smilinpig

Confirmation of state law...moving back to NJ

51 posts in this topic

there is no definition of "detachable magazine" as far as I am aware.. but read the wording clearly.. it does not say anything about the ability to remove the magazine from the firearm.. it only states that the matter of concern is if the firearm can accept the magazine..  

generally when wording is not clearly defined.. common definition of words would be observed.. 

detachable 

able to be removed or separated from something.

magazine

a chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun.

 

OR....

a chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun, that is able to be removed or separated from something

notice there is no reference to amount of effort.. or tools required.. a NON detachable magazine would be a magazine that is part of the gun.. OR a magazine that you modify to be part of the gun.. and since there is no legal definition of an acceptable way to do this.. an AR15 with a BB.. STILL can accept a detachable magazine.. 

 

because.. you can put "a chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun, that is able to be removed or separated from something" into the gun.. 

 

again if you disagree.. or are willing to take the chance.... no problem go for it.. but in NJ.. unlike CA.. there is no legal standing for making that assumption.. 

 

 

Has there been any specific exemption to the SKS with grenade launcher? What about FN-49 with grenade launcher attached? If not then by those definitions they are also illegal.

 

 

This is why courts when defining the law look to legislative intent. The intent was to limit "evil features" on semi auto rifles that the magazine can be quickly changed. Needing a tool to remove the magazine I believe makes it unable to be quickly changed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, capt14k said:

When you find the documentation regarding bullet buttons then I will agree. For now I disagree. For the intent of the law was to limit firearms where the magazine detached. Just like some who will argue a loaded magazine is a firearm. Until a ruling has been handed down a loaded magazine separate from itself is just a magazine.

 

 

 

Also since an SKS and FN-49 are semi autos that their magazines can be detached the SKS with bayonet and flash hider or grenade launcher should already be illegal, and the FN-49 will be illegal under the new AWB since they all have bayonet lugs.

 

 

What is the definition of a detachable magazine in NJ?

 

 

Again, that's why i stopped here..there seems to be no definitive answer other than the way its written...no mention of 'locked' mag, 'Bullet Button'..however, I DO interpret 'ability to accept' as just that, and they would be more than happy to arrest / confiscate first. And I don't have the $$ to go to court. And I can see some overzealous lawyer in court dropping that mag with a BB, and that's, well..detached, yes? I was hoping to get a definitive answer on just keeping the BB, but I guess without precedent, finding a firearms lawyer, or some other legal guarantee, it's not worth the chance. Lock stock, and pin a comp...at least that IS legal, for now.

I just ordered Strike Industries stock lock, and I'm going to Dynacomp the muzzle. At least that leaves no room for interpretation or legal hassles. Then I can replace the BB if I want, or keep it. We're already 10 rds mag here so..

So how to residents 'fix' their magazines in NJ? Or just lock/pin and detachable magazine is legal, correct? 

By the way..the BB is now ILLEGAL in Ca...thanks to Newsom and Harris, the wannabe saviours of the free state. If Newsom gets elected Gov, their will be no 2A rights in this state at all..because that's what will get him elected. Guaranteed...he tried to do a complete handgun ban a few years ago in SF when he was mayor ( left half term of course to suit his political aspirations as Gov...), but it was overturned thanks to lawsuits.

Thanks for the replies...appreciate it. I'll keep checking in ..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, that's why i stopped here..there seems to be no definitive answer other than the way its written...no mention of 'locked' mag, 'Bullet Button'..however, I DO interpret 'ability to accept' as just that, and they would be more than happy to arrest / confiscate first. And I don't have the $$ to go to court. And I can see some overzealous lawyer in court dropping that mag with a BB, and that's, well..detached, yes? I was hoping to get a definitive answer on just keeping the BB, but I guess without precedent, finding a firearms lawyer, or some other legal guarantee, it's not worth the chance. Lock stock, and pin a comp...at least that IS legal, for now.
I just ordered Strike Industries stock lock, and I'm going to Dynacomp the muzzle. At least that leaves no room for interpretation or legal hassles. Then I can replace the BB if I want, or keep it. We're already 10 rds mag here so..
So how to residents 'fix' their magazines in NJ? Or just lock/pin and detachable magazine is legal, correct? 
By the way..the BB is now ILLEGAL in Ca...thanks to Newsom and Harris, the wannabe saviours of the free state. If Newsom gets elected Gov, their will be no 2A rights in this state at all..because that's what will get him elected. Guaranteed...he tried to do a complete handgun ban a few years ago in SF when he was mayor ( left half term of course to suit his political aspirations as Gov...), but it was overturned thanks to lawsuits.
Thanks for the replies...appreciate it. I'll keep checking in ..


Just pinning magazine doesn't make it legal. That I believe there has been a ruling on. It has to be blocked and epoxyed. Which is stupid too because just pinning a stock does make it legal. I guess in someway knocking a pin out of the stock is harder than the magazine?


I feel NJ firearms owners out of fear and misinformation have restricted themselves even more than the laws have. However I don't bother too much with plastic tacti-cool me too rifles so I am not as affected by the laws. I prefer wood and steel.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, capt14k said:

 


Just pinning magazine doesn't make it legal. That I believe there has been a ruling on. It has to be blocked and epoxyed. Which is stupid too because just pinning a stock does make it legal. I guess in someway knocking a pin out of the stock is harder than the magazine?


I feel NJ firearms owners out of fear and misinformation have restricted themselves even more than the laws have. However I don't bother too much with plastic tacti-cool me too rifles so I am not as affected by the laws. I prefer wood and steel.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The whole requirement to "permanently" block large capacity magazines was made up by former NJ AG Zulima Farber and added to the Administrative Code. The language valdtepes quoted about large capacity magazines is the rule under the AC (Title 13). The actual law under 2C: says any magazine that is blocked to 15 rounds or less (and the law does not specify how in any way) is no longer a "Large Capacity Magazine" - this however is likely to change soon.

 

So, since the AC is a set of rules and not statute, it's ultimately up to a judge to decide what method of blocking a magazine is legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole requirement to "permanently" block large capacity magazines was made up by former NJ AG Zulima Farber and added to the Administrative Code. The language valdtepes quoted about large capacity magazines is the rule under the AC (Title 13). The actual law under 2C: says any magazine that is blocked to 15 rounds or less (and the law does not specify how in any way) is no longer a "Large Capacity Magazine" - this however is likely to change soon.
 
So, since the AC is a set of rules and not statute, it's ultimately up to a judge to decide what method of blocking a magazine is legal.
Thank you for the clarification. Seems much of the "law" people quote is really just Part of the Administrative Code.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 7:46 PM, capt14k said:

Liberals are so twisted. Murdering scum referring to the uterus not the baby.

 

 

My FFL agrees with my assessment of the bullet button. Also I am sure he agrees with my assessment of Liberals as well.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

@remixer that true Steve?  I think i will save myself alot of money on compliance work and just get a 20$ bullet button next time and keep my features. let me know.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 When we discussed it the other day that's was the answer I got was if bullet button made magazine not detachable then evil features didn't apply.  

So it becomes a trade of would you rather have detachable magazines or bayonet lug? Just to clarify I've been talking about new bullet button which does require bullet and lifting of the upper to remove the magazine. So I think that is a little more than $20. Just like removing FN-49 magazine involves holding it together so parts dont go flying everywhere. Which IMO does not make either detachable.

 

Though bullet button 1 should also qualify see California Penal Code 12275 or AWAC which like NJ law and Federal law states has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. I think the whole argument of ability to accept detachable magazine fails. Unless capacity and ability have different meanings.

 

 

 

 https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/pen/12275-12278.html

 

Federal AWB of 1994 also stated ability to accept which is no different than NJ law. There is nothing unique about NJ law and the argument fails that it is about the magazine and not the rifle.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 

When we discussed it the other day that's was the answer I got was if bullet button made magazine not detachable then evil features didn't apply.

 

 

So it becomes a trade of would you rather have detachable magazines or bayonet lug? Just to clarify I've been talking about new bullet button which does require bullet and lifting of the upper to remove the magazine. So I think that is a little more than $20. Just like removing FN-49 magazine involves holding it together so parts dont go flying everywhere. Which IMO does not make either removable.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

why just a bayonet lug? i would get to keep my flash hider, adjustable stock, and grenade launcher as well no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why just a bayonet lug? i would get to keep my flash hider, adjustable stock, and grenade launcher as well no?

  

Yes. In which way is NJ law any different than California or federal? Magazine doesn't detach nothing else applies, except for 15 round limit.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, capt14k said:

Thank you for the clarification. Seems much of the "law" people quote is really just Part of the Administrative Code.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

that is true.. it is the administrative code.. which certainly demonstrates the intent and spirit of the law.. which is to ban anything even remotely like an "evil military style weapon".. so as I already stated.. you can certainly go against the grain.. and hope for the best.. im just not sure risk vs reward is being properly considered.. 

 

you can limit the mag capacity by stuffing an old sock in the bottom of it.. it doesn't mean that you wont have to defend yourself over it at some point..  personally I found it easier just to stay far to the right when it came to firearms laws in NJ.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is true.. it is the administrative code.. which certainly demonstrates the intent and spirit of the law.. which is to ban anything even remotely like an "evil military style weapon".. so as I already stated.. you can certainly go against the grain.. and hope for the best.. im just not sure risk vs reward is being properly considered..    you can limit the mag capacity by stuffing an old sock in the bottom of it.. it doesn't mean that you wont have to defend yourself over it at some point..  personally I found it easier just to stay far to the right when it came to firearms laws in NJ.. 

 

 

In which way is NJ law any different than California or former Federal regarding detachable magazine and semi auto rifles? Since the difference (which does not exist) was your whole premise I believe your argument fails.  

 

 

Just to clarify the Administrative Code does not show legislative intent, but is one person's (AG) interpretation of the law.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, capt14k said:

In which way is NJ law any different than California or former Federal regarding detachable magazine and semi auto rifles? Since the difference (which does not exist) was your whole premise I believe your argument fails.  

 

 

Just to clarify the Administrative Code does not show legislative intent, but is one person's (AG) interpretation of the law.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

my understanding.. is in CA there was a court case that kind of started exactly how we started here.. in CA like NJ there are laws on the books.. there are also regulations.. and interpretations of those laws... at one point people were arrested for having bullet buttons.. it was a long time ago I am not sure when (maybe 2010?).. there was confusion.. just like there could be here with regards to what is the law.. what is interpretation of that law.. ultimately it was a win.. because there was clarification that having a detachable magazine that required a tool to remove was OK.. 

now again.. I am certainly not a lawyer and have never pretended to be.. you can look it up.. 

but that is the core of the issue.. there is no such precedent here for the bullet button.. AND what happens federally.. what happens in another state.. has absolutely no bearing on this discussion because we are talking about NJ LAW.. not federal law.. not CA law.. NJ law.. and the way it would be interpreted.. 

as I stated before.. a BB in NJ.. MAY be OK.. but there is at least a chance.. that you could spend a lot of time.. and money to prove it.. all for what? IF you think its the fight to make.. if you think its the chance to take.. then by all means.. go for it.. 

OR.. you could have a totally functional AR that fits the mold as being NJ legal.. fly under the radar the rest of your life.. and live to fight more important 2A battles in NJ.. a BB is not a sword I would be willing to fall on.. 

to say it does not show intent is a misleading statement.. it shows interpretation by the exact group of people who's job it is to convict you.. and put in jail.. the "opinion" of those people is fairly relevant... we are not talking about the opinion of some random soccer mom.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my understanding.. is in CA there was a court case that kind of started exactly how we started here.. in CA like NJ there are laws on the books.. there are also regulations.. and interpretations of those laws... at one point people were arrested for having bullet buttons.. it was a long time ago I am not sure when (maybe 2010?).. there was confusion.. just like there could be here with regards to what is the law.. what is interpretation of that law.. ultimately it was a win.. because there was clarification that having a detachable magazine that required a tool to remove was OK.. 

 

now again.. I am certainly not a lawyer and have never pretended to be.. you can look it up.. 

 

but that is the core of the issue.. there is no such precedent here for the bullet button.. AND what happens federally.. what happens in another state.. has absolutely no bearing on this discussion because we are talking about NJ LAW.. not federal law.. not CA law.. NJ law.. and the way it would be interpreted.. 

 

as I stated before.. a BB in NJ.. MAY be OK.. but there is at least a chance.. that you could spend a lot of time.. and money to prove it.. all for what? IF you think its the fight to make.. if you think its the chance to take.. then by all means.. go for it.. 

 

OR.. you could have a totally functional AR that fits the mold as being NJ legal.. fly under the radar the rest of your life.. and live to fight more important 2A battles in NJ.. a BB is not a sword I would be willing to fall on.. 

 

to say it does not show intent is a misleading statement.. it shows interpretation by the exact group of people who's job it is to convict you.. and put in jail.. the "opinion" of those people is fairly relevant... we are not talking about the opinion of some random soccer mom.. 

 

You may want to edit post 15 where you stated "a bullet button is a no go". Also your other posts where you insisted NJ Law was different.

 

 

Lastly that California Case involved the person not informing the police of the legality of the bullet button, and whether it was properly installed. The state accepted that a bullet is a tool, and if a tool is needed to remove the magazine, then it is not detachable, before the case you are referencing.

 

 

I will side with precedent elsewhere which while it doesn't have the force of decided case law on NJ it can be looked to for guidance.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you may want to provide the NJ court ruling that says its good to go.. 

 

You clearly stated it is a no go. So you first. You also stated NJ law is different. Still waiting for you to point out those differences. I provided the links.

 

 

I also stated an opinion. You were the fact man. Now it seems you have changed to opinion as well. It's ok to say you may not be correct.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't want to be a ball buster, but I have tired of people making laws that truly do not exist. We infringe on our own Rights by doing so.


Better stated would be NJ law is similar to California, but our 2A groups failed us up until just recently, and the laws were never challenged for clarification. We instead allowed the Attorney General to add to the law rather than filing suit for the courts to issue a ruling on the law.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same goes for C&R Licenses. The NJSP have issued statements that contradict themselves and are contrary to the law. First they sent a letter saying C&R License Holders were exempt from One Gun a Month and need not file an exemption as provided for in the law. Then they issued a proclamation that there is no way to process multiple C&R handgun purchase without the exemption being filled to One Gun a Month.

 

 

 

Another one is C&R Licenses are worthless in NJ. Maybe they are worthless within the state of NJ for firearms transferred in NJ or mailed to NJ but what about a NJ C&R License Holder purchasing a C&R Firearm outside of NJ and bringing it back to NJ? If other firearms can be purchased legally outside NJ and brought into NJ why is the same not true for C&R Licenses? For instance someone with duel residency legally purchases a handgun in Florida. They can bring it to NJ without the need to register it no?

 

 

Lastly there is the issue of Antique Longguns. NJ recognizes Antique Longguns made prior to 1898 as those for which commercial ammo is not readily available. I would say a Krag counts as such a firearm. Certainly a Swedish Vereteli does as does an Antique Mauser. Yet we are told they still have to be transferred through an FFL. Every other state except maybe Hawaii an Antique Longgun is not a firearm. Federally any firearm made prior to 1898 is not a firearm. We can drive into PA and pick up an antique longgun and bring it back to NJ why is it we can't have an Antique Longgun shipped directly to our door? I see nothing in the law that prevents it. It seems it is just another example of NJ firearms owners imposing additional restrictions on our own Second Amendment Rights above and beyond what the State has already done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Same goes for C&R Licenses. The NJSP have issued statements that contradict themselves and are contrary to the law. First they sent a letter saying C&R License Holders were exempt from One Gun a Month and need not file an exemption as provided for in the law. Then they issued a proclamation that there is no way to process multiple C&R handgun purchase without the exemption being filled to One Gun a Month.

 

 

 

Another one is C&R Licenses are worthless in NJ. Maybe they are worthless within the state of NJ for firearms transferred in NJ or mailed to NJ but what about a NJ C&R License Holder purchasing a C&R Firearm outside of NJ and bringing it back to NJ? If other firearms can be purchased legally outside NJ and brought into NJ why is the same not true for C&R Licenses? For instance someone with duel residency legally purchases a handgun in Florida. They can bring it to NJ without the need to register it no?

 

 

Lastly there is the issue of Antique Longguns. NJ recognizes Antique Longguns made prior to 1898 as those for which commercial ammo is not readily available. I would say a Krag counts as such a firearm. Certainly a Swedish Vereteli does as does an Antique Mauser. Yet we are told they still have to be transferred through an FFL. Every other state except maybe Hawaii an Antique Longgun is not a firearm. Federally any firearm made prior to 1898 is not a firearm. We can drive into PA and pick up an antique longgun and bring it back to NJ why is it we can't have an Antique Longgun shipped directly to our door? I see nothing in the law that prevents it. It seems it is just another example of NJ firearms owners imposing additional restrictions on our own Second Amendment Rights above and beyond what the State has already done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no idea about C&R.... its not something I have even read about.. AND I agree with you regarding some gun owners being their own worst enemies.. 

 

but.. for the last time.. since this horse is long beat to death.. 

* California has chosen to specifically address the bullet button.. NJ has not... 

* Initially.. people got arrested for using them.. if you choose to follow that path in NJ.. you may find yourself doing the same..

* They eventually became standard accepted equipment.. which they COULD in NJ as well.. but not likely without some legal battles.. 

NJ does not have this history.. so until there is a legal case to go on... OR the powers that be specifically come up with some type of statement relating to them.. there is no logical reason to assume they are legal here... ironically.. all this arguing.. and isn't CA going back on the whole bullet button thing and not allowing them to be sold anymore (after a certain time)... 

keep in mind.. this is in a state that essentially hates gun rights... so why you would even consider fighting that battle is beyond me.. drawing ANY similarity to CA gun laws.. would IMO just be like saying hey make us all use these.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we have plenty of room in PA.. 


I would already be there if it wasn't for the wife. Though I am getting nervous about PA and even Ohio. I am starting to think I may have to go to Tennessee or Indiana.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now