Jump to content
Sniper

Wait... What... The Mag "fix" law for LEOs is 17 rounds, not 15...

Recommended Posts

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/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!:crazy:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


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

“Dangerous even in the hands of law abiding citizens “?

” Can be stolen and used in crimes”?

’splain yourself!:crazy:

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.:facepalm:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 “

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



×

Important Information