Is this Nj legal?

[oofogbp 3]

http://www.dsarms.com/Semi-Auto-762-X-39-RPD-Rifle--RPDRIFLE/productinfo/RPDRIFLE/

 

I know I would only be able to use 15rd belts, but it does have a threaded barrel, and that's what I'm unsure of

 

Thanks

[Zed's_Dead 16]

I think you would have to permanentlymodify the drums as well so that they could not accept belts with more than 15 rounds. And it just looks so darn scary I'm sure you would have problems with it!

[vladtepes 1,060]

http://www.dsarms.com/Semi-Auto-762-X-39-RPD-Rifle--RPDRIFLE/productinfo/RPDRIFLE/

 

I know I would only be able to use 15rd belts, but it does have a threaded barrel, and that's what I'm unsure of

 

Thanks

 

 

the answer will always be the same..

 

1) Is the gun banned by name?

 

YES - The gun is illegal and can not be owned in NJ

NO - proceed to question 2

 

2) Is the gun substantially identical to anything banned by name?

 

A. semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 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;

 

YES - it is substantially identical - then the gun is to be considered an assault rifle and therefore illegal

NO - it is not substantially identical as defined by law - then the weapon is legal...

 

if it can accept detachable mags has a pistol grip AND a threaded barrel.. throw a brake on it and have the brake welded.. that should solve your problem.. I do not see the weapon obviously listed as banned.. but might want to double check the list..

 

Here is the list of guns banned by name..

Algimec AGM1 type

Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"

Armalite AR-180 type

Australian Automatic Arms SAR

Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms

Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic firearms

Bushmaster Assault Rifle

Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900

CETME G3

Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88 type

Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series

Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2, AR 100 types

Demro TAC-1 carbine type

Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types

FAMAS MAS223 types

FN-FAL, FN-LAR, or FN-FNC type semi-automatic firearms

Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 shotguns

G3SA type

Galil type

Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1

Intratec TEC 9 and 22 semi-automatic firearms

M1 carbine type

M14S type

MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-9 mm carbine type firearms

PJK M-68 carbine type

Plainfield Machine Company Carbine

Ruger K-Mini-14/5 and Mini-14/5

SIG AMT, SIG 550SP, SIG 551SP, SIG PE-57 types

SKS with detachable magazine type

Spectre Auto carbine type

Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48 type

Sterling MK-6, MK-7 and SAR types

Steyr A.U.G. semi-automatic firearms

USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun

Uzi type semi-automatic firearms

Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic firearms

Weaver Arm Nighthawk

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

I think you would have to permanentlymodify the drums as well so that they could not accept belts with more than 15 rounds. And it just looks so darn scary I'm sure you would have problems with it!

 

 

 

no...its like saying an ammo can that holds multiple AR15 magazines attached to the bottom of an AR is illegal. Its not. The drum that holds belts in NOT an ammunition feeding device. The belt is.

[oofogbp 3]

Yea I've been through the list and as far as I can see it's good to go as long as it has a welded break.

This may be a stupid question but is a belt cosidered a detachable mag?

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

Yea I've been through the list and as far as I can see it's good to go as long as it has a welded break.

This may be a stupid question but is a belt cosidered a detachable mag?

 

 

Yes

[Zed's_Dead 16]

no...its like saying an ammo can that holds multiple AR15 magazines attached to the bottom of an AR is illegal. Its not. The drum that holds belts in NOT an ammunition feeding device. The belt is.

 

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this, Glenn.

 

NJSA 2C:39-1y defines a large capacity magazine as "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 semiautomatic firearm."

 

There's no way to directly feed ammo from an ammo can into an AR, so I don't think your analogy works.

 

EDIT: Discussed this with my law partner...he agrees with Glenn's analysis. I still think that the words "capable of holding" are enough to make the drum a "high capacity" magazine. We both agree that no matter what, you're going to get charged with having a high capacity magazine if you have a 100 round drum in your possession and get caught with it for whatever reason.

[halbautomatisch 60]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this, Glenn.

 

NJSA 2C:39-1y defines a large capacity magazine as "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 semiautomatic firearm."

 

There's no way to directly feed ammo from an ammo can into an AR, so I don't think your analogy works.

 

EDIT: Discussed this with my law partner...he agrees with Glenn's analysis. I still think that the words "capable of holding" are enough to make the drum a "high capacity" magazine. We both agree that no matter what, you're going to get charged with having a high capacity magazine if you have a 100 round drum in your possession and get caught with it for whatever reason.

Not to say your wrong about being charged with hi cap possession - this is NJ after all, but if the drum is incapable of feeding into the rifle without a belt, I would think the drum is legal as is.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this, Glenn.

 

NJSA 2C:39-1y defines a large capacity magazine as "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 semiautomatic firearm."

 

There's no way to directly feed ammo from an ammo can into an AR, so I don't think your analogy works.

 

EDIT: Discussed this with my law partner...he agrees with Glenn's analysis. I still think that the words "capable of holding" are enough to make the drum a "high capacity" magazine. We both agree that no matter what, you're going to get charged with having a high capacity magazine if you have a 100 round drum in your possession and get caught with it for whatever reason.

 

 

yes but that drum cannot feed ammo into the gun. It is a round device that holds 15 round belts (magazines). If I have an ammo can and throw in 10 15 round AR magazines, it is the same thing.

 

 

Its like saying that this would be illegal even if it only contained 15 round belts. Its just a box....it does not feed ammunition

[Zed's_Dead 16]

yes but that drum cannot feed ammo into the gun. It is a round device that holds 15 round belts (magazines). If I have an ammo can and throw in 10 15 round AR magazines, it is the same thing.

 

 

Its like saying that this would be illegal even if it only contained 15 round belts. Its just a box....it does not feed ammunition

 

Glenn, that picture is perfect as that's the exact argument my partner used to make his point. I certainly understand the argument and even think it has merit. I just can't give the State enough credit to think that you wouldn't be charged and run up a large legal bill. And the penalties for "high capacity" mags are steep. Up to 18 month in jail and $10k fine.