Jump to content
maintenanceguy

NJ Gun Laws Being Re-Adopted and Open to Public Comment Now.

Recommended Posts

The Section of the NJ Admin Code (NJAC 13:54) that deals with carry permits, assault weapons, mag limits, dealer procedures, and lots of other stuff is up for re-adoption with several changes. There is a 60 day public comment period.

Some of the proposed changes:

  • Shotguns become "assault weapons" with only one evil feature instead of the current two evil features.
  • FIDs would expire 30 days after an address (or any other) change. Currently they are good until replaced.
  • Dealer records could become electronic
  • Lots of other changes.

Since this is the administrative code and not the statutes, there is no legislative process.  The  Superintendent of State Police just gets to write changes to the law.  The only "check" is that we get to comment which isn't much of a check.  

 

You can download the proposed changes here but keep in mind, the entire 13:54 is up for comment, not just the changes.   I plan to comment on several parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much of a check? Comments are huge!

 

Any response holds weight of law in the favor of the public with respect to enforcement.

 

Get in there and embarrass the crap out of them on justifiable need, using the entire rest of the country as an example. Then get their responses national attention from AGs, governors, political party reps, blame Christie, and attention of the media and embarrass the crap out of them on the national stage. Our best strategy with these people is to make them look like fools to other states and the media like that mother from Philly did, and I brought up that strategy years ago.

 

Comments shut down the proposed ATF rule requiring Sheriff signature for Corps and Trusts on NFA items for nearly a year. They were completed blown over. By the time they get around to it there may not be the political will to do it (unlikely but worth a shot). And the responses will be a gold mine for gun owners and defense attorneys alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Section of the NJ Admin Code (NJAC 13:54) that deals with carry permits, assault weapons, mag limits, dealer procedures, and lots of other stuff is up for re-adoption with several changes. There is a 60 day public comment period.

 

Some of the proposed changes:

  • Shotguns become "assault weapons" with only one evil feature instead of the current two evil features.
  • FIDs would expire 30 days after an address (or any other) change. Currently they are good until replaced.
  • Dealer records could become electronic
  • Lots of other changes.

Since this is the administrative code and not the statutes, there is no legislative process.  The  Superintendent of State Police just gets to write changes to the law.  The only "check" is that we get to comment which isn't much of a check.  

 

You can download the proposed changes here but keep in mind, the entire 13:54 is up for comment, not just the changes.   I plan to comment on several parts.

 

isn't that illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't that illegal?

Most NJAC is written by regulators or other agencies that have been given statutory authority to write laws (regulations, whatever you prefer) by the legislature in certain matters.

 

That is why there is a public comment rule, and responses to comments are binding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un-facebooked OP's link so that it actually works:

 

http://njsp.org/news/pdf/rp_20141215_1354.pdf

 

From the PDF - where to submit comments:

 

 

Submit comments by February 13, 2015, to:

Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, Superintendent
Attn: Firearms Investigation Unit
New Jersey State Police
PO Box 7068
West Trenton, New Jersey 08638

[email protected]
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure shotguns have only one evil feature allowed now.  Thats why pistol grip semi-auto's are a no-no here.

 

Do you have a better link for the comment submission ?

 

Semi auto shotguns can't but pumps can have pistol grips...

 

Also looking for a better link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the awb removed more than anything. its over 20 years old. all the weapons they ban by name are all nearly outdated

plus its really easy to argue and punch all kinds of holes through its logic

Logic is something that the majority of our current assembly and house lack. Things that make sense are not part of their ajenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AWB is written into the STATUTE.  The statute gives the list of guns that are banned and then says that any gun that is "substantially identical" is also banned.  The statute would need to be changed by the legislature.

 

This re-adoption is of the ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.  The admin. code is the part of the law that created (invented?) the 5 evil features list.   So you get to comment against the stupid evil features rule but even if it was removed, you'd still have the statute.

 

Right now, an AR15 clone that does not have 2 evil features is legal because the Admin Code says it is.  If the admin code went away, that same gun might become illegal because it is "substantially identical" to the AR15 on the banned list in the statute.    

 

Firearm laws are ridiculously complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell is a "form of register"?

 

The shotgun thing is really odd. The current code is a bit confusing because it lists 6rd capacity as a separate item but then as part of the two item thing. It look like the new one is trying to clarify that by going to one. That would could be kinda crazy depending out it is actually worded, but I get the feeling that the separate 6rd thing is going away, and we are left with you can't have pistol grips, folding stocks, or high cap mags (or really Saiga's?). The way I'm seeing is this is that it bans Saiga's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is current code regarding semi auto shotguns.

 

 

iii. A semi-automatic shotgun that 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 fixed magazine capacity in excess of six rounds; and/or
(4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;
 
3. A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a folding stock or a pistol grip;

 

This is proposed code for semi auto shotguns

 

 

iii. A semi-automatic shotgun that has [at least two] one or more of the following:
(1)-(4) (No change.)
 
[3. A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a folding stock or a pistol grip;]

 

They have slipped that feature count reduction in to one so yes it looks like it would ban any shotgun with a detachable magazine along with 6+, folding stock or a pistol grip.

 

This is a sneaky way how they are gonna eventually change all the laws here. If they cant do it thru bills they will change how its coded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the current statute for semi-auto shotguns is one evil feature. The proposed change in the code is just to correct an error made when the code was originally written and bring it into alignment with the statute - which was originally written with only one evil feature. Nothing shady going on here - just correcting a previous error.

 

@Vlad - "Form of Register" is the Handgun Purchase Permit. I believe that it even used to be titled that way. It is not only a permit to purchase but also a form of registration.

 

This public comment and proforma change of the NJAC carries no weight of law. Any change to the statutes has to be effected through the legislative process. The code is just a clarification of the statutes and how to administer them.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the awb removed more than anything. its over 20 years old. all the weapons they ban by name are all nearly outdated

plus its really easy to argue and punch all kinds of holes through its logic

Exactly, like the 70+ year old M1 carbine that is NJ compliant and doesn't say M1 carbine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This public comment and proforma change of the NJAC carries no weight of law. Any change to the statutes has to be effected through the legislative process. The code is just a clarification of the statutes and how to administer them.

 

Pizza Bob

Can I get a little clarification of that? Responses to comments are binding in enforcement. Call any regulatory lawyer in NJ and they will tell you that a response to a comment can be used to defend attempts of enforcement.

 

NJAC rules are law. Within the scope of the statutory authority given to the department. There is more in NJAC that can send you to jail or keep you out of jail than in the authorizing statutes or all of the statutes. And there are very few statutes that fine you $25,000 per day for violation, for every day, retroactively, for years, from the date of the rule, although they give the power to the rule makers to create hundreds of specific examples within NJAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the new type of electronic book keeping has the potential to get very interesting. seems any law enforcement officials can get a query any time they want at the speed of the internet, or 24 hours whichever comes first. So much for thinking the NJSP dont have the manpower to collect lots of info in a timely matter. And also another fix clarifies that pp extensions must be done prior to the 90 day extension.

 

 

t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AWB is written into the STATUTE.  The statute gives the list of guns that are banned and then says that any gun that is "substantially identical" is also banned.  The statute would need to be changed by the legislature.

 

This re-adoption is of the ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.  The admin. code is the part of the law that created (invented?) the 5 evil features list.   So you get to comment against the stupid evil features rule but even if it was removed, you'd still have the statute.

 

Right now, an AR15 clone that does not have 2 evil features is legal because the Admin Code says it is.  If the admin code went away, that same gun might become illegal because it is "substantially identical" to the AR15 on the banned list in the statute.    

 

Firearm laws are ridiculously complicated.

The "Substantially Identical" part of the AWB statute was ruled unconstitutionally vague after a mid 90's lawsuit, The court ordered the AG at the time to come up with a definition of what "substantially vague" means and he basically plagiarized the "evil features" list from the (now expired) federal AWB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the current statute for semi-auto shotguns is one evil feature. The proposed change in the code is just to correct an error made when the code was originally written and bring it into alignment with the statute - which was originally written with only one evil feature. Nothing shady going on here - just correcting a previous error.....

 

....This public comment and proforma change of the NJAC carries no weight of law. Any change to the statutes has to be effected through the legislative process. The code is just a clarification of the statutes and how to administer them.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

I don't see anything in the NJSA that talks about one feature.  All I see is a list of banned firearms and the phrase "substantially identical".  I may have missed it though, if it's there, can you give me the reference so I can find it?

 

And the NJAC does carry the weight of law.  The rules of the AWB are all contained in the NJAC.  The definition that the courts use for "justifiable need" comes out of the NJAC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the current statute for semi-auto shotguns is one evil feature. The proposed change in the code is just to correct an error made when the code was originally written and bring it into alignment with the statute - which was originally written with only one evil feature. Nothing shady going on here - just correcting a previous error.

 

@Vlad - "Form of Register" is the Handgun Purchase Permit. I believe that it even used to be titled that way. It is not only a permit to purchase but also a form of registration.

 

This public comment and proforma change of the NJAC carries no weight of law. Any change to the statutes has to be effected through the legislative process. The code is just a clarification of the statutes and how to administer them.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

 

it's not just correcting errors though.  it is banning previously legally owned guns such as those listed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just wondering, let me know if i'm just being stupid.  If we make it clear that assault weapons by definition are fully automatic weapons, then maybe they will change the definition of "substantially identical" from "semi-automatic rifle" to "fully-automatic rifle".  full auto is illegal anyway, at least this way we can have anything we want on our ARs and AKs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just wondering, let me know if i'm just being stupid.  If we make it clear that assault weapons by definition are fully automatic weapons, then maybe they will change the definition of "substantially identical" from "semi-automatic rifle" to "fully-automatic rifle".  full auto is illegal anyway, at least this way we can have anything we want on our ARs and AKs

Although you can spend 2 days on Lexis Nexus and 3 days in a library and find the words "Assault" and "Weapon" adjacent in the same sentence prior to the 1980s, it is a made-up gun control term from the 80s and has nothing to do with full auto or any defining characteristic until the laws came. You are probably thinking of "Assault Rifle" which generally refers select-fire intermediate rifle cartridge weapons in western nomenclature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just wondering, let me know if i'm just being stupid.  If we make it clear that assault weapons by definition are fully automatic weapons, then maybe they will change the definition of "substantially identical" from "semi-automatic rifle" to "fully-automatic rifle".  full auto is illegal anyway, at least this way we can have anything we want on our ARs and AKs

The first step to winning an argument or policy point is to hijack the nomenclature. I discussed AIDS/HIV earlier. Gender as opposed to sex is another example that allows the left to define things as they will. A male can wake up one morning believing he's Napoleon, Hitler, or a girl. If you're talking 'sex" his position is absurd. "Gender" perhaps less so. Gender is a grammatical term.

 

"Assault rifle" is an absurd term but unfortunately it's now part of the vocabulary. My son in Cabela's last summer: "Wow look at all those assault rifles." "What makes them assault rifles?" I asked. "Oh never mind!"

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.



×
×
  • Create New...