit.   As a threshold issue, we note defendant did not object to the jury instructions at the time the trial judge conducted the charge conference required by Rule 1:8–7(b).  We thus review any argument attacking the propriety of the jury charges under the plain error doctrine.   Under this standard of review, we are obligated to disregard any alleged error or omission in the jury charge “unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]”  R. 2:10–2.   Stated differently, defendant must “demonstrate that the jury instruction was clearly erroneous, and that it caused the jury to reach a verdict it otherwise would not have reached.”  State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 (1999). The only time defendant questioned the propriety of the jury charges was at the sentencing hearing.   Defendant moved to set aside the jury verdict arguing that the trial judge committed reversible error when he failed to instruct the jury to determine:  (1) whether the weapon found by Barone was a toy gun, and thus not a firearm as a matter of law;  or (2) whether the gun was so damaged and mutilated that it had lost the characteristics of a firearm because it was no longer capable of being fired.

Sorry, Need to clarify. I agree with your statements. The "firearm" would have to be one not originating as a pistol or rifle... Pretty much it would start life as a receiver. Seems retarded, but It's an opinion in regards to the laws banning the principle use of turning a rifle or pistol into an SBR.

In a court of law, you can only be held to the standard of law in terms of what a person would reasonably believe the law says. That state has made it reasonable to believe the law does not cover Airsoft, much like it is entirely reasonable to believe BB guns are covered. Thousands of people ARE charged with and "convicted" of speeding, so that point is lost. Let's also keep in mind here this Norman individual was charged with using the Airsoft gun in the commission of crime (robbery), and the justification for that is injury to the eyes. The appeal for that case is also interesting in that they never argued any points about airsoft gun not being a firearm.. seeking the lesser charge of imitation firearm. Which is why he lost that point in his attempt for appeal. again do you think a spit ball tube is a firearm? It's not whether they are commonly prosecuted, finding a single instance of one used in the commission of a crime is a far outlier to this issue. the state literally allows them to be sold every single day without licenses... thats not looking the other way to a reasonable person. Why would the state with the toughest guns laws in the country allow the illegal sales and possession of firearms? Especially when they treat BB guns as firearms? To me, it is only reasonable to assume that Airsoft guns do not rise to the level of injury that the law states. It is unreasonable to think the state would treat BB guns and not airsoft guns as firearms if they felt both would fit the definition of firearm. If the state kicked in Cobra one tacticals door and charged them with illegal firearm transfers, do you really think it would stick? At this point, it's more about the precedent the state has set, and not the actual law being as vague it is. On the other hand, a lot of people have been charged with unlawful possession of a weapon in the 4th degree, which is for imitation firearms.

First and foremost, Laws do not make something legal. Only in NJ do they first make a firearm illegal, and then outline how they are legal. The law itself does not clearly define an airsoft gun as being covered. People play airsoft every single weekend in this state without incurring injury directly from being hit with projectiles. Yes, you can argue that a bruise is an injury, but we proceed to the next point. Second, there is not a single instance of anyone one, The AG included, who has written a statement as to Airsoft guns being covered by the statute. Add in the various legislative efforts, it further confirms that they do not believe they are covered by the statute. Add in the fact they people sell them every day in the state with out being charged, further adds to this conception. Being charged with it, is far different from being prosecuted.... No one is this state has ever been prosecuted for owning an airsoft gun or selling one. The public perception today, is that they are legal under current law, and that is the only basis that counts in criminal law. This perception is directly attributed to the states actions in enforcement of the laws. If we add in that: "Weapon" means anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, all: 1. Firearms, even though not loaded or lacking a clip or other component to render them immediately operable; " So there is a direct contradiction of the law within itself is Airsoft was included. IF the AG wants to release a directive clarifying this misconception, then he could. If they thought it would work, im sure they would have done it already... especially with these morons in NJ. The only reasonable purpose for not enforcing the law is if you believe this issue doesn't meet its definition.

At the end of that day, they were filming this guy driving around in a vehicle hanging out of it with a gun... He wound up being charged with exactly what he should have been. Even the state legeslator has moved to make them illegal through various bills that haven't passed. Which should be proof enough they don't believe current law covers them. A prosecutor can charge you with anything... That's a given..

I believe there needs to be a crime accompanying that. Since the state has indicated that BB are firearms, and require the proper permitting to purchase, I would question why they haven't described airsoft or paintball in the same manner. If that were the case, many people would be in jail right now over the sale and use of them.

Glock's market model is some what genius. Their pistols are stupid simple, reliable and cheap enough to purchase....AND upgradeable.. THEN they have generational updates every so often... so your customers will always be looking to get the update. The only reason IMO glock had a record setting year was due to the Gen 5 release, among other releases in the line up. No other company that I know of has this marketing model.

I believe it comes down to "with sufficient force to injure a person". This is why BB guns are firearms and Airsoft guns are not. You could argue the whole eye debate, but eyes are so sensitive anything could injury them. That would turn a spitball tube into a firearm.

Ok so he slightly more useful than a potted plant. While justice picks are extremely important, this SCOTUS season will tell us if they actually plan on protecting the Constitution.

When it comes to ATF letters you usually go with the most recent opinion, as they can change. But I don't believe it can get anymore clear then from their last statement regarding the issues. https://johnpierceesq.com/can-you-add-a-vertical-fore-grip-to-an-ar-pistol/