Jump to content
JerseyJim

Modifying magazines to 10 round capacity

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

There's a big issue, the new magazine law is a Ex post facto law:

An ex post facto law  is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed;

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

So, if your 15 round mags were legal when you bought them, they are still legal now, right?

 

Correct. Both CA and MA both have grandfather clauses for mags already owned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

There's a big issue, the new magazine law is a Ex post facto law:

An ex post facto law  is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed;

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

So, if your 15 round mags were legal when you bought them, they are still legal now, right?

 

If this was true you would still have your standard 30 round mags and ar’s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If this was true you would still have your standard 30 round mags and ar’s.

Apparently, there wasn't a bigger fight and push back at the time, right?

1 hour ago, mossburger said:

Thank you. We're "fighting" for what exactly? To grandfather in magazines that were already neutered anyway? The fight should be for regular capacity magazines. 

First, you have to stop the bleeding, then at that point, go and fix the bigger injury. Aren't there a hell of a lot more gun owners NOW compared to when the 15 round law was passed? They need to get off their asses and be part of the solution, right?

Share this post


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

I wasn't active in the sport back in the 30R days. Did the NRA or affiliate in NJ actually bring a law suite against NJ when it was reduced to 15?

Good question, I wasn't either.

Maybe some of the old timers can fill us in, how much of a challenge was put up? I believe that was in 1990, how many people owned those scary "military assault weapons" back then?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

Good question, I wasn't either.

Maybe some of the old timers can fill us in, how much of a challenge was put up? I believe that was in 1990, how many people owned those scary "military assault weapons" back then?

 

The fully semi-auto ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

Good question, I wasn't either.

Maybe some of the old timers can fill us in, how much of a challenge was put up? I believe that was in 1990, how many people owned those scary "military assault weapons" back then?

 

Back then...not many...  today is much different than then.

The net has brought more together....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

Apparently, there wasn't a bigger fight and push back at the time, right?

First, you have to stop the bleeding, then at that point, go and fix the bigger injury. Aren't there a hell of a lot more gun owners NOW compared to when the 15 round law was passed? They need to get off their asses and be part of the solution, right?

So then, why even bother challenging the 15/10 thing. Why not challenge the mag ban altogether? Why not challenge the entire AWB as invalid under Heller's in common usage wording? Why not fight the witch hunt laws under the 4A? 

This is why I believe ANJRPC and the false hope lawsuits are as much a part of the problem as anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

Good question, I wasn't either.

Maybe some of the old timers can fill us in, how much of a challenge was put up? I believe that was in 1990, how many people owned those scary "military assault weapons" back then?

 

Not much of a challenge IIRC.

Many gunowners felt the law would be contested and overturned.  That didn't happen though.

The feeling was reinforced by the lack of registration.  You could register it cheap ($5) by making it inoperative.  You could register a AR, M1 carbine, or M1A operational for $50 as there are NRA competitions where you can use those rifles.  I've seen different numbers of registered "assault weapons" but they were all below 400.  While all 3 of those rifles were around my bet is the M1 carbine was the most common.  I'll put money on the fact there were more than 400 M1 carbines in NJ then.  ARS and M1As were no where near as common then as they are now but I'll bet there were more than 400 of each of those.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So then, why even bother challenging the 15/10 thing. Why not challenge the mag ban altogether? Why not challenge the entire AWB as invalid under Heller's in common usage wording? Why not fight the witch hunt laws under the 4A? 

This is why I believe ANJRPC and the false hope lawsuits are as much a part of the problem as anything else.

What do you propose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny. Some folks bitched and complain when we had no suits from NRA/affiliate (I was one of those people wondering WTH they were doing for us). Now that they have 2 suits going, I am happy with them and donating more then ever. But someone is always bitching about something, now we have a few people bitching about HAVING the suits. LOL! Just shows you can never please everyone :-). 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Zeke said:

What do you propose?

File a similar lawsuit claiming that the whole thing is unconstitutional. If you're negotiating you go big then compromise, not open with a comprise then get talked down to nothing. Look where that's gotten us.

Generally in a case you need standing, and these AWB charges are rarely ever handed out alone, usually they're in conjunction with other charges. So an organization would probably have to represent some not so ideal individuals. Judging by how even many gun owners thought Aitken deserved what he got, this would probably be too bitter of a pill to swallow.

So maybe a U-Haul?

4 minutes ago, Combat Auto said:

Pretty funny. Some folks bitched and complain when we had no suits from NRA/affiliate (I was one of those people wondering WTH they were doing for us). Now that they have 2 suits going, I am happy with them and donating more then ever. But someone is always bitching about something, now we have a few people bitching about HAVING the suits. LOL! Just shows you can never please everyone :-). 

I'm not "bitching" just pointing out facts. People can hate me all summer but this fall when a judge throws the 10rd lawsuit in the trash people will then at least understand what I am saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mossburger said:

File a similar lawsuit claiming that the whole thing is unconstitutional. If you're negotiating you go big then compromise, not open with a comprise then get talked down to nothing. Look where that's gotten us.

Generally in a case you need standing, and these AWB charges are rarely ever handed out alone, usually they're in conjunction with other charges. So an organization would probably have to represent some not so ideal individuals. Judging by how even many gun owners thought Aitken deserved what he got, this would probably be too bitter of a pill to swallow.

So maybe a U-Haul?

Constitutional lawsuits aren’t really about comprise ; to your point. But if, if, any number is questionable... then all numbers are questionable; to your point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mossburger said:

File a similar lawsuit claiming that the whole thing is unconstitutional. If you're negotiating you go big then compromise, not open with a comprise then get talked down to nothing. Look where that's gotten us.

Generally in a case you need standing, and these AWB charges are rarely ever handed out alone, usually they're in conjunction with other charges. So an organization would probably have to represent some not so ideal individuals. Judging by how even many gun owners thought Aitken deserved what he got, this would probably be too bitter of a pill to swallow.

So maybe a U-Haul?

I'm not "bitching" just pointing out facts. People can hate me all summer but this fall when a judge throws the 10rd lawsuit in the trash people will then at least understand what I am saying.

It is the "easy" call to say the suits will fail (and you may be right in the end). The hard call is to fight for what is right and having a chance to win. We have no other choice unless you want to roll-over and play dead. This goes well beyond the 10R mags, do nothing and The-Lefty will be embolden to lower it to 5r in a few years (maybe sooner). Sounds like that is what happen during the 30-15 change, we did nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mossburger said:

File a similar lawsuit claiming that the whole thing is unconstitutional. If you're negotiating you go big then compromise, not open with a comprise then get talked down to nothing. Look where that's gotten us.

Generally in a case you need standing, and these AWB charges are rarely ever handed out alone, usually they're in conjunction with other charges. So an organization would probably have to represent some not so ideal individuals. Judging by how even many gun owners thought Aitken deserved what he got, this would probably be too bitter of a pill to swallow.

So maybe a U-Haul?

I'm not "bitching" just pointing out facts. People can hate me all summer but this fall when a judge throws the 10rd lawsuit in the trash people will then at least understand what I am saying.

Remember your behind the iron curtain, Stand and fight or live on your knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Constitutional lawsuits aren’t really about comprise ; to your point. But if, if, any number is questionable... then all numbers are questionable; to your point 

Exactly my point. Magazine limits of any number are unconstitutional. Us sitting here debating 15 vs 10 is missing the point and playing right into their hand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mossburger said:

Exactly my point. Magazine limits of any number are unconstitutional. Us sitting here debating 15 vs 10 is missing the point and playing right into their hand.

I’m not really sitting here debating it though. And lawsuits have been filed. With a motion for injunction...I’m a pensive and stoical individual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeke said:

I’m not really sitting here debating it though. And lawsuits have been filed. With a motion for injunction...I’m a pensive and stoical individual

Sorry, I didn't mean you or anyone specifically. I just see the general feeling among the forum seems to be surrounding keeping their 15s, when in reality the mentality should be that any mag limit is unconstitutional and should be challenged as a whole.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Sorry, I didn't mean you or anyone specifically. I just see the general feeling among the forum seems to be surrounding keeping their 15s, when in reality the mentality should be that any mag limit is unconstitutional and should be challenged as a whole.

I agree.. and perhaps this will be the outcome you and I aspire for.

Typically people are keyboard warriors, this forum tends to be more keyboard whiners.. that wunder why they never get laid

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mossburger said:

Sorry, I didn't mean you or anyone specifically. I just see the general feeling among the forum seems to be surrounding keeping their 15s, when in reality the mentality should be that any mag limit is unconstitutional and should be challenged as a whole.

I'm with you on that, any restriction is unconstitutional in my book. I came back into the sport after the 15 reduction took place, and on handguns, I can live with it (as unconstitutional as it is) because the guns that I like and fit my hand can't handle more than 15. Now with the long guns, I have a big issue with the restriction.

Also, I have  BIG issue with being made a felon after the fact, when I purchased something legally, and now, with no fault of my own, I'm a felon. That's BIG TIME unconstitutional!!!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Constitutional lawsuits aren’t really about comprise ; to your point. But if, if, any number is questionable... then all numbers are questionable; to your point 

Is it numbers, or is it anything?  Id suppose that one on the issues is where do you start to draw the line in terms of challenges?  Is it 10 rounds? 15? NFA of 1934?

There's a play on creating a line.  That's why they like to use the term "weapons of war" so much.  

So the question becomes, how far back does the fight go, and at some point do some regulations remain the de facto standard because of longevity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHZR2 said:

Is it numbers, or is it anything?  Id suppose that one on the issues is where do you start to draw the line in terms of challenges?  Is it 10 rounds? 15? NFA of 1934?

My opinion is to roll them all back and shoot for the stars. You have to shoot high to be able to possibly compromise back. There should be no lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

Is it numbers, or is it anything?  Id suppose that one on the issues is where do you start to draw the line in terms of challenges?  Is it 10 rounds? 15? NFA of 1934?

There's a play on creating a line.  That's why they like to use the term "weapons of war" so much.  

So the question becomes, how far back does the fight go, and at some point do some regulations remain the de facto standard because of longevity?

Idk... I learned to hire the best people.. not pontificate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it numbers, or is it anything?  Id suppose that one on the issues is where do you start to draw the line in terms of challenges?  Is it 10 rounds? 15? NFA of 1934?
There's a play on creating a line.  That's why they like to use the term "weapons of war" so much.  
So the question becomes, how far back does the fight go, and at some point do some regulations remain the de facto standard because of longevity?
If laws infringe on my right to own any firearm it should be a unconstitutional.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

Idk... I learned to hire the best people.. not pontificate 

Sorry but this whole thread is speculation on a wide variety of things. Modification, what happened during the first ban, etc.  

Where a notional line is drawn WRT lawsuits and other actions, considering past history, is within the scope of other discussion within this thread. 

I agree with capt14k's comment that anything infringing should be unconstitutional, but if that were viewed widely as the case, I'd think that big money from free states would be fighting NFA 1934, etc. 

Maybe they are more than I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

Sorry but this whole thread is speculation on a wide variety of things. Modification, what happened during the first ban, etc.  

Where a notional line is drawn WRT lawsuits and other actions, considering past history, is within the scope of other discussion within this thread. 

I agree with capt14k's comment that anything infringing should be unconstitutional, but if that were viewed widely as the case, I'd think that big money from free states would be fighting NFA 1934, etc. 

Maybe they are more than I know?

Sorry but you’re not changing anything typing here. Sorry.. not sorry 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

Sorry but this whole thread is speculation on a wide variety of things. Modification, what happened during the first ban, etc.  

Where a notional line is drawn WRT lawsuits and other actions, considering past history, is within the scope of other discussion within this thread. 

would be fighting NFA 1934, etc. 

Maybe they are more than I know?

NFA categories such as SBS, SBR and AOW have largely been invalidated with "arm brace" workarounds in most of the USA so no one really cares about those anymore. Full auto is the only real restriction for most. 

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...