Jump to content


Premier Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by kman

  1. Sure would be nice if someone could open a range in the Meadowlands. So much space there, but probably impossible to get clearance from the authorities.
  2. Pick any revolver from this list: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Boardwalk_Empire#Revolvers
  3. If asked the police will probably state that if gun and ammo is in the same container, they interpret that to mean the gun is loaded. That will be what they say they are basing their website FAQ answer on. A Judge might very well go along with that. That's the law in New York BTW - actually the term loaded is defined to have an even wider scope in NY. https://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/new_york_gun_laws_when_your_un/ Unless and until "loaded" is defined in the NJ by statute, or decided by the NJ Supreme Court (or US Supreme Court) then there will forever be confusion. That is why I say that this whole question is unknown. It is why Evan Nappen cautions his clients. It is why saying it's "100% legal" is, in my humble opinion, irresponsible. If you say it's "100% legal" are you going to pay the poor sap's lawyer who relies on you and gets arrested and fired from his job? I certainly do not think a gun is loaded unless there's a round in the chamber (or if the magazine is charged and inserted and the bolt pulled back on a gun which fires from an open bolt). But what I think it should mean doesn't matter! Suing the NJ State Police on what they say on their website might be a great way to have the definition of "loaded" decided conclusively in the courts, however. Perhaps a good idea!
  4. Good grief, I didn't say it was illegal, I said nobody knows one way or another because "loaded" is not defined by statute. Some people just can't handle it if everyone doesn't completely and fully agree with what they say on the internet. Don't get bent out of shape because you don't get 100% agreement with your opinion on the internet. But it's OK - one cop from the State Police's Firearms Unit says it's legal in an email, so it's unquestionably so. Suppose another cop was answering emails at the computer that day and said it's not legal. Guess that's it, settled, no can do, illegal! The NJ State Police website says that firearms and ammunition must be transported in different containers. Even though there is no law requiring that which I can find, the police said it, in fact it's on their website, so quite clearly must be correct! https://www.njsp.org/firearms/firearms-faqs.shtml So for those of you who put loaded mags and your handgun in the same range bag, and drive happily to the range - which cop is right now? The one cop in Trenton that said loaded mags are fine, or the cop who did the FAQ page on the NJ State Police website, that says you can't have ammunition in the same bag as a gun? They can't both be right. And it is irresponsible to say that it's "100% Legal" and have people rely on it, if it is not certainly so. Are we going to have another hundred or so posts of people complaining again because I pointed all of this out?
  5. The police are many times THE WORST source of legal advice on gun laws. What they say is legal or not doesn't mean anything! Fundamentally, no one has an answer, which is why these discussion threads go out of control EVERY TIME.
  6. See, it's totally clear, right? Since the state never defined what "loaded" means, it means to you whatever you want it to mean. It means to the police officer searching your gear on the side of the road whatever he/she wants it to mean. It means to the prosecutor deciding whether to press charges whatever he wants it to mean. To the judge hearing your case, it is a stupid question to begin with, since the judge probably knows no more than what he/she saw in a bunch of movies, which always get it wrong anyhow. Of course it's loaded. God only knows what it means to the jury. To your boss, who hears you got arrested, it means something very, very bad. To your accountant, after all is said and done, it means your savings is no longer "loaded" but is surely empty! See? Absolutely, totally clear!!!!
  7. Don't forget the federal law too. You won't pass a NICS check, because a felony will bar you under Federal law from legally possessing or purchasing a firearm. If it was a state conviction you could potentially get it expunged. Hire a lawyer.
  8. If the state issues pistol permits instead of local police departments, then the process can be regularized and monitored and one lawsuit against the state can be filed if there is abuse. Right now every municipality has its own procedure and schedule and policy, which changes every time the police chief changes...and the law is the police are supposed to investigate you - which means they can pretty do as much snooping as they want, call your employer, etc. Every individual town has to be sued, each with its own set of facts, etc., if there is any problem. If the town police don't like you, they currently could cause all sorts of problems for you. Of course there shouldn't be purchase permits in the first place, but if we are going to have them anyhow, I for one would rather have a statewide system that's automated and staffed by a bureaucracy with fixed rules impartially applied. As it is right now, if the present right to carry lawsuit goes our way, your town police will still be the ones investigating and deciding on your carry permit, with authority to investigate you as much as they want, if the current lawsuit to throw out "justified need" is successful. Look at the form you have to fill out. I for one would rather have the state police do a quick search of the state records and approve, then have to go to the local police station after hours (since I am working during the day) and satisfy some local town detective that I'm OK, and fill out a form that allows him to do a fishing expedition of an investigation if they don't want to issue one to me. Alternatively, if you live in a permissive town, I'd understand why you would want to keep the system as is. But you will complain if the political orientation of the town flips and a new chief is appointed.
  9. If they are going to have a permitting system at all, to purchase handguns, the state should have taken this over decades ago from local police departments and automated it. Our current system in NJ is archaic.
  10. Not looking to talk you out of selling it, but that rifle will be ready to work when you retire. Unlike just about everything else you own, this thing doesn't get outdated. It will work 100 years from now. And you don't need to get a FID to own it, if you inherited it. FID from the police only required to buy another - you can inherit without one. So you could put it in your closet and leave it for another 20 years and it will be ready when you are. There is something about having your father's guns...sell em and you may regret it. But do as you wish.
  11. This is a good gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco_NHM_91 Made to be imported as a "sporting" rifle per federal law. Seems to be NJ legal. Why not keep it? If you have had it that long, and your father has passed away, and you are his heir, it is yours.
  12. Is the consensus that this is a NJ legal rifle? I don't see a bayonet mount, and it is even debatable if it has a pistol grip. Beware of the magazines if you have any...that might get you into trouble if they hold more than 10 rounds.
  13. Cheap .223 Russian ammo like Wolf is underpowered. Not enough oomph to operate the machinery
  14. I agree. If you are limited to 10 rounds, and buying from scratch, why buy a bulky gun made to handle more? If you want to go for the bulky gun, go for one that has 10 rounds of .45 This new Glock 48 looks thin and no ugly rail in front, almost looks like a plastic 1911. Looks very nice. I'd buy it if I didn't already have something else. Plus the usual Glock virtues - lightness, reliability, durability, the certain blockiness that is their trademark, the weird but oddly effective trigger... If I lived in a state that did not require a permission slip to be obtained at great administrative inconvenience to buy one, I'd probably go get one right now.
  15. Think NJ is bad, try Canada: It is virtually impossible to figure out what the actual maximum capacity is over there by reading the rules. Is it five, seven, eight, ten or fifteen rounds? http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm As clear as mud.
  16. Very nice Glock. And also, if .45 is what you want to shoot, Sig P320 in .45 also is exactly 10 round capacity.
  17. Congrats! Did the lawyer get it expunged too?
  18. He is going to do this over and over again so long as he is our Governor. The last batch of laws passed wasn't just to get it over and done with, it was just the first round of many to come.
  19. Doubt wax would be an issue with your powder. Gunpowder and wax get along, always have. Lead bullets are coated with wax. Dies are lubricated with wax during resizing. Wax is about as inert as it gets.
  20. Could try Johnson's Floor Wax. It dries dry.
  21. At least we now know why the addition has not opened yet. Whatever the problems are, I hope they resolve soon. Sure are enough customers eager to get in there.
  22. I reiterate: Pay ANJRPC $40 for a non-range membership, get ahold of one of their newsletters and call one of the NJ lawyers listed in the back of the newsletter who give free advice to members. NJ is a screwy state. Don't ask the police what the law is, they don't know the law. Don't rely on forum threads either. The law is too weird here to get good advice in a conversation online. We are talking felonies if you fall short, and extreme inconvenience if you needlessly over-comply with the law. So get some real legal advice before you do anything!!!!
  23. If NJ police officers enforced the law on stun guns and TASERs, they likely violated a federal injunction put in place by a federal judge. Not a thing anyone wants to be found out doing. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nj2as/pages/1232/attachments/original/1511735116/Tasers_Legal.pdf?1511735116 See p. 4-9. If they violated an order entered by a federal judge, to deny you a federal constitutional right, there are big consequences. The same law that held corrupt racist sheriffs in the old south criminally responsible for violating civil rights still apply. You probably can sue the police in federal court under 42 USC 1983 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 And probably get your attorney fees back under 42 USC 1988 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988 This is really something the ANJRPC ought to be on top of, they ought to have attorneys ready to go on this. It is free - the police have to pay the costs and attorney fees when they lose. Police don't tend to respect rights unless they are very clearly enforced in court to the point that it hurts. Only then do they take rights seriously. It is human nature. Nobody pays very much attention to what's in their way unless there are consequences.
  • Create New...