NJ legal?

[DJNEB 1]

so i recently was at a gun range in PA and someone there had an ak47 pistol... i have never seen one before so i asked about it, and the individual let me shoot a few rounds - let me say it is difficult to stay accurate but it got me thinking - i am a fan of ak style guns and i already have a rifle, is there any way to get somewhat of an ak style pistol, firing 7.62x39 rounds if possible? or would this be considered an assault weapon? to help clarify what i am talking about, the gun this man had at a gun range was an ak47 draco pistol in the traditional 7.62x39 round. would these or something of similar style be allowed in nj? and would a dealer charge me an arm and a leg to actually get it here? thanks for any advice!

[Maksim 1,504]

If it says AK on it, no go. Furthermore, pistols have to obviously be under 15 rounds, and under the weight limit. I do not know if the draco is under the weight limit.

[totalabuse 27]

If it says AK on it, no go. .

 

 

There is no law, no legal document, nowhere is it written that an arm is illegal for simply being marked AK anything.

[PK90 3,570]

There is no law, no legal document, nowhere is it written that an arm is illegal for simply being marked AK anything.

 

+1000

[Dan 177]

There is no law, no legal document, nowhere is it written that an arm is illegal for simply being marked AK anything.

 

True, and we need to fight the AG's latest crackdown on the IO rifle and Auto Ordinance carbine fiascos in which she declared them "substaintially identical" to named banned guns, while ignoring the NJAC evil feature list guidelines in how to determine if something is "substantially identical".

 

It appears that she can ignore the evil feature list without any repercussions, while if we do we are facing 10 years in the slammer.

 

And to the OP, the Draco fails on many grounds to be able to own in NJ, especially the weight limit and "barrel shroud". I believe Bushmaster makes a Carbon pistol that doesn't have the shroud and comes in at 49 ounces if you are interested in looking at those. You would of course need to have the compensator pinned on.

 

NJAC 13:54-1.2

 

ii. A semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

 

(1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

 

(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

 

(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;

 

(4) Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and/or

 

(5) A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm; and

[Teky0101 6]

Hi DJNEB,

I was actually looking at purchasing one of these pistols a while back since they looked really fun to shoot at the range! However, upon investigation I think that a Draco would be illegal since it meets more that three of the criteria listed below. I believe numbers four, five and I believe two apply. I also checked on Budsguns.com and they sell this pistol but they also will not sell it to NJ. Personally I was really bummed to find this out since I really wanted one. I hope this information helps!

 

ii. A semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at

least two of the following:

(1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor,

forward handgrip, or silencer;

(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and

that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being

burned;

(4) Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and/or

(5) A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

 

 

 

Budsguns.com Link: http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/64074

 

Thanks,

Teky0101

[vladtepes 1,060]

as pointed out.. no you can not have in NJ..

 

I set out looking for a NJ legal rifle caliber pistol (think AK/AR pistols) and found nothing that was appealing..

[Maksim 1,504]

I get that there is no specific law, try telling that IO (who was told they cannot have and Cheyenne whom were explicitely told not to sell anything AK'ish. There is the law the way it is written, and the law the way it is interpreted by the AG.

 

IO had to remove any refrence to "Kalashnikov" from their receivers and marketing materials to comply with NJ AG office, and Cheyenne was told to stop selling anything that looks like an AK.

 

Try finding an FFL that will sell anything labeled AK or Kalashnikov the way the law is interpreted today.

 

Legal, yes.... but how would a jury of 12 view it?

[vladtepes 1,060]

I get that there is no specific law, try telling that IO (who was told they cannot have and Cheyenne whom were explicitely told not to sell anything AK'ish. There is the law the way it is written, and the law the way it is interpreted by the AG.

 

IO had to remove any refrence to "Kalashnikov" from their receivers and marketing materials to comply with NJ AG office, and Cheyenne was told to stop selling anything that looks like an AK.

 

Try finding an FFL that will sell anything labeled AK or Kalashnikov the way the law is interpreted today.

 

Legal, yes.... but how would a jury of 12 view it?

 

 

I agree with you man...

 

HERE is a major problem in NJ as best I understand it..

 

There is NJ law and there is NJ interpretation/practice of said law....

 

You can swear up and down that the law does this or does that.. and while I may agree with you.. the standard practice APPEARS to be the following..

 

if the gun is SPECIFICALLY banned by name.. it is illegal..

if you say "hey I am selling NJ legal AK47s.." then you are screwed... not because that was the INTENTION of the law.. but because that has instead become the practice... same thing with variants that are TOTALLY different than named weapons.. even though they are not "clones" and therefore not affected by the "evil features game" we STILL refuse to put flash hiders or folding stocks on them.. why? because even though the evil features game technically only applies to "the list" our community has blindly accepted that as the standard for ANY semi automatic rifle....

 

so while the law CLEARLY states that things like that AO M1 carbine SHOULD be legal.. it is shot down because the practice is not the same as the law..

 

just my 2 cents..

[Dan 177]

I agree with you man...

 

HERE is a major problem in NJ as best I understand it..

 

There is NJ law and there is NJ interpretation/practice of said law....

 

You can swear up and down that the law does this or does that.. and while I may agree with you.. the standard practice APPEARS to be the following..

 

if the gun is SPECIFICALLY banned by name.. it is illegal..

if you say "hey I am selling NJ legal AK47s.." then you are screwed... not because that was the INTENTION of the law.. but because that has instead become the practice... same thing with variants that are TOTALLY different than named weapons.. even though they are not "clones" and therefore not affected by the "evil features game" we STILL refuse to put flash hiders or folding stocks on them.. why? because even though the evil features game technically only applies to "the list" our community has blindly accepted that as the standard for ANY semi automatic rifle....

 

so while the law CLEARLY states that things like that AO M1 carbine SHOULD be legal.. it is shot down because the practice is not the same as the law..

 

just my 2 cents..

 

I disagree here Vlad. The NJAC evil feature list is to be used to determine if any (new , old, any, etc) SA gun is a "Assault Weapon". They basically nullified the named list and replaced it with the evil feature list. Its right there in plain english, they say if a SA gun meets the evil feature list criteria then it is "identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon". Again this is NJAC, and the original "unconstitutionally vague" named list still appears in the statutes. So effectively its all F'd up as the state could try you on the named list in the statutes, or the NJAC evil feature list.

 

From the NJAC:

 

The following are examples of manufacturer changes that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm: the name or designation of the firearm; the color of the firearm; the material used to make the barrel or stock of the firearm; the material used to make a pistol grip; and a modification of a pistol grip. This is not an exclusive list. A semi-automatic firearm should be considered to be “substantially identical," that is, identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon if it meets the below listed criteria:

 

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;

We know the rest....

[vladtepes 1,060]

I disagree here Vlad. The NJAC evil feature list is to be used to determine if any (new , old, any, etc) SA gun is a "Assault Weapon". They basically nullified the named list and replaced it with the evil feature list. Its right there in plain english, they say if a SA gun meets the evil feature list criteria then it is "identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon". Again this is NJAC, and the original "unconstitutionally vague" named list still appears in the statutes. So effectively its all F'd up as the state could try you on the named list in the statutes, or the NJAC evil feature list.

 

From the NJAC:

 

 

I used to say that all of the time.. and then someone corrected me here.. I believe it was Joejaxx..

[Dan 177]

I'd love to know that side of the story. No matter how much I pour over those NJAC guidelines, I can't read it any other way.

[joejaxx 38]

I'd love to know that side of the story. No matter how much I pour over those NJAC guidelines, I can't read it any other way.

 

Please read this:

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23345-siq-mosquito-threaded-barrel-illegal-in-nj/page__p__310841#entry310841

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

"Avtomat Kalashnikov type" is illegal. If it is stamped AK, it could mean Awesome Kittys for all anyone knows. Doesnt neccisarily mean Avtomat Kalashnikov. Hell, like I said before, the MAK90 was upheld as legal and MAK stands for modified avtomat kalashnikov

[Dan 177]

Please read this:

 

http://njgunforums.c...841#entry310841

 

I still disagree, here is why: (btw, this is from the actual NJAC , not the original Guideline letter which has some hubbub on what they believe and why they are prescribing the code.)

 

1. is the named list... no need to paste that here.

 

2. Any firearm manufactured under any designation, which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed in paragraph 1 above. As used in this definition, the term “substantial” means pertaining to the substance, matter, material or essence of a thing and the term “identical” means exactly the same. Hence, a firearm is substantially identical to another only if it is identical in all material, essential respects. A firearm is not substantially identical to a listed assault firearm unless it is identical except for differences that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm. (you argue that changing the receiver would alter the "essential nature of the firearm")

 

The following are examples of manufacturer changes that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm: the name or designation of the firearm; the color of the firearm; the material used to make the barrel or stock of the firearm; the material used to make a pistol grip; and a modification of a pistol grip. This is not an exclusive list. (you mention the receiver again here, that these example items do not include it with the logic that changing the receiver would create a 'new' type of firearm that would not be subjected to the "substantially identical test". This falls apart as the list is "not an exclusive list", and can be argued that changing the receiver would not alter the "essential nature of the firearm") A semi-automatic firearm should be considered to be “substantially identical," that is, identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon if it meets the below listed criteria: (here is where it comes together, they are PROVIDING us with a list of things that do define the "essential nature" of the firearm in that it would be considered "substantially identical" to a AW... Notice how changing the receiver it not an option for us.)

 

i. A semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: (notice how they say "a semi-automatic rifle", not a "substantially identical clone" or whatnot)

 

(1) A folding or telescoping stock;

 

etc we know the rest...

[PK90 3,570]

Dan,

Do you agree that any firearm that is NOT on "the list", or NOT "substantially identical" to any firearm on "the list", can have ANY and ALL evil features? The Admin Code/AG Guideline directly refers to firearms on "the list" several times and therefore does not include ALL semi-auto firearms of a new type or configuration.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

While you may think that if its not on the list its OK to have features... think again

 

The 2 or more thing is how they determine if something is a clone. If you have a VZ58 with 2 or more features, it can be said that it is substantially identical to EVERYTHING on the list. Same with SCAR etc. How else will they determine if a semi automatic rifle is a clone or not? They are not firearm aficionados. They dont look at function. If it has 2 or more features it is *A* listed gun, not neccisarily a certain one. For example, if a WASR-10 has too many features, they can call it a galil for all anyone cares because both the WASR-10 in question and the galil have 2+ features, either way its illegal. If you have a SCAR and 2 features, they will say it is substantially identical to a colt ar-15. Why? Colt AR-15: Illegal because it has 2 or more evil features. SCAR: has 2 or more evil features. Therfore it is a colt AR-15 type. They can call an AR an AK for all they care, with the logic of "Your XM15 has 2 features, an AK type has 2 features, therfore your XM15 is an AK type and illegal"

 

Not to mention I have spoken to the retired head of firearms/ballistics and he has confirmed that the way its run is 2 or more features and its a nogo regardless of its name/style.

 

 

Its all about the features. Forget the list. (Except for that M1 carbine ruling which is totally against all logic and legal bounds...)

[Dan 177]

Dan,

Do you agree that any firearm that is NOT on "the list", or NOT "substantially identical" to any firearm on "the list", can have ANY and ALL evil features? The Admin Code/AG Guideline directly refers to firearms on "the list" several times and therefore does not include ALL semi-auto firearms of a new type or configuration.

 

I believe that any SA firearm that has 2 or more features on the evil feature list for all intents and purposes is considered by NJ to be "substantially identical" to a firearm on the named list. They spell it out for us. "A semi-automatic firearm should be considered to be “substantially identical," that is, identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon if it meets the below listed criteria". They don't say "A substantially identical clone of a semi-automatic firearm on the named list should be considered to be "substantially identical"...". It would be circular logic (not to say NJ's gun laws aren't logical of course...) . They are giving it to us right there, its SI if the SA gun has 2 or more of these things.... even for new types of guns.

 

While you may think that if its not on the list its OK to have features... think again

 

The 2 or more thing is how they determine if something is a clone. If you have a VZ58 with 2 or more features, it can be said that it is substantially identical to EVERYTHING on the list. Same with SCAR etc. How else will they determine if a semi automatic rifle is a clone or not? They are not firearm aficionados. They dont look at function. If it has 2 or more features it is *A* listed gun, not neccisarily a certain one. For example, if a WASR-10 has too many features, they can call it a galil for all anyone cares, either way its illegal. If you have a SCAR and 2 features, they will say it is substantially identical to a colt ar-15. Why? Colt AR-15: Illegal because it has 2 or more evil features. SCAR: has 2 or more evil features. Therfore it is a colt AR-15 type.

 

Not to mention I have spoken to the retired head of firearms/ballistics and he has confirmed that the way its run is 2 or more features and its a nogo regardless of its name/style.

 

 

Its all about the features. Forget the list. (Except for that M1 carbine ruling which is totally against all logic and legal bounds...)

 

Yes, though it is still in the statutes, the NJAC evil feature list has essentially replaced it. Look around at the firearms we have in NJ and that is obvious. We can have stuff that looks cosmetically similar, or even new all together SA "cool style" rifles like the SCAR, provided it is not "substantially identical" as defined in the NJAC evil feature list. Period.

[halbautomatisch 60]

While you may think that if its not on the list its OK to have features... think again

 

The 2 or more thing is how they determine if something is a clone. If you have a VZ58 with 2 or more features, it can be said that it is substantially identical to EVERYTHING on the list. Same with SCAR etc. How else will they determine if a semi automatic rifle is a clone or not? They are not firearm aficionados. They dont look at function. If it has 2 or more features it is *A* listed gun, not neccisarily a certain one. For example, if a WASR-10 has too many features, they can call it a galil for all anyone cares because both the WASR-10 in question and the galil have 2+ features, either way its illegal. If you have a SCAR and 2 features, they will say it is substantially identical to a colt ar-15. Why? Colt AR-15: Illegal because it has 2 or more evil features. SCAR: has 2 or more evil features. Therfore it is a colt AR-15 type. They can call an AR an AK for all they care, with the logic of "Your XM15 has 2 features, an AK type has 2 features, therfore your XM15 is an AK type and illegal"

 

Not to mention I have spoken to the retired head of firearms/ballistics and he has confirmed that the way its run is 2 or more features and its a nogo regardless of its name/style.

 

 

Its all about the features. Forget the list. (Except for that M1 carbine ruling which is totally against all logic and legal bounds...)

The problem with what you're saying here is, that this for the most part has not been tested in a court of law. The banned gun list IS law, it's under 2C. The evil features list, which is under title 13, is an AG's interpretation of the law. AG's do not make law, they enforce it, it is up to a judge (or a jury) to rule whether a person has violated the law. This, for the most part, has not happened in NJ yet, partly because prosecutors are reluctant to charge a suspect with AW possession unless the gun is mentioned specifically on the list. They know they may have their case thrown out on those grounds, so they usually go after the obvious violations, such as possessing mags that exceed 15 round capacity or other non gun related charges. Their objective is to get a conviction, not set a precedent.

[Dan 177]

The problem with what you're saying here is, that this for the most part has not been tested in a court of law. The banned gun list IS law, it's under 2C. The evil features list, which is under title 13, is an AG's interpretation of the law. AG's do not make law, they enforce it, it is up to a judge (or a jury) to rule whether a person has violated the law. This, for the most part, has not happened in NJ yet, partly because prosecutors are reluctant to charge a suspect with AW possession unless the gun is mentioned specifically on the list. They know they may have their case thrown out on those grounds, so they usually go after the obvious violations, such as possessing mags that exceed 15 round capacity or other non gun related charges. Their objective is to get a conviction, not set a precedent.

 

Correct, I've been preaching this as well. But what glennp is saying is the best way for someone to avoid being prosecuted in NJ for AW possession.

 

NJ gun owners owning EBR type guns are in a state of quantum flux of being legal and illegal (taking 2C statutes and NJAC guidelines) at the same time until observed in court. The "substantially identical" crap is still in 2C, and they can try to play that card ignoring the NJAC if they feel they will win. There is NJ v. Merrill (MAK-90) case as precedent where the court found the NJ AWB unconstitutionally vague (NJ decided NOT to appeal for fear it would wind up in federal court with the statutes being struck down).

 

We are screwed both ways. The 2C list can be circumvented with completely new guns like our favorite example the SCAR. BUT , then we have the double edged sword of the NJAC evil features list stating they interpret anything with 2 or more of the features to be "substantially identical" to the any gun on the 2C list.

 

So if anyone is willing to buy a SCAR with a threaded barrel and folding stock, and be the test case, they realistically have a good shot in court as technically only 2C is the "law" they could be tried under. In addition NJ v Merrill could be used as well showing precedent that NJ's AWB is unconstitutionally vague. Thing is I doubt anyone here would want that kind of attention, or to carry that kind of risk (10 yrs).

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Correct, I've been preaching this as well. But what glennp is saying is the best way for someone to avoid being prosecuted in NJ for AW possession.

 

NJ gun owners owning EBR type guns are in a state of quantum flux of being legal and illegal (taking 2C statutes and NJAC guidelines) at the same time until observed in court. The "substantially identical" crap is still in 2C, and they can try to play that card ignoring the NJAC if they feel they will win. There is NJ v. Merrill (MAK-90) case as precedent where the court found the NJ AWB unconstitutionally vague (NJ decided NOT to appeal for fear it would wind up in federal court with the statutes being struck down).

 

We are screwed both ways. The 2C list can be circumvented with completely new guns like our favorite example the SCAR. BUT , then we have the double edged sword of the NJAC evil features list stating they interpret anything with 2 or more of the features to be "substantially identical" to the any gun on the 2C list.

 

So if anyone is willing to buy a SCAR with a threaded barrel and folding stock, and be the test case, they realistically have a good shot in court as technically only 2C is the "law" they could be tried under. In addition NJ v Merrill could be used as well showing precedent that NJ's AWB is unconstitutionally vague. Thing is I doubt anyone here would want that kind of attention, or to carry that kind of risk (10 yrs).

 

How does one become a test case? If I put a Magpul UBR on my rifle, and don't shoot it in NJ or beat my SO, how will they ever know?

[Dan 177]

How does one become a test case? If I put a Magpul UBR on my rifle, and don't shoot it in NJ or beat my SO, how will they ever know?

 

I'm sure posting a vid of you with your un-pinned UBR in operation installed on one of your rifles that already has a pistol grip would suffice.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I'm sure posting a vid of you with your un-pinned UBR in operation installed on one of your rifles that already has a pistol grip would suffice.

 

Interesting. Unfortunately, I cannot afford a UBR at this time.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

I'm sure posting a vid of you with your un-pinned UBR in operation installed on one of your rifles that already has a pistol grip would suffice.

 

Really? Because that case in south jersey wound up finding the guy with an AR-15 and "adjustable" stock innocent because the stock was not telescopic but adjustable...

 

It was a standard M4 style stock.

[Dan 177]

Really? Because that case in south jersey wound up finding the guy with an AR-15 and "adjustable" stock innocent because the stock was not telescopic but adjustable...

 

It was a standard M4 style stock.

 

Good point. Between that case and Merrill, we have 2 NJ cases on our side.

 

I'll play as that last case was around adjustable versus telescopic... Someone do a "test case" with a folding stock and unpinned flash suppressor on a SCAR. According to 2C it is not on the "list", that plus NJAC is not law, only guidelines. So that would be a good test.

 

Technically any AW prosecution should be met with... "NJ v. Merrill , the court found the NJ gun laws around the AWB to be unconstitutionally vague", if the prosecutor tries to use the NJAC evil feature list, technically.. "NJAC are not laws created by the legislature , they are operational guidelines that NJ uses in order to internally enforce uniformity in its dealings".

 

Now , what would the judge or jury say is another question.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Good point. Between that case and Merrill, we have 2 NJ cases on our side.

 

I'll play as that last case was around adjustable versus telescopic... Someone do a "test case" with a folding stock and unpinned flash suppressor on a SCAR. According to 2C it is not on the "list", that plus NJAC is not law, only guidelines. So that would be a good test.

 

Technically any AW prosecution should be met with... "NJ v. Merrill , the court found the NJ gun laws around the AWB to be unconstitutionally vague", if the prosecutor tries to use the NJAC evil feature list, technically.. "NJAC are not laws created by the legislature , they are operational guidelines that NJ uses in order to internally enforce uniformity in its dealings".

 

Now , what would the judge or jury say is another question.

 

Wait, we've had 2 such cases??? I know of one in Sussex County (?) but one in South Jersey?? Does anyone have information of this?

[Dan 177]

Wait, we've had 2 such cases??? I know of one in Sussex County (?) but one in South Jersey?? Does anyone have information of this?

 

No details yet besides hearsay. Jury found in favor of the defendant in that the M4 carbine stock was an "adjustable stock" , not a "telescopic" stock. A win for M4 carbine stocks, and for something to set precedance, but its not like it altered the law. You would still be arrested and charged for an unpinned M4 carbine stock (aka AW in NJ), then have your day in court and all over again prove it is adjustable to a jury (of course with the precedence on your side this time).

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

No details yet besides hearsay. Jury found in favor of the defendant in that the M4 carbine stock was an "adjustable stock" , not a "telescopic" stock. A win for M4 carbine stocks, and for something to set precedance, but its not like it altered the law. You would still be arrested and charged for an unpinned M4 carbine stock (aka AW in NJ), then have your day in court and all over again prove it is adjustable to a jury (of course with the precedence on your side this time).

 

 

No, it is not hearsay. I spoke with the expert witness from the defense. it is TRUFAX!

[Dan 177]

No, it is not hearsay. I spoke with the expert witness from the defense. it is TRUFAX!

 

Would really like to read the public case records!

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

sent him an email.

 

From me: "Do you happen to have the public records from the case you just did with the “adjustable” stock? Theres discussion on the message boards and if I could post them, that would be awesome."

 

From him:

 

"Glenn,

 

I do not. The decision is only valid in Cumberland Co. if the State decides to not appeal. Also, the AG can give an expaned definition of "telescoping" that would kill the peoples (jury) decision that the law was vague or whatever their reasoning was. It was a jury nullification of that portion of the law. Very interesting on what the people had to say about the law.

 

I seem to be the prosecution's worst enemy lately. They have had it one sided for years and then I come along and give a balanced opposing viewpoint and their case falls apart."

 

He gave me permission to copy the email