NJ Senate LIve on Gun Bills

[voyager9 3,434]

They’re already illegal to build. This bill would make them illegal to own/possess. So if you moved here with one it would be forbidden 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

20 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

They’re already illegal to build. This bill would make them illegal to own/possess. So if you moved here with one it would be forbidden 

I haven't seen the full text of the bill yet.  I understand the ban on manufacturing in NJ.  What would make moving here with one illegal in this bill?  The lack of a serial #?

If a serial # is engraved on it during the process of manufacturing it outside of NJ, does it still run afoul of this proposed legislation?

[Bob2222 316]

44 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

They’re already illegal to build. This bill would make them illegal to own/possess. So if you moved here with one it would be forbidden 

Wondering if anyone has actually used this as a successful defense in a criminal trial? Anyone know?

New Jersey is usually the #1 state that people move out of.

This reduces greatly the chance that anyone is going to move here with a homemade gun.

Next they will ban ice skating without a helmet. Or didn't they already do that? http://abc7ny.com/news/nj-bill-would-extend-teen-helmet-laws-to-ice-skates-scooters/778264/

[voyager9 3,434]

45 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

I haven't seen the full text of the bill yet.  I understand the ban on manufacturing in NJ.  What would make moving here with one illegal in this bill?  The lack of a serial #?

If a serial # is engraved on it during the process of manufacturing it outside of NJ, does it still run afoul of this proposed legislation?

Possession of firearm parts that make it possible to construct a unserialzed firearm. 

[JohnnyB 4,322]

39 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Possession of firearm parts that make it possible to construct a unserialzed firearm. 

Basically, they want to ban 80% lowers and such.

[brucin 923]

This poses a problem for me. I keep a NY legal lower at my NY residence and bring my upper back and forth between residences. Would it now be illegal for me to transport my legally owned property between my 2 residences?

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

54 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Possession of firearm parts that make it possible to construct a unserialzed firearm. 

It's possible to buy 80% frames that are already serialized.

Here's a retailer that sells 80% lowers with an option for them to engrave a serial #'s before shipping:

https://www.righttobear.com/Polymer-80-PF940V2-Full-Size-Frame-V2-Black-p/pf940v2-black.htm

[Bt Doctur 188]

There only illegal for legal citizen gun owners , never the criminal gun owners

 

[voyager9 3,434]

No grandfathering

The committee amended the bill to:

(1) clarify that a firearm with a fixed or detachable magazine
capable of holding up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 rounds or less can be registered;
(2) remove a provision that would have exempted law enforcement officers from the bill’s provisions;
(3) exempt large capacity magazine firearms used as props in movies, television, and videos from the provisions of the bill;
(4) allow a person to permanently modify a magazine to accept 10 rounds or less; and
(5) make technical corrections.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/S0500/102_S1.PDF

[voyager9 3,434]

Also this gem:

Under the Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.13:54-1.2), a person may permanently alter a magazine so that it is excluded from the current legal definition of a “large capacity ammunition magazine.” An ammunition magazine, which has been temporarily blocked or modified, as by a piece of wood or a pin, is still considered to be a “large capacity ammunition magazine.”

So “pinned” is no longer a valid way to reduce mag count. 

[Paulie Buffo 17]

Bill A1217 "Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018" has one of the listed offenses - "petty disorderly persons offense" and your firearms privileges are forever banned in the USA. So don't get caught with a joint, publicly intoxicated, a small scuffle in a bar or be charged with the vague "obstruction" charge.

The grandfathering of 10+ round magazines could be defined as - the standard magazines that came with the firearm when it was purchased. It stinks to not keep additional mags but at least we can keep what came with the original purchase. That may be an angle to push.

The more I read these bills the more devious they seem.

[voyager9 3,434]

3 minutes ago, Paulie Buffo said:

 

The grandfathering of 10+ round magazines could be defined as - the standard magazines that came with the firearm when it was purchased. It stinks to not keep additional mags but at least we can keep what came with the original purchase. That may be an angle to push

That’s not what the amended bill says, unless I missed something. 

Firearms with detachable mags incapable of using <10rd can be registered. 

[Paulie Buffo 17]

4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

That’s not what the amended bill says, unless I missed something.

It doesn't. I was just looking for another angle to present to my senator in an outside chance to sway him.

Its the "petty disorderly" that's scary - it's an extremely encompassing "law" that most states consider a misdemeanor.

[Bob2222 316]

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

(2) remove a provision that would have exempted law enforcement officers from the bill’s provisions;

Well, good. They should have to put up with the same nonsense as taxpayers.

[siderman 1,137]

4 minutes ago, Bob2222 said:

Well, good. They should have to put up with the same nonsense as taxpayers.

agree with what you said but still not buying they wont be exempted when all is said and done.

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

Also this gem:

 

So “pinned” is no longer a valid way to reduce mag count. 

So are you saying everyone who panicked and sold their 15 round mags recently (even before the law is official), and bought 10 round "pinned" mags to be compliant, are still screwed and felons?

 

[Lambo2936 297]

I want to laugh but its extremely sad at the same time. SMH

[voyager9 3,434]

1 hour ago, Sniper22 said:

So are you saying everyone who panicked and sold their 15 round mags recently (even before the law is official), and bought 10 round "pinned" mags to be compliant, are still screwed and felons?

 

It means the law is purposefully vague so that its impossible to be sure anything is compliant.   My guess it means pin is no enough and epoxy has to be applied. But who the hell knows anymore.  

[Sniper 6,372]

20 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

My guess

That's kinda my point. Until a bill is actually signed into law, the only thing everyone has is "guessing". They're still adding amendments to the bills. I feel until a final bill is signed (or not signed) into law, speculating and buying replacements could turn into the same problem.

[mossburger 406]

On 4/16/2018 at 4:07 PM, Silence Dogood said:

NRA lawsuits to come ... stay tuned!

Yeah how's that working out for them in NY? I recently heard they've got a guy facing 15 years over a pistol grip...

[siderman 1,137]

11 hours ago, Bob2222 said:

  12 hours ago, voyager9 said:

(2) remove a provision that would have exempted law enforcement officers from the bill’s provisions;

Another reason I'm not believing this is that means all the leo mags would need to be swapped out for compliant ones and that = big $. And that itself would give us- the law abiding subjects- more evidence of what a burden it would be.

[9X19 125]

I am still thinking this applies only to semi-auto guns with detachable and fixed magazines.

[mossburger 406]

When they refer to LEO devices they mean ones owned personally by people who are cops, not ones owned by the police department for use on duty. 

[Tunaman 548]

"Under the amended bill, a person who legally owns a firearm with either a fixed magazine capacity holding up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate less rounds, or a firearm which only accepts a detachable magazine with a capacity of up to 15 rounds, and the firearm was purchased on or prior to the bill’s effective date would be allowed to retain possession of that firearm provided it is registered with a law enforcement agency. In order to register the firearm, a person would be required to complete a registration statement, pay a $50 fee, and produce a valid firearms purchaser identification card, permit to carry a handgun, or permit to purchase a handgun. The information provided in the registration statement is to include: 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."

So let this bill pass and I have to do NOTHING with my 15 rounders,  as they already meet ALL requirements as underlined above.

Stupid fucking idiots!  My handguns are ALREADY registered so I ain't paying SHIT!  I knew it!  It's all about the fuckin' MONEY!

 

[antimatter 139]

they just want the rifles registered....so they can take them 

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

So are they going to look at the pistol purchase permit registry, determine which pistols likely were sold with 15rd magazines, cross-reference with the (lack of) 15 round magazine firearm registrations, and start to send out violation letters?

[voyager9 3,434]

2 hours ago, Tunaman said:

 or a firearm which only accepts a detachable magazine with a capacity of up to 15 rounds, and the firearm was purchased on or prior to the bill’s effective date would be allowed to retain possession of that firearm provided it is registered with a law enforcement agency.

The “only” in the underlined section is going to get you. Most semi-automatics that use detachable mags can take one >15rds. 

[Tunaman 548]

I have a 1990 Taurus PT 92 AFS.  The standard factory mag is 15 rounds.  It is stainless.  They dont make one for it that I can find.  Cant use the Berettas. Altering my factory mags will void my warranty and my insurance.  They can kiss my ass. The ONLY mag for it is the factory mag that came with it.

[Tunaman 548]

4 hours ago, mossburger said:

When they refer to LEO devices they mean ones owned personally by people who are cops, not ones owned by the police department for use on duty. 

that is not what the bill says...

[Avalanche 42]

On 4/17/2018 at 6:24 PM, JohnnyB said:

Basically, they want to ban 80% lowers and such.

I dont know - the way I read it it seems like they want to ban lower kits, uppers, and all other manner of parts to complete any lower all together, hope Im just being nervous.