M1 Carbine Question

[JT Custom Guns 956]

39 minutes ago, cabalrayz said:

I love that jack turns this discussion into a sales pitch, quite the business man  if i didn't a 10/22 that i loved already i would get me one of those.

 

Lol - Blame Maks - He asked...........

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

2 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

From the singular conviction that I could find for possession of an M1 Carbine the prosecution read off what was stamped on the receiver as evidence that the firearm in question was indeed an M1 Carbine. It was actually marked US Cabine 30 CAL M1. Depending on the manufacturer the markings may vary, but most include M1. There are a few carbine rifles that do not have M1 stamped on the receiver. I do plan on contacting the firearms division by either mail or email so that I can get a written response. I believe that the carbine rifles marked other than M1 would be subject to the substantially identical test of the NJ AWB. If they have different names and do not contain two evil features, then the rifles *should* be legal. 

That's the catch phrase where NJ gets you.  Even if it isn't marked the "substantially identical" can get you to be Bubba's roommate.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

All of this fussin' over a WW2 rifle in this pathetic state....

Meanwhile, in Free Amerikka, next weekend in Reading, PA, I get to watch Reenactor Paratroopers jump out of a C-47 whilst carrying their folding metal stock equipped M-1 Carbines.  Hell, I can even ask to hold one & work the action at their encampment.  And they "fight" the Krauts in the middle of the airfield under escort of a drive-able Sherman Tank under the command of a dude dressed-up as Odd Job (Donald Sutherland's character in Kelly's Heroes) and carrying the holstered Luger w/ Nazi inscription!

I guess I shouldn't talk about my deceased friend that "found" an M-2 Carbine during the Newark Riots and gave it a good home  

[Oakridgefirearms 224]

On 5/24/2017 at 11:32 PM, GRIZ said:

That's the catch phrase where NJ gets you.  Even if it isn't marked the "substantially identical" can get you to be Bubba's roommate.

"Substantially Identical" was ruled unconstitutionally vague in a 1996 lawsuit. The court ordered the then AG to define what "Substantially Identical" means, Peter Venierio - the then AG - plagiarized the federal AWB's "evil features" list to define substantially identical, which is how this became the standard. 

 

All the M1 Carbine clones are all illegal because AG Paula Dow unilaterally decreed them to be illegal. There was no legal basis for this, only an anti gun AG saying so. IMO this is ripe for a lawsuit, any got the cash to spare for one?

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, Oakridgefirearms said:

"Substantially Identical" was ruled unconstitutionally vague in a 1996 lawsuit. The court ordered the then AG to define what "Substantially Identical" means, Peter Venierio - the then AG - plagiarized the federal AWB's "evil features" list to define substantially identical, which is how this became the standard. 

 

All the M1 Carbine clones are all illegal because AG Paula Dow unilaterally decreed them to be illegal. There was no legal basis for this, only an anti gun AG saying so. IMO this is ripe for a lawsuit, any got the cash to spare for one?

My poor choice of words.  The substantially identical features don't really apply to the M1 Carbine which is banned by name and type.  There are only a few guns on the list banned by type.

[PK90 3,570]

AND ..... "substantially identical" ONLY applies to those firearms on "the list", and NOT to any others. Sooooo .... any new type of firearm developed since the ban, ie. Tavor, PS90, RFB, etc, can have all the evilness it wants. That is the way the law and AG Directive reads. BUT, good luck convincing a NJ judge.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[SmittyMHS 603]

3 hours ago, PK90 said:

. BUT, good luck convincing a NJ judge.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 

Never ceases to amaze me how all our judges can be drinking out of the same koolaide bucket. Do they all report to a higher authority that demands they forgo common sense and our constitution when dealing with any gun related case? Can't just one judge stand up for whats right and just? Just one? Seems very strange to me that they all think the same.

[GRIZ 3,369]

2 hours ago, SmittyMHS said:

Never ceases to amaze me how all our judges can be drinking out of the same koolaide bucket. Do they all report to a higher authority that demands they forgo common sense and our constitution when dealing with any gun related case? Can't just one judge stand up for whats right and just? Just one? Seems very strange to me that they all think the same.

Most judges don't deal with gun related cases on a regular basis.  A judge rules on their interpretation of the law.  I'm not for judges legislating from the bench. It's not a judge's job to determine if it's a bad law or a good law as long as it was properly enacted and is not in violation of the Constitution.  Only a handful of judges rule on constutionality.  That ends at the NJSC which is packed with liberals.    SCOTUS only gets to rule on cases in violation of US Constitution. The 10A gives the states the right to run themselves as long as they are not in violation of the Constitution.

[SmittyMHS 603]

3 hours ago, GRIZ said:

The 10A gives the states the right to run themselves as long as they are not in violation of the Constitution.

And what do they call what they've been doing? Certainly NOT following the Constitution as most states see it.

[BMWR12 35]

It's kind of ridiculous that we can't have a 70+ year old weapon.

[W2MC 1,699]

11 hours ago, SmittyMHS said:

And what do they call what they've been doing? Certainly NOT following the Constitution as most states see it.

Which Constitution?  The NJ State Constitution is silent on this....go look!

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

[Zeke 5,504]

5 hours ago, BMWR12 said:

It's kind of ridiculous that we can't have a 70+ year old weapon.

It's more ridiculous they are worried about a bayonet.

[SmittyMHS 603]

4 hours ago, Zeke said:

It's more ridiculous they are worried about a bayonet.

or grenade launchers....2nd thought...maybe not.

[fishnut 2,358]

20 hours ago, SmittyMHS said:

or grenade launchers....2nd thought...maybe not.

A launcher can't do much without grenades. 

[JT Custom Guns 956]

On 5/28/2017 at 7:01 AM, Zeke said:

It's more ridiculous they are worried about a bayonet.

Well - this prevents any Drive By stabbings................

[SmittyMHS 603]

3 hours ago, fishnut said:

A launcher can't do much without grenades. 

Who would bother having a grenade launcher and not have grenades???

Thats just silly.