ogfarmer 138 Posted February 5, 2014 A heads up. Tomorrow 2/6/14 the New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear Bill A823 which deals with defacing a firearm. The problem is that the way this bill is written it makes no exemption for normal wear and tear, refinishing a firearm to it's factory finish or even rust. I think it's important we call, email or contact by whichever means you please the members of the Law and Public Safety Committee and stress that these exemptions need to be added.The bill is: A823http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A1000/823_I1.HTM?utm_source=Defaced+Firearms+Bill&utm_campaign=Oct+11+updates&utm_medium=emailMembers of the Law and Public Saftey CommitteCharles Mainor (Chair) (D31)[email protected]Phone: 201-536-7851Fax: 201-536-7854Gilbert L. Wilson (Vice Chair) (D5)[email protected]Phone: 856-547-4800Fax: 856-547-5496Joseph Cryan (D20)[email protected]Phone: 908-624-0880Fax: 908-624-0587Gregory P. McGuckin (R10)[email protected]Phone: 732-840-9028Fax: 732-840-9757Erik Peterson (R23)[email protected]Phone: 908-238-0251Fax: 908-238-0256Nancy J. Pinkin (D18)[email protected]Phone: 732-548-1406Fax: 732-548-1623David P. Rible (R30)[email protected]Phone: 732-974-0400Fax: 732-974-2564Shavonda E. Sumter (D35)[email protected]Phone: 973-925-7061Fax: 973-925-7067Sponsors:Charles Mainor (Chair) (D31)[email protected]Phone: 201-536-7851Fax: 201-536-7854Gordon Diane Johnson1 Engle StreetSuite 108Englewood, NJ 07631p (201) 541-1118f (201) 541-1071[email protected] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted February 5, 2014 And so it begins - start making those calls, folks. Courtesy of ANJRPC. Today at 10:14 PM NJ ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER "DEFACED" FIREARMS BILL! A823 could land gun owners in jail for refinished or damaged firearms that might be deemed "defaced" under existing NJ law Please immediately tell committee members to amend A823 to protect legal gun owners from severe unintended consequences. On Thursday, February 6 at 2:00 p.m. the New Jersey Assembly Law & Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider A823, police safety legislation that would among other things significantly increase the penalties relating to "defaced" firearms. Because of New Jersey's longstanding poorly crafted definition of "defaced" firearms, it is possible that refinishing a firearm, or long-term damage from rust or scratches from ordinary wear and tear, could be deemed "defacement" subjecting honest gun owners to lengthy prison sentences, even though identifying information on the firearm is still legible. If deemed a defacement, refinishing a firearm could result in a 10-year jail sentence, and buying or selling a refinished, rusted or scratched firearm could result in a 5-year jail sentence. We raised these same concerns when an earlier version of this legislation was considered by the same committee in 2012. These concerns were acknowledged at that time and amendments were promised but were never implemented. This newly introduced version of the legislation does not address these concerns either. This legislation could easily be amended to address these concerns without compromising its crime fighting purpose. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE! TELL THEM TO AMEND A823 TO PROTECT LEGAL GUN OWNERS FROM SEVERE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted February 5, 2014 heres my letter Please Amend Bill A823Establishes “MarcAnthony’s Law;” criminalizes use of defaced or stolen firearm to injure a police officer; enhances penalties for defacing a firearm.The problem is that the way this bill is written it makes no exemption for normal wear and tear, refinishing a firearm to it's factory finish or even rust. Also Many firearms get custom paint jobs, Duracoating, Cerakoting, or refinishing, any of these would make legal gun owners criminals. These all need to be exempted from the bill.Bill A283 needs to define "defaced" as only Serial number removed or altered, WHICH is already a FEDERAL crime.Thank you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sota 1,191 Posted February 6, 2014 anyone know what the federal statute is? would be nice to include that in the conversation (since we know none of those people in that list will bother to educate themselves about the same.) edit: I see the 1968 GCA has a small blurb about it. are there any other federal statutes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted February 6, 2014 Err .. so does this change the definition of defaced? Because as far as I can tell all it does it changes some penalties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted February 6, 2014 they never defined defaced, the bill was brought up last year and was supposed to be amended, but they didnt and now are trying to run it thru again They are leaving the defineition of defaced up to anything not stock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted February 6, 2014 Don't take this as me defending anyone in our den of villainy we call a legislature, but do we have any court cases saying that? I mean traditionally defaced firearm means destroyed serial number. Have there been cases in NJ where they meant something else? Mind you, a better definition is better, I'm just trying to understand what people are worried about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted February 6, 2014 what people are worried about is that they leave it open to anything that changes the original format of the firearm. it gives them the ability to say since you duracoated your firearms you defaced its stock format Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted February 6, 2014 If ANJRPC is worried then I think its a concern, because the leg can use a broad paint brush and put anything as a defaced firearm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Stu 1,884 Posted February 6, 2014 My letter... Dear members of the Law and Public Safety Committee, When you consider bill A823 please answer these questions: Do you think that causing “serious bodily injury” to someone who is not a “law enforcement officer” to be less of a crime? Do you think that someone who attacks you, a member of the Assembly, is due a lower penalty than someone who attacks someone who just happens to work in law enforcement? Do you think I that someone who attacks me, a member of the general population, is due a lower penalty than someone who attacks someone who just happens to work in law enforcement? Do you think a firearm that has been “defaced” has greater potency or causes causes a greater injury? Do you think it would be a good idea to leave the term “defaced” undefined? I sincerely hope you honestly answer all of these questions with “no”. This should prompt you to ask yourselves these questions: When are the members of the Assembly going to start respecting ordinary citizens? Why do you feel the need to waste tax payers money and your own time discussing a law that treats causing “serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer” a special crime with a special penalty? Why do you feel the need to waste tax payers money and your own time discussing a law that treats causing “serious bodily injury” with any specific weapon a special crime with a special penalty? If you feel the existing penalty for causing “serious bodily injury” to anyone is insufficient why not address that for everyone? Yours... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted February 6, 2014 they never defined defaced, the bill was brought up last year and was supposed to be amended, but they didnt and now are trying to run it thru again They are leaving the defineition of defaced up to anything not stock Per the "existing" NJSA 2C:39-1 b b. "Deface" means to remove, deface, cover, alter or destroy the name of the maker, model designation, manufacturer’s serial number or any other distinguishing identification mark or number on any firearm. Has this changed at all? Although I do note that it does not account for "wear and tear." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 509 Posted February 6, 2014 This is the only gun bill on the agenda for tomorrow. Last time, all of the gun bills were done on the same day. This is a test to see if we show up like we did last year. I don't believe we are showing up this year. That's bad. They won. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted February 6, 2014 Oh stop. It's a nonsense bill. Why would we show up? It is already a federal crime so why would anyone deface a gun to start with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted February 6, 2014 I couldnt find that statute but now I am confused why this is bad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted February 6, 2014 Problem is they keep bringing up this nonsense. It's unrelenting. Non-stop. Reminds me of the bloated school budgets that get voted down, voted down, again and again, until they finally pass because everybody's tired. They're like harpies, like those ugly green flies on Long Beach Island. You swat them, you poison them, but when you go back to the bungalow you're covered with welts. If you sat still long enough they'd eat you alive. They get paid for this mischief. We have to work real jobs. You can go talk to them, write letters, emails, testify if they let you, but you might as well be speaking an extinct Turkic dialect. "All they want is to have their little guns and do whatever they want with them." Wait until Fois Gras is no longer governor. Sweeney will sign any and all of the anti-gun bills. 3.5 years. Begin the countdown. Unless His Corpulence realizes he has no chance to be the Hamburger Eater-in-Chief. Then he'll show his true colors and it will happen sooner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 509 Posted February 6, 2014 This is the only gun bill on the agenda for tomorrow. Last time, all of the gun bills were done on the same day. This is a test to see if we show up like we did last year. I don't believe we are showing up this year. That's bad. They won. Oh stop. It's a nonsense bill. Why would we show up? It is already a federal crime so why would anyone deface a gun to start with. The test of any theory is whether it can be used to predict the future. If the rest of the anti gun bills show up on the next a Law and Public Safety Committee agenda, we'll know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted February 6, 2014 Sorry, if we show up or not clearly doesn't matter. Last year we showed up in huge numbers and they voted for this crap anyway. They don't need to test the waters, they've tested them last year. They had a pile of people yell at them, them passed the laws, some got vetoed and not a single one of these clowns was voted out of office. WHy do you think they give a crap about how many people show up this year or testing the waters? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Howard 538 Posted February 6, 2014 Sorry, if we show up or not clearly doesn't matter. Last year we showed up in huge numbers and they voted for this crap anyway. They don't need to test the waters, they've tested them last year. They had a pile of people yell at them, them passed the laws, some got vetoed and not a single one of these clowns was voted out of office. WHy do you think they give a crap about how many people show up this year or testing the waters? Nailed it! The action has to be to educate the public and get them to vote these idiots out of office. While I wish no violence on any individual I think a few more incidents like the Short Hills car jacking might bet more people on our side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted February 6, 2014 I couldnt find that statute but now I am confused why this is bad From the NJ Permanent Statutes Database: NJSA 2C:39-1 b. Scroll down a little once you click on that URL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted February 6, 2014 Bill was amended to exempt refinishing, rust, scratches and normal wear and tear if not used in a commission of a crime Scott Bach was there and seemed pleased with the amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted February 6, 2014 Good. I'm not pleased that they are spending time making a federal crime into yet a different kind of state crime, but it is every way a non-issue otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JayWilling 33 Posted February 7, 2014 Bill was amended to exempt refinishing, rust, scratches and normal wear and tear if not used in a commission of a crime Scott Bach was there and seemed pleased with the amendment. So does that mean if you rob a 7-11 with a rusty gun you get a stiffer sentence? HAHAHA! These guys are CRIMEFIGHTERS, baby! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cemeterys Gun Blob 165 Posted February 8, 2014 a few more incidents like the Short Hills car jacking might bet more people on our side. Dream on, this is NJ........... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cemeterys Gun Blob 165 Posted February 8, 2014 while concern about this bill is now a moot point, this was the problem with the bill........ Because of New Jersey's longstanding poorly crafted definition of "defaced" firearms, it is possible that refinishing a firearm, or long-term damage from rust or scratches from ordinary wear and tear, could be deemed "defacement" subjecting honest gun owners to lengthy prison sentences, even though identifying information on the firearm is still legible. If deemed a defacement, refinishing a firearm could result in a 10-year jail sentence, and buying or selling a refinished, rusted or scratched firearm could result in a 5-year jail sentence. While a brand new Glock has nice shiny factory fresh serial number, an antique rifle or shotgun won't.......but hey for new gun crowd, it don't matter I guess, unless you want to duracoat it..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1HitCombo 0 Posted February 9, 2014 I hope people are calling/emailing members of the Law and Public Safety Committee and saying 'Thank You'. I can't remember the last time the committee stopped and listened to the concerns of gun owners. We should encourage them to listen to us more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Russ2882 0 Posted February 10, 2014 Good. I'm not pleased that they are spending time making a federal crime into yet a different kind of state crime, but it is every way a non-issue otherwise. However, what about modifications with after market parts. By not using OEM parts to repair a lawyer could argue it's been defaced even if the modifications make it safer, more reliable, or easier to use? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted February 10, 2014 However, what about modifications with after market parts. By not using OEM parts to repair a lawyer could argue it's been defaced even if the modifications make it safer, more reliable, or easier to use? How in pete's name do you get to that?? Defaced is already defined as damaging or hiding the manufacturer information and serial number and now exempts refinishing. How do you get to parts replacements being a problem? I swear sometimes we are own worst enemies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kirk2022 43 Posted February 10, 2014 How in pete's name do you get to that?? Defaced is already defined as damaging or hiding the manufacturer information and serial number and now exempts refinishing. How do you get to parts replacements being a problem? I swear sometimes we are own worst enemies. +100 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Russ2882 0 Posted February 10, 2014 +100 Sorry, I've only been around for a year. My thoughts were with other discussions about "trigger" modifications that I remember seeing elsewhere. I'll retract my question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted February 10, 2014 Its fine, I may have been a bit harsh. My point is that before we panic we should always read what the law says, instead of jumping to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites