Question on Hi Cap Mags in NJ

[Jon 264]

Since you guys brought this up, I have a similar question about an antique rifle.

 

A slide-action .22 trainer that can handle shorts, longs & long rifle cartridges. It belongs to a friend of mine. He teaches kids how to shoot with it. At least a 50 year old model and the design is dating back to near the turn of the last century. If I only own long rifle rounds and only use long rifle rounds, what happens if the gun's tubular magazine will hold (17) .22 shorts? The rifle is a youth model from yesteryear. Obviously the intent is to adhere to the 15 round capacity by using the longest rounds that will feed & function. So do I have to alter the gun to accept less than 15 LR rounds just so I can't fire the shorts that I never bought or have?? And what Cop or Judge is going to pull .22 shorts out of their pocket to test the darned thing anyway?

 

Sometimes I think that some of us just borrow too much trouble!

 

By "slide-action" I assume you mean pump action. There are no mag limits for pump-action firearms.

[BigHayden 77]

A slide-action .22 trainer that can handle shorts, longs & long rifle cartridges.

 

You unknowingly answered your own question. The 15 round limit applies to semi-auto firearms only.

[BigHayden 77]

By "slide-action" I assume you mean pump action. There are no mag limits for pump-action firearms.

 

Gah, beat me to it.... And "way to go" to the person who resurrected a 2+ year old thread. Though, I suppose it beats posting a new one on the same topic.

[BRaptor 68]

In order to enforce most laws, there must be an intent by the actor. It comes down to the totality of the evidence present at the time.

 

If one has no firearm present to shoot the smaller round that will load into the mags, then there is no way one can assume it will be used that way.

 

If he marked the magazine for the "50Beo ONLY", kept the mags with that firearm, I see no problem with this. His intent is to obey the law, not unlike pinning a stock that can unpinned easily.

 

You're correct, the law does require an intent. Unfortunately, the intent portion of the law is "knowingly possess." NJ courts have already held that it doesn't even matter if the person knew whether or not the magazine would hold 16+ rounds. The part of knowledge is knowing that they possess the object. The rest of the case is just establishing already-existing facts (i.e. "is the magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds and continuously feeding into a semi-auto?").

[Smokin .50 1,907]

By "slide-action" I assume you mean pump action. There are no mag limits for pump-action firearms.

 

This is also how I interpret the 2C Firearms Statutes. However there are plenty of folks who err on the side of caution, especially those that work in gun shops! As soon as you say anything higher than 15 of what-ever, they freak-out and run home to Momma!

 

Thanks for backing me up!

[compujas 21]

Going back to the Glock 22 analogy, you are saying that because the G22 magazine can hold (17) 9mm rounds, it would be illegal to possess, even without possessing a firearm?

 

I think your answer would be "no". Why? Because it is marked .40S&W, correct?

 

Will a G22 mag with 9mm ammo feed into a G17 though? The other half of the statute is that it must feed directly and continuously into a firearm. A cardboard refrigerator box can hold probably tens of thousands of 9mm cartridges, but it won't feed them into a gun. Now if you took a G22 mag, modified the feed lips and changed the follower to a 9mm follower, then yeah, you're going to have some problems.

[PK90 3,570]

YES

[alowerlevel 77]

Will a G22 mag with 9mm ammo feed into a G17 though? The other half of the statute is that it must feed directly and continuously into a firearm. A cardboard refrigerator box can hold probably tens of thousands of 9mm cartridges, but it won't feed them into a gun. Now if you took a G22 mag, modified the feed lips and changed the follower to a 9mm follower, then yeah, you're going to have some problems.

 

I know for a fact that a Springfield XD40 mag will feed 9mm just fine with no mods to the mag at all, and hold 16+ rounds (this is a freinds gun who lives in PA) He bought a 9mm conversion barrel for it and decided to try using the .40 mags before buying 9mm mags, we were both surprised when it functioned just fine.

[compujas 21]

Interesting. I would've thought it wouldn't feed very reliably. Then again it is only .050" larger diameter, and I guess the length isn't a huge deal as long as they fit. So in that case, I stand corrected. Carry on.

[Blazer 0]

Guys please don't beat me to death for asking this question, I've been away from N.J. for 12 years. I lived in PA. but due to my wife's health problems and financial burdons I've been forced back to N.J. I know this makes no sense but I had no choice.

I am aware that N.J.put a ban on "temp" blocked high cap mags years ago. I am just wondering if any of the powers that be have decided on any "proper" way to block a high cap to make it legal. Thanks , your replies are appreciated. Bob.

PA, such a simple life...

[Dan 177]

I suppose if you have a magazine designed for .40cal, and somehow it could also be used to feed 15+ 9mm through a SA firearm... if you did not have prior knowledge that the magazine could do this, you wouldn't "knowingly posses" a NJ defined large cap mag. So basically, everyone un-learn everything in this thread and we'll be OK.

[BRaptor 68]

I suppose if you have a magazine designed for .40cal, and somehow it could also be used to feed 15+ 9mm through a SA firearm... if you did not have prior knowledge that the magazine could do this, you wouldn't "knowingly posses" a NJ defined large cap mag. So basically, everyone un-learn everything in this thread and we'll be OK.

 

Oh so very, very wrong! It doesn't matter if you KNOW that the magazine can do it. It ONLY matters that you know you possess the magazine. The inherent properties of the magazine are unchanged and do not impact the legality of owning them.

 

 

ETA:

 

I finally found the case!

 

State of NJ v. Joseph Pelleteri

 

 

Edited, again, to add a clear quote from the opinion:

 

"We hold that knowledge of the character of the weapon is not an element of the offense."

[Dan 177]

So the law should say...

 

 

j.Any person who knowingly has in his possession a large capacity ammunition magazine is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree

[Dan 177]

And here they destroy the need for mens rea (guilty mind, intent) when it comes to firearms statutes.

 

"[T]he dangers are so high and the regulations so prevalent that, on balance, the legislative branch may as a matter of sound public policy and without impairing any constitutional guarantees, declare the act itself unlawful without any further requirement of mens rea or its equivalent."

[XDJohnTact 49]

Exactly what I did in Cali. 30rd pmags hold 10rds .50 BEOWULF. I dremeled off the number 30 on all of them and any 5.56 and wrote 50 Beowulf designated with a 10rd indication on them. I have 50beowulf rds and upper. I also left one round of the 50 beowulf ammo in each magazine to show intent of legality. I also have several 10 rd 5.56 mags with one 5.56 rd in each to show intent.

 

Now I dont know how bad the state would want to prosecute a law abiding citizen - given by the above. and I dont want to know. but its what I did and haven't shown it off to see. nor would I ever.

 

And this wasn't done to skirt the law. Just to clairify my legal intent of what I owned.

 

This is not legal advice. Please let me know how you guys would think it would go over in NJ before I move there.

 

Once you memorialize it on a public forum, it is out there for any person (including the many LEOs who read these forums) to see. Just saying.

[XDJohnTact 49]

I know for a fact that a Springfield XD40 mag will feed 9mm just fine with no mods to the mag at all, and hold 16+ rounds (this is a freinds gun who lives in PA) He bought a 9mm conversion barrel for it and decided to try using the .40 mags before buying 9mm mags, we were both surprised when it functioned just fine.

 

A 10 round XD .40 mag holds 12 rounds of 9mm.

[alowerlevel 77]

A 10 round XD .40 mag holds 12 rounds of 9mm.

 

We werent using 10 round mags, He had the full size one (5" barrel) that held 12 or 13 (cant remember which) of .40

[XDJohnTact 49]

Nice!

[BRaptor 68]

And here they destroy the need for mens rea (guilty mind, intent) when it comes to firearms statutes.

 

Yes, exactly, they changed it from a "knowing" requirement, which is difficult to prove all the way down to a strict liability statute, which is easy peasy to prove!

 

This is the same opinion that said "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril." So, you can interpret the "judges'" mindset from that quote.

 

When I learned statutory construction, I learned that the mens rea element was supposed to be applied to all elements of the crime. Thus, they way I read the statute, you should have known that you possessed the object and known that it would hold more than 15 rounds. But, then again, I don't get to interpret and apply these laws.

 

The knowledge requirement is a little more thoroughly fleshed out when you add the case where a conviction of a couple teenagers (for unlawful possession of a firearm, I think) was overturned on appeal, because they didn't know that they had the gun and ammunition in the car until they discovered it when they were broken down on the side of the road. The court said that they didn't have the opportunity to discover the illegal nature of the items and then get rid of them. Thus, they did not "knowingly" possess them.

[vladtepes 1,060]

YES

 

then per the literal letter of the law.. it is a high cap mag..

[Jon 264]

then per the literal letter of the law.. it is a high cap mag..

 

So anyone with a G22 in NJ is guilty of an indictable offense?

[XDJohnTact 49]

Only if you own a 17?

 

But the OP said you would have to change the feed lips and follower, so in original form, it would not be?

 

This state is freekin' nuts!

[vladtepes 1,060]

So anyone with a G22 in NJ is guilty of an indictable offense?

 

approach the situation with logic as opposed to emotion..

 

what does the law say..

 

j. Any person who knowingly has in his possession a large capacity ammunition magazine is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree

so the law says literally if I have a large capacity magazine I am guilty of a crime..

are there exceptions? what if I don't own the gun it goes to....

 

unless the person has registered an assault firearm pursuant to section 11 of P.L.1990, c.32 (C.2C:58-12) and the magazine is maintained and used in connection with participation in competitive shooting matches sanctioned by the Director of Civilian Marksmanship of the United States Department of the Army.

 

there is an exemption.. and this is the ONLY one.. if you have a registered assault weapon... that is the ONLY exemption..

since there are no exemptions... the next logical thing is to see how the law defines the prohibited item..

 

y. "Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.

doesn't matter what you write on it...

doesn't matter if you own the gun it goes to..

doesn't matter what round you keep in it..

 

if it can hold more than 15 rounds PERIOD

can feed continuously and directly into a firearm PERIOD

and it is not a magazine you own as part of a registered assault weapon PERIOD

 

then you do in fact illegally possess a high capacity magazine and are in fact guilty.. as the law is literally written..

will you be charged with a 15 round glock magazine.. I doubt it..

this is more an exercise on the absurdity that is NJ gun law.. it is to say as ridiculous as it is.. the mag is illegal.. as per NJ standard.. yet in a real life situation we know it would be very unlikely to face prosecution..

[Jon 264]

approach the situation with logic as opposed to emotion..

 

what does the law say..

 

 

so the law says literally if I have a large capacity magazine I am guilty of a crime..

are there exceptions? what if I don't own the gun it goes to....

 

 

there is an exemption.. and this is the ONLY one.. if you have a registered assault weapon... that is the ONLY exemption..

since there are no exemptions... the next logical thing is to see how the law defines the prohibited item..

 

 

doesn't matter what you write on it...

doesn't matter if you own the gun it goes to..

doesn't matter what round you keep in it..

 

if it can hold more than 15 rounds PERIOD

can feed continuously and directly into a firearm PERIOD

and it is not a magazine you own as part of a registered assault weapon PERIOD

 

then you do in fact illegally possess a high capacity magazine and are in fact guilty.. as the law is literally written..

will you be charged with a 15 round glock magazine.. I doubt it..

this is more an exercise on the absurdity that is NJ gun law.. it is to say as ridiculous as it is.. the mag is illegal.. as per NJ standard.. yet in a real life situation we know it would be very unlikely to face prosecution..

 

So... according to your view, anyone with a G22 magazine in the state of NJ is guilty of an indictable offense? I didn't bring emotion into anything. Just a simple question.

[vladtepes 1,060]

So... according to your view, anyone with a G22 magazine in the state of NJ is guilty of an indictable offense? I didn't bring emotion into anything. Just a simple question.

 

according to the literal writing of the law..

if it will readily feed more than 15 rounds of ammo through a semi auto..

then according tot he law.. it is a high cap mag..

[XDJohnTact 49]

Will it feed 9mm in a stock form or does it have to be modified to feed 9mm?

[vladtepes 1,060]

In my opinion, anyone who owns a factory Glock 22 magazine in the stae of NJ is committing an indictable offense

[raz-0 1,259]

Not a chance. I would never break the law no matter how stupid it is. It really stinks that we have to be so afraid of our own government.

 

you are not prohibited form owning them, just possessing them within NJ. So if you had a storage in PA, no problem. Heck if storage costs too much, go geocache them in PA in a PVC tube.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

In my opinion, anyone who owns a factory Glock 22 magazine in the stae of NJ is committing an indictable offense

 

Without a case law to back it up, I'm not really sure that's the case. Seems to me that in order to get nabbed by this crap, you need to do something serious to warrant it. Seriously... everything we're afraid of is really in the AC, and the AC can change on a whim... I mean, what's stopping them from unilaterally deciding all AR-15s are not reasonably different from ones on the banned list? The same arguments we use to point out the fallacy in their AWB can also be used to support an expansion of the ban to include our currently NJ-legal rifles.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Without a case law to back it up, I'm not really sure that's the case. Seems to me that in order to get nabbed by this crap, you need to do something serious to warrant it. Seriously... everything we're afraid of is really in the AC, and the AC can change on a whim... I mean, what's stopping them from unilaterally deciding all AR-15s are not reasonably different from ones on the banned list? The same arguments we use to point out the fallacy in their AWB can also be used to support an expansion of the ban to include our currently NJ-legal rifles.

 

just saying.. by the book.. it is illegal.. not that it is logical to be worried about it..