ESB 244 Posted February 6, 2022 Anyone made their own AR lower or 1911, either from a 80% lower or frame or 3D printed? Is this still doable or are they making it illegal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,731 Posted February 6, 2022 I don’t think either is legal in NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted February 7, 2022 i think they're both illegal in nj. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,322 Posted February 7, 2022 Any AR lower that is made from anything without going through an FFL with a known manufacturer's serial number is considered a ghost gun in the PRNJ. Illegal to make, Illegal to possess! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0Jeep4 87 Posted February 7, 2022 Any frame/receiver with no serial number is a no go in NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted February 7, 2022 23 minutes ago, JohnnyB said: Any AR lower that is made from anything without going through an FFL with a known manufacturer's serial number is considered a ghost gun in the PRNJ. Illegal to make, Illegal to possess! sounds awfully infringing, doesn't it? also, check your pm's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ESB 244 Posted February 7, 2022 Well I guess I'll have to find another winter project. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tunaman 548 Posted February 7, 2022 20 hours ago, 1LtCAP said: sounds awfully infringing, doesn't it? also, check your pm's Especially when Federal law says it is legal to make your own firearm as long as you dont sell it... So the State can violate Federal law by making sanctuary cities for illegal aliens but we cant violate state law that says we cant own them. Got it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rifleman 90 Posted February 9, 2022 don't waste your time 3D printing, better off with a piece of wood & a sharp knife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted February 9, 2022 On 2/7/2022 at 6:26 PM, Tunaman said: Especially when Federal law says it is legal to make your own firearm as long as you dont sell it... So the State can violate Federal law by making sanctuary cities for illegal aliens but we cant violate state law that says we cant own them. Got it. isn't there some clause somewhere that states that a state cannot pre-empt a federal law with something more strict? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Displaced Texan 11,731 Posted February 9, 2022 37 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said: isn't there some clause somewhere that states that a state cannot pre-empt a federal law with something more strict? Has that ever stopped the PRNJ before? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ESB 244 Posted February 9, 2022 13 hours ago, 1LtCAP said: isn't there some clause somewhere that states that a state cannot pre-empt a federal law with something more strict? Yes, its called supremacy clause in Article VI in the Constitution. My guess is that you would have to take it up to a federal court, not a local or state court. That's going to be a lot of time and money. What happens when a state law contradicts a U.S. federal law? | HowStuffWorks Annotation 2 - Article VI - FindLaw Also 14th Ammendment says: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted February 9, 2022 12 hours ago, 1LtCAP said: isn't there some clause somewhere that states that a state cannot pre-empt a federal law with something more strict? Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ESB 244 Posted February 15, 2022 Marbury v Madison (1803) landmark case, Judge Marshall concluded, “the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v. Madison - Definition, Summary & Significance - HISTORY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FairbanksRusty 64 Posted February 15, 2022 10 minutes ago, ESB said: Marbury v Madison (1803) landmark case, Judge Marshall concluded, “the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury v. Madison - Definition, Summary & Significance - HISTORY Seems this has been ignored in New Jersey for more than half a century now. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ESB 244 Posted February 15, 2022 It would probably need to be taken up by a federal court, not state or local. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted February 18, 2022 On 2/9/2022 at 9:26 AM, ESB said: Yes, its called supremacy clause in Article VI in the Constitution. My guess is that you would have to take it up to a federal court, not a local or state court. That's going to be a lot of time and money. What happens when a state law contradicts a U.S. federal law? | HowStuffWorks Annotation 2 - Article VI - FindLaw Also 14th Ammendment says: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) You aren't winning jack using privileges and immunities. SCOTUS basically said it means nothing as implying it means anything would mean relitigating ~50 years of case law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites