Jump to content
John Boy

S548 Strengthens State’s assault weapons ban.

Recommended Posts

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S1000/548_I1.HTM?mc_cid=60d4ed50bd&mc_eid=5ed67bce55

included now as an assault firearm ...

(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

Means that any rifle or shotgun that has a forearm would be classified as an assault  firearm

Senator Gill's Office telephone number ... (973) 509-0388

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Boy said:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S1000/548_I1.HTM?mc_cid=60d4ed50bd&mc_eid=5ed67bce55

included now as an assault firearm ...

(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

Means that any rifle or shotgun that has a forearm would be classified as an assault  firearm

Senator Gill's Office telephone number ... (973) 509-0388

   

I am not defending them at all - but the common definition of a grip and is as understood by lawmakers and law enforcement interpretation - you can search via NY state etc. - is - a part or attachment by which something is held in the hand by means of wrapping ones fingers and thumb completely encircling it.  If I can find the area that I read that - I will send it to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said:

something is held in the hand by means of wrapping ones fingers and thumb completely encircling it. 

Aren’t you describing the C clamp grip on the standard hand guard?

I don’t know how this couldn’t be a violation of the Common Use provision of Heller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is missing the fact the number of “evil” features in this bill has been lowered to one. Meaning any long gun with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip is banned. The fore grip was added in for good measure. Basically a mirror image of the CA weapons ban. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MrSurfboard said:

Everyone is missing the fact the number of “evil” features in this bill has been lowered to one. Meaning any long gun with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip is banned. The fore grip was added in for good measure. Basically a mirror image of the CA weapons ban. 

I do not think anyone is missing that fact - wanna make a bet the colt match target gets a pass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MrSurfboard said:

Everyone is missing the fact the number of “evil” features in this bill has been lowered to one. Meaning any long gun with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip is banned. The fore grip was added in for good measure. Basically a mirror image of the CA weapons ban. 

isn't that one being challenged there right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

I do not think anyone is missing that fact - wanna make a bet the colt match target gets a pass?

My guess would be that as a "compromise" there will be an exception made for a handguard. The usual suspects will say, "Look, we got them to compromise!" while having their hands extended looking for a donation. I'd rather let them ban anything that allows you to position a hand other than the one firing the rifle. No carve out for the fudds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

My guess would be that as a "compromise" there will be an exception made for a handguard. The usual suspects will say, "Look, we got them to compromise!" while having their hands extended looking for a donation. I'd rather let them ban anything that allows you to position a hand other than the one firing the rifle. No carve out for the fudds. 

along with the 10 round mag compromise.

 

them: thank god we managed this!! it couldve been a lot worse!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My guess would be that as a "compromise" there will be an exception made for a handguard.

And if they don't, any semi auto rifle or shotgun with a forearm (hand guard) will be illegal in the definition of 'assault firearm'... as a Remington 1100 or a Remington 7400, etc, even the  Contender Thompson Sub Machine Gun  https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVvuD22BaNk0A3jInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Contender+Thompson+Sub+Machine+Gun&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Boy said:

And if they don't, any semi auto rifle or shotgun with a forearm (hand guard) will be illegal in the definition of 'assault firearm'... as a Remington 1100 or a Remington 7400, etc, even the  Contender Thompson Sub Machine Gun  https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVvuD22BaNk0A3jInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Contender+Thompson+Sub+Machine+Gun&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

I think that’s the intent of the law 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly question, but before they further restrict 2A rights, shouldn't they be required to show how it will make the public safer?  Specifically, adjustable stocks, pistol grips, flash hiders, bayo lugs, mag limits are all a bunch of BS that will protect no one.

Just asking rhetorically, because I realize I'm preaching to the choir here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is the number 1 selling centerfire rifle as a type is the AR-15 so far as I can tell, that should fall into the “common use” category of the Heller decision. I would think the Ruger Mini 14 would also fit in that as well. In fact I think an argument can be pretty easily made that the M1 carbine falls in there as well as there are tens of thousands out there in private citizen hands. None of these are “dangerous or unusual” as defined by the Supreme Court in the Miller decision so I think the argument can be made. It’s just getting it past the appellate courts and to the Supreme Court for review that seems to be the biggest issue with nearly anything out of NJ.

I think that argument would trash California’s crap laws as well. 

-Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

Silly question, but before they further restrict 2A rights, shouldn't they be required to show how it will make the public safer?  Specifically, adjustable stocks, pistol grips, flash hiders, bayo lugs, mag limits are all a bunch of BS that will protect no one.

Just asking rhetorically, because I realize I'm preaching to the choir here.  

Furthermore, weren't all the nonsensical laws from 1991 supposed to have made the public safer back then?

/sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

Silly question, but before they further restrict 2A rights, shouldn't they be required to show how it will make the public safer?  Specifically, adjustable stocks, pistol grips, flash hiders, bayo lugs, mag limits are all a bunch of BS that will protect no one.

Just asking rhetorically, because I realize I'm preaching to the choir here.  

Gun laws have nothing to do with safety. They are designed to slowly erode gun ownership until all guns are illegal to own. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

I'll see their asses in court.

With our liberal state Supreme Court? They will rubber stamp every anti gun law Murphy signs. Remember, there is no right to gun ownership in NJ. And you can’t count on the US Supreme Court to bail us out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MrSurfboard said:

With our liberal state Supreme Court? They will rubber stamp every anti gun law Murphy signs. And you can’t count on the US Supreme Court to bail us out. 

The anti gun politicians own this state, so it's either the court system or we go to the cots.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can have all my soon to be illegal guns under my conditions.

- I bought them legally. You do not have the right to take anything I bought legally from me.

- My terms are: You can buy my guns from me at MSRP at the time of purchase plus 10% for my troubles. That is the only way.

 

This is for anything I own. Even if its a pink tuu tuu with purple pokie dots!

 

I will then take all those moneys, move faster than I originally wanted and buy them all over again. Unbutchered by NJs terms!

 

Otherwise! Big EFF them! [emoji1589][emoji35][emoji1589]

I did it once for the original ban! Never again!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MrSurfboard said:

And you can’t count on the US Supreme Court to bail us out. 

Not yet, but eventually.

The conservative justices seem to have been reluctant to take on another 2A case -- for now. My guess is that is because they think that Kennedy is at best a wild card. I'd feel more comfortable with 2 more conservative justices before they take on another 2A case.

Since the AR outsells the #1 selling vehicle in the United States, the Ford F-Series, it's difficult to argue that it's not in common use. I think that's the way they will eventually rule.

Eventually.

In the meantime, can you find a friend in a 2A friendly state who will keep your naughty parts for you?

The larger problem from my perspective is state spending and taxes. I would be happy to trade 5-round pistol magazines (if they were manufactured) for Florida's tax rates.

Our lawyer splits his time between Florida and New Jersey -- and so does President Trump.

It seems obvious why people do this.

Where is this going? The last conservative New Jersey governor left in 1944. Since then, it's been a progressive downhill slide.

If, over the next  4 years, just 100,000 more taxpayers leave the state, it should make a difference.

As the state attracts more people who desire the services that it provides and repels more people who pay taxes, the state will eventually run out of money to tax and spend and will enter receivership. Then a court appointed panel of adults will make the spending decisions.

I don't think Murphy can see this. One of the reasons may be that his Wall Street friends aren't really affected by it. Because of the peculiarities of New Jersey / New York tax treaties (or lack of tax treaties) they are paying taxes at the max New York income tax rate, and even New Jersey looks good in comparison. Not so for anyone else.

Pennsylvania is one of 2 states that excludes all retirement income -- Social Security, IRA, 401K, pensions -- from the state income tax. Plus they are 2A friendly. Plus my daughter has already moved there. So that will probably be my choice.

Quote

TRENTON -- More than two million people left New Jersey between 2005 and 2014, taking billions of dollars in income and economic activity with them, according to a state business group that blames high taxes for the exodus.

The Business and Industry Association's new report said so-called outmigration over a 10-year span cost the state $18 billion in net adjusted gross income, 75,000 jobs, $11.4 billion in economic activity, $4.2 billion in labor income and $8.4 billion in household spending.

"This outmigration of New Jersey residents has had a substantial and continuing negative impact on the state's economy," the report said. "When New Jerseyans leave the state they not only take their income with them, but they take income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and purchasing power with them as well."

New Jerseyans most often move to Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, California and North Carolina, though Pennsylvania is traditionally the most popular destination.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/nj_high_living_expenses_costing_jobs_people_money.html

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

Guess my 1911 is now an assault pistol?

Guess what, A Democrat too

Nia Gill
Nia H. Gill is an American Democratic Party politician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bt Doctur said:

a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

Guess my 1911 is now an assault pistol?

Guess what, A Democrat too

Nia Gill
Nia H. Gill is an American Democratic Party politician

Guess my M&P 22 (22 long rifle) will have to join your 1911 in exile.  What an absurdity.

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...