Jump to content
Guest

Magazine registration

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, voyager9 said:

So they think that convoluted mess of poor phrasing, punctuation and duplicate wording makes perfect sense but somehow don’t understand:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I have to wonder if we need to start making reading comprehension part of the requirement to be an elected official now. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Operative words fixed magazine..again fixed magazine.

 

Ya'll do what you think is right...I have no fixed mag rifles with more than ten rounds....or pistols.

 

Everything I own is 10 rounds or less....saw this coming years ago.....

I wouldn't register anything....confiscation is the plan and they need to lay groundwork as to where to really go.  They r casting a net don't get caught.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Screwball said:

 


There are plenty... I have two; Marlin Model 60 and a Uberti 1860 Henry.

I got to get a calendar and see where 180 days puts me. Because if I’m in FLETC, I’ll just drop anything affected to my godmother in PA before I leave. That Marlin is a gun my father bought me, which was my first gun. Wouldn’t modify it if I had to, and no way in hell would I hand it over.

Not giving NJ $50 to keep a gun that is already legal. Kind of annoyed with the rest, as I was hoping to sell my 15 rounders to guys here, since I’m going to buy the right capacity magazines when I move. Colorado’s laws are pretty much disregarded, so likely no sales there. Glad I had to spend so much for 15 rounders, and the only ones I’ll keep are my M1As (sit a little lower than the 20s my cousin uses with his SOCOM in PA).

 

Wouldn’t the 1860 be except? It’s not a semi-auto. It’s a lever gun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just being a pedantic moron, but the bill as it stands talks about registering guns for which magazines cannot be modified to hold less rounds.

Does that mean a 9mm mag modified to hold .380? A 10mm mag modified to hold .40?...or maybe oval bullets, rather than round ones?

I think they mean fewer rounds, but that's not what it says.

 

ETA: Oops - that's just the committee report - not the bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Tfunge said:

If it's the same Law as Shit CA then once registered you cant sell that gun to anyone and when you die   your family has to hand it in!!!!!

That is the progressive ploy; let us keep our guns until we die, then they have to be handed in. Watch for phrasing to appear for other firearms in future bills. It will lead to the eventual end of firearms ownership in NJ. Confiscation would cause an uprising, so instead it's death by a thousand cuts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn’t the 1860 be except? It’s not a semi-auto. It’s a lever gun.


Just going by info read in the thread. I’m in FL, with just an iPhone. Kind of difficult to read that far into it.

If I read a post that specifically says “a firearm,” that is different than “a semi-automatic.”

Maybe we will get down to the breakdown of the legislation in the next few posts, as there has been a lot of different views of it since the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell this ONLY applies to semi-auto guns. So levers, pumps, etc. with fixed magazine tubes holding more than 10 would not apply. Am I reading this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, USRifle30Cal said:

Operative words fixed magazine..again fixed magazine.

 

Ya'll do what you think is right...I have no fixed mag rifles with more than ten rounds....or pistols.

 

Everything I own is 10 rounds or less....saw this coming years ago.....

I wouldn't register anything....confiscation is the plan and they need to lay groundwork as to where to really go.  They r casting a net don't get caught.

this.

Share this post


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

There are extended fixed magazines out there for the SKS.  These are available to get around states with laws defining an "assault weapon" as having a detachable magazine.  Few of them worked I've been told.

You can take a stock SKS and put anything you want on it in NJ. Folding stock, bayonet, flash surpressor, etc because it has a fixed magazine of 10 rds.

Tapco make a fixed aftermarket SKS mag.  It only holds 10rds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why so much energy was spent letting the legislators know what parts of the law were very poorly written.  This gave them the opportunity to take out the blatantly wrong parts of the law.  This make a court challenge harder.  It was as if 2A people were helping to polish turds by informing the legislators how to fix their errors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Anyone catch the part saying the firearm needs to be disposed of within 90days of said death...

I just caught that myself - I wonder whether now I’ll have to formally amend my will to contain a specific bequest....

Share this post


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

If it's the same Law as Shit CA then once registered you cant sell that gun to anyone and when you die   your family has to hand it in!!!!!

It is form of confiscation, we need this in courts. I posted that last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JimB1 said:

 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I have to wonder if we need to start making reading comprehension part of the requirement to be an elected official now. 

 

So I thought they're sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution...........guess I'm wrong or only certain parts of said document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Screwball said:

 


There are plenty... I have two; Marlin Model 60 and a Uberti 1860 Henry.

I got to get a calendar and see where 180 days puts me. Because if I’m in FLETC, I’ll just drop anything affected to my godmother in PA before I leave. That Marlin is a gun my father bought me, which was my first gun. Wouldn’t modify it if I had to, and no way in hell would I hand it over.

Not giving NJ $50 to keep a gun that is already legal. Kind of annoyed with the rest, as I was hoping to sell my 15 rounders to guys here, since I’m going to buy the right capacity magazines when I move. Colorado’s laws are pretty much disregarded, so likely no sales there. Glad I had to spend so much for 15 rounders, and the only ones I’ll keep are my M1As (sit a little lower than the 20s my cousin uses with his SOCOM in PA).

 

 

As someone previously said the .22 is exempt (the Marlin Model 60 is specifically named),

I presume the Uberti is exempt because it's a lever gun and not a semi-auto?

"Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than [15] 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.  The term shall not include an attached tubular device which is capable of holding only .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

NJ.com articles on these Bills sound like they are written by idiots who do not have a good grasp on the English language.  Better to read the actual bills if these proposed laws have any significance to you.

Look at what the "elected representation" writes.  If I could upload images here I'd show what Greenwald wrote for the local paper.  It was poorly written and misused terminology.  I was pretty disgusted. Journalists, though expected to have a great grasp of the English language, have a far different basis of standard to adhere to.  Zero tolerance for legislators to misuse terminology and language, even if in a newspaper commentary.  That's far more dangerous because they have say in drafting laws.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that this section of what the Assembly passed addresses the issue under discussion:

j.     Any person who knowingly has in his possession a large capacity ammunition magazine is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree unless the person has registered:

     (1) an assault firearm pursuant to section 11 of P.L.1990, c.32 (C.2C:58-12) and the magazine is maintained and used in connection with participation in competitive shooting matches sanctioned by the Director of Civilian Marksmanship of the United States Department of the Army [.] ; or

     (2) a firearm with a fixed magazine capacity capable of holding up to 15 rounds pursuant to section 7 of P.L.     , c.     (C.       ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill).

     k.    Handcuffs.  Any person who knowingly has in his possession handcuffs as defined in P.L.1991, c.437 (C.2C:39-9.2), under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as handcuffs may have, is guilty of a disorderly persons offense.  A law enforcement officer shall confiscate handcuffs possessed in violation of the law.

     l.     Bump stock or trigger crank.  Any person who knowingly possesses a bump stock as defined in subsection ee. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 or a trigger crank as defined in subsection ff. of N.J.S.2C:39-1, regardless of whether the person is in possession of a firearm, is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

     Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other provision of law, a conviction arising out of this subsection shall not merge with a conviction for possessing an assault firearm in violation of subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 or a machine gun in violation of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 and a separate sentence shall be imposed upon each conviction. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:44-5 or any other provisions of law, the sentence imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be served consecutively to that imposed for unlawfully possessing an assault firearm in violation of subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-5.1

(cf: P.L.2017, c.323, s.2)

 

     1[2.] 3.1     (New section) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection j. of N.J.S.2C:39-3, a retired law enforcement officer who is authorized to possess and carry a handgun pursuant to subsection l. of N.J.S.2C:39-6 may possess and carry a large capacity ammunition magazine which is capable of holding up to 15 rounds of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic handgun.

 

     1[3. (New section)  Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-6, a law enforcement officer may possess and carry while on duty a large capacity ammunition magazine and possess and carry while off duty a large capacity ammunition magazine which is capable of holding up to 15 rounds of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic firearm.]1

 

     14.  (New section) The provisions of P.L.    , c.   (C.    ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition magazine solely used as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production, provided the large capacity ammunition magazine has been reconfigured to fire blank ammunition and remains under the control of a federal firearms license holder.1

 

     1[4.] 5.1     (New section)  1[Any] Except as provided in section 7 of P.L.     , c.   (C.       ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill),1 a person who legally owns a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds or a large capacity ammunition magazine as defined under subsection y. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition on the effective date of P.L.     , c.     (C.       ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) may retain possession of that rifle or magazine for a period not to exceed 180 days 1[from] after1 the effective date of this act.  During this time period, the owner of the semi-automatic rifle or magazine shall: 

     a.     Transfer the semi-automatic rifle or magazine to any person or firm lawfully entitled to own or possess that firearm or magazine;

     b.    Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable 1or permanently modify a large capacity ammunition magazine to accept 10 rounds or less1; or

     c.     Voluntarily surrender the semi-automatic rifle or magazine pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-12.

 

     1[5.] 6.1     N.J.S.2C:39-12 is amended to read as follows:  

     2C:39-12.   No person shall be convicted of an offense under this chapter for possessing any firearms, weapons, destructive devices, large capacity ammunition magazines, silencers or explosives, if after  giving written notice of his intention to do so, including the proposed date and time of surrender, he voluntarily surrendered the weapon, device,  instrument or substance in question to the superintendent or to the chief of  police in the municipality in which he resides, provided that the required  notice is received by the superintendent or chief of police before any charges  have been made or complaints filed against such person for the unlawful  possession of the weapon, device, instrument or substance in question and  before any investigation has been commenced by any law enforcement agency  concerning the unlawful possession.  Nothing in this section shall be construed as granting immunity from prosecution for any crime or offense except that of the unlawful possession of such weapons, devices, instruments or substances surrendered as herein provided.

(cf: N.J.S.2C:39-12)

 

     17.  (New section) a.  A person who legally owns a firearm with a fixed magazine capacity holding up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds and was purchased on or prior to the effective date of P.L.      , c.    (C.        ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) shall register that firearm within one year from the effective date this act. In order to register the firearm, the owner shall: 

     (1) complete a registration statement, in the form to be prescribed by the Superintendent of the State Police; 

     (2)  pay a registration fee of $50 per firearm; and

     (3) produce for inspection a valid firearms purchaser identification card, permit to carry a handgun, or permit to purchase a handgun. 

     b.    The information provided in the registration statement established pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall include, but shall not be limited to:  the name and address of the registrant; the number or numbers on the registrant's firearms purchaser identification card, permit to carry a handgun, or permit to purchase a handgun; and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm being registered.  Each registration statement shall be signed by the registrant, and the signature shall constitute a representation of the accuracy of the information contained in the registration statement. 

     c.     An applicant shall register the firearm in the law enforcement agency of the municipality in which the applicant resides or, if the municipality does not have a municipal law enforcement agency, any State Police station.

     d.    Within 60 days of the effective date of P.L.     , c.    (C.      ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), the superintendent shall prepare the form of registration statement as described in subsection b. of this section and shall provide a suitable supply of statements to each organized full-time municipal police department and each State Police station. 

     e.     One copy of the completed registration statement shall be returned to the registrant, a second copy shall be sent to the Superintendent, and, if the registration takes place at a municipal police department, a third copy shall be retained by that municipal police department. 

     f.     The heir or estate of an owner of a firearm which has been registered pursuant to this section shall within 90 days after the owner's death dispose of that firearm in accordance with section 5 of P.L.        , c.     (C.        ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill)1 

 

     1[6.] 8.1     This act shall take effect immediately.

My comments: If  what is signed into law reads like this: 1. Determine if you are going to comply or not. If you are : (2) determine if your mags can be modified to function properly 3. If so, modifiy them or purchase 10 rounders or if you are keeping your 15 rounders for each firearm you want to use your 15 rounders in register and pay $50 per firearm.

This really makes no sense if you purchased your handgun in State and it was transferred here to you or resold on a purchase permit to a third party. It also makes no sense for a long gun, if transferred in State by a FFL or if you sold it privately you should  have your COE which could be filed as proof of the new purchaser. Hopefully, someone will think of this in the Senate. If you acquired a long gun out of State which was transferred out of State and then brought into NJ, yeah the State Police would not have a record. The same would be true if you have ATF dual residency status and acquired a firearm out of State and brought it into N.J>  $50 per firearm is too high and is a further screw job. But here is the part that also sucks:  It also appears that heirs cannot re-registeri if you registered and heris have to get rid of the registered firearm within 90 days as a penalty or move them to a free State. The way this reads, they could not switch to 10 rounders if they live in NJ. Indirectly, this forces  those who comply  to modify if you can or buy new 10 rounders, if you want to leave your firearms to your heirs. Otherwise, once you decide to comply and keep your 15 rounders and register a firearm for 15 round use, you have screwed your heirs, who have 90 days to get rid of the firearm unless they move them out of State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Screwball said:

 


There are plenty... I have two; Marlin Model 60 and a Uberti 1860 Henry.

I got to get a calendar and see where 180 days puts me. Because if I’m in FLETC, I’ll just drop anything affected to my godmother in PA before I leave. That Marlin is a gun my father bought me, which was my first gun. Wouldn’t modify it if I had to, and no way in hell would I hand it over.

Not giving NJ $50 to keep a gun that is already legal. Kind of annoyed with the rest, as I was hoping to sell my 15 rounders to guys here, since I’m going to buy the right capacity magazines when I move. Colorado’s laws are pretty much disregarded, so likely no sales there. Glad I had to spend so much for 15 rounders, and the only ones I’ll keep are my M1As (sit a little lower than the 20s my cousin uses with his SOCOM in PA).

 

I hope you're paying more attention to what you have to read for your classes at FLETC.

Your Marlin, being a 22 rf, is okay under the law as you've already been told.

2 is not plenty but now we're down to one.  That's a pistol caliber lever action with a long barrel.  Not at lot of those around compared to other guns.  You wouldn't have to register it if you modified it to hold 10 rds.  Easily done and reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone catch the part saying the firearm needs to be disposed of within 90days of said death...
So if I am a third generation owner of a beautiful family heirloom my son has to dispose of it when I kick?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Moose11872 said:

So if I am a third generation owner of a beautiful family heirloom my son has to dispose of it when I kick?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

Yes.

But we hope our heirs just need to put the 1860 Henry in the trunk and drive over to America when they clean out the house.

b23e1c67-e234-4265-a0d6-1bba8548b466.jpg

  • Like 1

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I very seriously doubt this has anything to do with terrorism.    1) Harbor pilots are VERY seriously vetted, and highly trained. Not to mention extremely well paid. My experience knowing a few of them, and knowing how they are recruited and screened tells me that there is a slim to highly unlikely chance that a harbor pilot would have participated in anything like that.    2) Maintenance of foreign flag ships is well known to be dubious. Especially these days. These were NOT US flag, Jones act sailors. It was (to my understanding) a largely Indian crew on that ship, with a Ukrainian Captain. Indian crews are not exactly known for being stellar.    3) The bunkers (fuel) these ships use is ‘Bunker C’, which is a heavy, dirty fuel oil that can, and usually is, pretty contaminated. This stuff ain’t your car grade gasoline or diesel fuel. It’s nasty.   It requires nearly constant filter changes and maintenance to the engine/generators. The ship took on fuel prior to departing port, which would stir up all kinds of shit in the fuel tanks, which would contribute to particulates in the fuel lines/filters.    4) I’d say the posting of the chief engineer for Maserek above was pretty spot on as far as chain of events.    This was a shitty accident, with horrible timing and outcome. Not a terror attack. 
    • I saw Lara's interview on Bannon's War Room, and that gave me pause for thought. Her conjecture depends primarily on the veracity of her sources. Regardless, if it's not applicable in any way to this ship disaster, the methods described seem valid to me. And worthy of consideration for the future. As I said before, IMO something is coming. Death by a thousand cuts? Lara Logan Provides Comprehensive Baltimore Update: Experts in Behavioral Analytics, Counter-Terrorism, and National Security Analyze Recent Incident | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
    • Another big windfall for governments'. The 'winner'? Not so much. Mega Millions $1.13 billion winner is facing mega tax bill. The amount is staggering. - nj.com
×
×
  • Create New...