TheSingularity

My thoughts exactly. Also, buy similar looking guns. She will think they are all the same one gun.

Just generalized NJ paranoia, I guess. The fear of being interrogated at the range if I wanted to have one of these.

Totally agree. This is right on.

That is what I thought - Thanks as always!

Here are the evil features defined (again): i. A semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: (1) A folding or telescoping stock; (2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (3) A bayonet mount; (4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (5) A grenade launcher So, just to clarify, since there seems to be at least some degree of confusion or debate in past threads on this subject: Say you had an AR, originally manufactured with a threaded barrel, but you had either the manufacturer or an FFL "permanently attach" a brake, or compensator, or thread protector... your threaded barrel is, in effect, not a threaded barrel, and this wouldn't count as having evil feature #4 above.... correct?

Am I correct when I say this: that MAK 90 court decision seems to have "opened the door," in effect setting a precedent in NJ with regard to the perceived legality of owning a MAK 90 in the state? In other words, the law was deemed unconstitutional in this case, in short, because the man didn't realize what he had. But if, for example, any of us wanted to go out and buy a MAK 90 - today - knowing the exact language of the law... the consensus opinion is that it is legal?

In State of New Jersey vs. Robert D. Merrill, the court dismissed the gun possession charge as unconstitutional. The gun in question was a MAK 90. A MAK 90 literally has "AK" in the name - it stands for Modified AK 1990. To my knowledge, most MAK 90s actually say MAK 90 on the receiver. So, I am not sure having the letters "AK" on the receiver means anything at all with respect to NJ legal status.

In terms of (apparently) NJ-legal 9mm carbines, they are definitely unique - which is why I have to admit that I am a little intrigued. Wilkinson Arms also made another similar model carbine, called the "Terry." Similar to the "Linda," except a more "traditional" looking stock (if you could call it that...). The predecessor company to Wilkinson Arms was called J&R Engineering (in California) which apparently started making 9mm carbines in the late 1960s (I think starting around 1968). Those were called the M68, and later, the M80. The M68 and the M80 look a lot like the later Wilkinson Arms carbines. Those also pop up for sale from time to time. I believe Wilkinson Arms made the Linda and Terry models from the 1970s all the way to as recently as possibly the 1990s (Ray Wilkinson passed away a while ago). At some point the shop was moved from Covina, California to Parma, Idaho.

It is not named in NJ. At least as far as I know... What features do you think would make it a no-go?

Nobody has any thoughts on this one? I know a lot of people don't consider it to be the prettiest gun, but.... Haha

Assuming a 10 round mag, or having any other mag permanently altered to NJ capacity levels... What do you say? NJ legal? Not specifically named, so it comes down to the features of course... Note how the barrel is held on by a large knurled nut. So the muzzle-end of the barrel isn't threaded - rather, the large knurled nut serves to hold the barrel in place... Would this, by any interpretation, call to question "threaded barrel" issues in your opinion? By the way, I think overall length is 28 inches. Here is an example of one of these carbines. I am talking about the carbine version and not the pistol: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=343123996

So, for example, what about the Masterpiece Arms Defender Series rifles? Such as the MPA9300SST model (with 10 round mag of course, and pinned stock if applicable). Based on past posts, i am under the imprssion that this rifle could/would/might be deemed to fall under "MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-9mm carbine type firearms" (?)

Just to expand on this a little bit: Saigas are literally made in the SAME FACTORY as the current military issue "Avtomat Kalashnikovs." And they are not technically "Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms"? The list goes on: WASRs, MAK 90 (see State of New Jersey vs. Robert D. Merrill on that one in particular...). Yet, you could have a boutique, independent builder of an Uzi clone, or a MAC 10 clone, and they somehow ARE "Uzi type semi-automatic firearms" or "MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-9mm carbine type firearms". I just don't get it. At all. To me, the "unconstitutionally vague" element seems to apply ANY time NJ's specifically banned list includes the word "type" at the end of the listed firearm model...

I am confused. When the specifically banned list says "type"........ Doesn't that cut against the idea of a specifically banned-by-name firearm? In other words, if a gun doesn't say "Uzi" on it...

Of course, we all know that the original MP5 is banned by name, specifically. But, are there any MP5 "clones" that ARE NJ-legal, and if so, what are they? And I am talking about 9mm specifically - not the .22 clones (GSG). Thanks in advance!