Sniper 6,372 Posted December 18, 2018 Just saw this on NJ101.5. The article says that that "Mag Fix" law that restricted LEOs to 10 rounds like us, was sent to Murphy today to sign. It says it's a 17 round max capacity, not the 15 that was in the original law. Did anyone hear this today?? You can’t have large ammo magazines in NJ. But soon cops could In May, Gov. Phil Murphy signed a law that reduced the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 rounds to 10. It had an exception for on-duty police officers or those commuting to and from duty – but not while off-duty. The limit took effect Dec. 10, last Monday. The Senate had passed a bill that would change the law in July, but the Assembly failed to do so at voting sessions in September and October. “It was simply an error, and quite frankly I think just the date, the Dec. 10 date, caught up with everybody. And it was rectified today,” Colligan said. “I know the governor will be signing it very quickly.” The bill now on Gov. Phil Murphy’s desk would let off-duty police carry magazines holding 17 rounds of ammunition or less. They could possess magazines that can carry more than 17 rounds, if it’s used with their work-issued firearm. http://nj1015.com/you-cant-have-large-ammo-magazines-in-nj-but-now-cops-can/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gus 33 Posted December 18, 2018 I don't even know what to say anymore with this state. I would love for someone to explain to us why cops need 17 rounds to defend themselves, when we regular folks are supposed to be able to defend ourselves against the same scumbags with only 10. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted December 18, 2018 That's to cover the Glock 17. There are more than a few cops that only own the gun they're issued now. Don't agree with any of these laws but that's the rationale for 17. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeletePLS 178 Posted December 18, 2018 51 minutes ago, GRIZ said: That's to cover the Glock 17. There are more than a few cops that only own the gun they're issued now. Don't agree with any of these laws but that's the rationale for 17. they make 15 round and 10 round magazines for the glock17, or they could pay to have their mags blocked like the rest of us. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,369 Posted December 18, 2018 2 hours ago, cabalrayz said: they make 15 round and 10 round magazines for the glock17, or they could pay to have their mags blocked like the rest of us. I'm not saying I support any magazine limit. Just explaining their rationale for picking 17. Glock is most prevalent among LE. There are Beretta 92 and others. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Screwball 483 Posted December 18, 2018 Question is if he will sign it... likely will, but you never know with Mr Ed. If he does sign it, then NJ gun owners received an early Christmas present. That is a great case to get up to the Supreme Court, and possibly get it all knocked down. But it really comes down to is if it will be done, or more scaring of the population that the government is coming to get them. Reading the legislation, up to 17s are allowed for personal ownership/possession. Over 17s are allowed if the officer is issued it for official duty. That part will allow 30s for personal rifles that a Chief approved for duty use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kawi7 52 Posted December 18, 2018 24 minutes ago, Screwball said: Question is if he will sign it... likely will, but you never know with Mr Ed. Oh he’ll sign it.. He won’t upset the police unions... 4 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
myhatinthering 462 Posted December 18, 2018 as I said, there is enough precedent not to create classes like this. This is a good thing for us and now we need to support whatever group is suing on our behalf. We need all gun owners to financially support those fighting for our rights 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted December 18, 2018 This new bill, while obscene, doesn’t undercut the defense used by the state and agreed with by District/Circuit judges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheWind 17 Posted December 18, 2018 My old department allowed us one off duty firearm to qualify with. We are not allowed a back up. I would have been getting rid of any other magazine. I am an RPO and the NJSP allow me as many as I want to qualify. As for gun laws, most of us are against them. I am an NRA life, a lot are. There are those that want civilians to not own firearms. Yes, there are liberal cops, there are administrators that mouth the rhetoric of liberal socialist politicians. We need to stop falling into the divide of them and us. That is what they want. Are LEOs special? Well if being willing to lay down your life for someone you do not know, makes you special? Even retired, we can't get it out of our head. 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted December 18, 2018 18 minutes ago, TheWind said: My old department allowed us one off duty firearm to qualify with. We are not allowed a back up. I would have been getting rid of any other magazine. I am an RPO and the NJSP allow me as many as I want to qualify. As for gun laws, most of us are against them. I am an NRA life, a lot are. There are those that want civilians to not own firearms. Yes, there are liberal cops, there are administrators that mouth the rhetoric of liberal socialist politicians. We need to stop falling into the divide of them and us. That is what they want. Are LEOs special? Well if being willing to lay down your life for someone you do not know, makes you special? Even retired, we can't get it out of our head. I wouldn't say that makes you special, plenty of people who aren't cops lay their lives down for others....and dont get paid for it.. I appreciate that cops do this, but they are FAR from being the only ones. 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lakota 342 Posted December 18, 2018 9 hours ago, Gus said: I don't even know what to say anymore with this state. I would love for someone to explain to us why cops need 17 rounds to defend themselves, when we regular folks are supposed to be able to defend ourselves against the same scumbags with only 10. Because we're better marksman than the police, we practice and train more. I guess leo's are more like stormtroopers... they can't hit shit and need the extra rounds. lol 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted December 18, 2018 1 hour ago, voyager9 said: This new bill, while obscene, doesn’t undercut the defense used by the state and agreed with by District/Circuit judges. “Dangerous even in the hands of law abiding citizens “? ” Can be stolen and used in crimes”? ’splain yourself! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
myhatinthering 462 Posted December 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, Lakota said: Because we're better marksman than the police, we practice and train more. I guess leo's are more like stormtroopers... they can't hit shit and need the extra rounds. lol On avg you are spot on. newer cops are not the cops we grew up with, big difference. man I've got stories....lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
124gr9mm 859 Posted December 18, 2018 1 hour ago, voyager9 said: This new bill, while obscene, doesn’t undercut the defense used by the state and agreed with by District/Circuit judges. Obscene is the best way to describe it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,877 Posted December 18, 2018 Privileged class Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WP22 1,558 Posted December 18, 2018 1 hour ago, TheWind said: We need to stop falling into the divide of them and us. That is what they want. So says the guy that belongs to the privileged class. I would say the same thing if it were me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted December 18, 2018 3 hours ago, Screwball said: Over 17s are allowed if the officer is issued it for official duty. That part will allow 30s for personal rifles that a Chief approved for duty use. You caught that too. They can be unrestricted on "official duty". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted December 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Zeke said: “Dangerous even in the hands of law abiding citizens “? ” Can be stolen and used in crimes”? ’splain yourself! The state defended the exception by saying LCM’s were “dangerous” in the hands of untrained civilians and that LEO have the required training. The fact that they’re excepted for 15 or 17 doesn’t objectively change that defense. It’s not like upping the limit to 17 makes them more or less of a “protected clss” and the court already stood by that defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted December 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, voyager9 said: The state defended the exception by saying LCM’s were “dangerous” in the hands of untrained civilians and that LEO have the required training. The fact that they’re excepted for 15 or 17 doesn’t objectively change that defense. It’s not like upping the limit to 17 makes them more or less of a “protected clss” and the court already stood by that defense. I have to assume that it also means criminals who have had "the required training". Why else would it refer to them being dangerous? At least we can rest easy knowing the criminals won't be dangerous. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted December 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, voyager9 said: The state defended the exception by saying LCM’s were “dangerous” in the hands of untrained civilians and that LEO have the required training. This so easily disproven when you look at percentage of hits to shots fired, LEO's vs. civilians that I wonder if ANJRPC used this tactic in their challenge. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Screwball 483 Posted December 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Sniper said: You caught that too. They can be unrestricted on "official duty". Not that I caught it, but know of a few departments that went that route. Howell, for example, allows it. But once you retire, that aspect ends. Any guns must be compliant, and magazines over the limit pinned/destroyed. While some view it as officers using it to get fun stuff, it actually allows a department to not tie up another AR. If someone is running a Tavor, puts the rounds behind it to get proficient, and qualifies on it... it is what it is, but I call it a smart move for an agency. That being said, do I feel that is justification for the firearms laws citizens have to follow? Not at all, but that is the legislative body that NJ allowed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GlennS87 65 Posted December 18, 2018 53 minutes ago, Pizza Bob said: This so easily disproven when you look at percentage of hits to shots fired, LEO's vs. civilians that I wonder if ANJRPC used this tactic in their challenge. I don't think it would matter. The NJ courts were going to reject it regardless. This, like all 2A issues in NJ will need to settled in the Federal court system imho. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekend_junkie 129 Posted December 18, 2018 My favorite thing to share when someone uses the "police have training" card is that I'm qualified expert in hand grenades per the US Army but not allowed to carry so much as an unloaded 22 in public because I'm not a police officer. IMHO, seems we have a government with a personal army instead of peace officers charged to protect and serve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,877 Posted December 18, 2018 Yeah they have training in the Academy - but some have only fired their guns to qualify and really nothing else... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted December 18, 2018 2 hours ago, voyager9 said: The state defended the exception by saying LCM’s were “dangerous” in the hands of untrained civilians and that LEO have the required training. The fact that they’re excepted for 15 or 17 doesn’t objectively change that defense. It’s not like upping the limit to 17 makes them more or less of a “protected clss” and the court already stood by that defense. First. They aren’t LCM’s the standard capacity for an AR is 30. The standard capacity for a Glock 17 and its ilk is 17. this is an Occasional Cortex argument.... “ so if 10 requires no training, but 11 does. Doesn’t every boolit require training “ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EngineerJet 191 Posted December 18, 2018 1 hour ago, weekend_junkie said: My favorite thing to share when someone uses the "police have training" card is that I'm qualified expert in hand grenades per the US Army but not allowed to carry so much as an unloaded 22 in public because I'm not a police officer. IMHO, seems we have a government with a personal army instead of peace officers charged to protect and serve. Amen brother. I can hit you at 500 yards but im not competant enough to step outside my house with a BB gun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted December 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, EngineerJet said: Amen brother. I can hit you at 500 yards but im not competant enough to step outside my house with a BB gun or a sling shot. Remember, we're not allowed to have them either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted December 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Zeke said: First. They aren’t LCM’s the standard capacity for an AR is 30. The standard capacity for a Glock 17 and its ilk is 17. this is an Occasional Cortex argument.... “ so if 10 requires no training, but 11 does. Doesn’t every boolit require training “ I don’t agree with their defense. As you and others have stated it is BS. But the court disagreed, unfortunately. And the amendment to the law that makes 17 ok for PD really doesn’t change any facet of the defense that would make it easier to fight in court Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites