Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yesterday I purchased the Black Aces Bull Pup and this morning I received an email stating they won’t modify or send to my ffl to modify…

 

Can someone explain why this shotgun is illegal in NJ ? I thought NJ was 10rd max this magazine was 5 rds 
 

than537E8966-E585-4C7C-8DF9-10A920D6968A.thumb.jpeg.ed986f8444168433cdb56a35e2c88c55.jpegWhats illegal with this shotgun ? 

93460CA5-D94C-4C9F-832B-8DFB7956E4F1.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is the pump action bullpup... it isn't

If it is the semi-auto bullpup, it is as it has a pistol grip. 

I I see the blurry blue text.. it is the semi-auto. No semi auto shotguns with pistol grips. 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is that it's a semi-automatic 12ga shotgun - with a pistol grip.  Unfortunately, Semi auto shotguns are not allowed to have pistol grips in NJ.

If you had purchased the Pump action version, you would be fine.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

If it is the pump action bullpup... it isn't

If it is the semi-auto bullpup, it is as it has a pistol grip. 

I I see the blurry blue text.. it is the semi-auto. No semi auto shotguns with pistol grips. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Krdshrk said:

The issue is that it's a semi-automatic 12ga shotgun - with a pistol grip.  Unfortunately, Semi auto shotguns are not allowed to have pistol grips in NJ.

If you had purchased the Pump action version, you would be fine.

This state is so retarded...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paulie_O said:

They had the shotgun -pump so I purchased that. Anyone know where I can find compatible magazines for this shotgun?Sold out on their website.

 Thanks again!!

Paulie

https://www.cdarmssupply.com/Black-Aces-Tactical-5-Round-Magazine-For-BAT-BullpupBullpump_p_10447.html

Never purchased from this site before but they're legit as far as I can tell.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

 

This state is so retarded...

Its so true that you say this.  Yet.  We can have a other than  with a 12” barrel.  But its only legal iffff you have a foregrip.  Its a federal thing.  But even still.  We literally have ignorant jackasses that have hidden moniterally motives in play.  Ughh

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Golf battery said:

Its so true that you say this.  Yet.  We can have a other than  with a 12” barrel.  But its only legal iffff you have a foregrip.  Its a federal thing.  But even still.  We literally have ignorant jackasses that have hidden moniterally motives in play.  Ughh

I'm gonna go smoke grass while I watch the attendant pump my gas for me.  :facepalm: :icon_lol:

I put the purple bucket in the driveway for ya.  Now on to the hard part...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is a good take on the situation from a thread on ar15.com about the NY restrictions but applies to N.J. as well: "What you are seeing is what has happened in every other state that has passed shall-issue concealed carry.  Not to the extent NY is going but similar.  The people inconvenienced will complain and changes will be made.  Then lawsuits will happen and then more changes are made.  Then as people adjust to the idea of "people walking around carrying hidden guns" more changes will occur.  My state has had concealed carry for decades and we are still tweaking the law." "Back in 2000 when Michigan was trying to go from may-issue to shall-issue we had a state level pro-gun organization trying to kill the bill for the exact same reasons you mentioned.  The people with connections had permits and very few restrictions.  They threw a fit that going to shall-issue would result in a more involved process, a higher fee, and more restrictions on where they could carry.  They had the "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude that you seem to have.  Shall issue passed, barely.  Counties like Wayne County, where Detroit is, dug their feet in and refused to issue any permits for almost a year.  Multiple lawsuits had to be filed against them.  The legislature has gone back many times to tweak the law, remove restrictions, and make other changes to improve things". "Baby steps, just like how the Dems take away our rights, is how you get the restrictions removed.  The big hurdle is getting shall-issue allowed.  That is still a huge win for NY.  Then you go back and get the restrictions removed".     .  
    • That brisket wasn’t my best. No matter, I’ll use it for chopped brisket sandwiches, or better yet, brisket chili.    Win some, lose some! 
    • Thanks for the info voyager9, but that's what I'm afraid of. Lower courts could give a flip about Bruen if there are no judicial consequences in doing so.
    • He’s certainly trying to.  Yes. It means new lawsuits to challenge the new rules.  They don’t go directly to scotus though.  Start with the lower courts first.  In theory those courts should use Bruen as a guide and nuke them there.  In theory.    
    • The bill states that following under the amendments section: " This act shall take effect 1[immediately] on the first day of the seventh month next following the date of enactment, except the Attorney General may take such anticipatory administrative action in advance as shall be necessary for the implementation of this act1." Is this replacing "immediately" with the underlined text or is it the other way around?
×
×
  • Create New...