345Sire 158 Posted December 27, 2018 17 hours ago, Zeke said: Does the chain weigh 200#lbs? this seems like work Please, don't go using 4 letter words in a family friendly forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted December 27, 2018 17 hours ago, Sniper said: Isn't that like hiding from the boogieman under your bed? Why poison the fish? I won't tell the boogieman if you don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted December 27, 2018 12 hours ago, vladtepes said: my point is what you described does not exist.. the qualifier is not the mags permanency.. the qualifier is that the firearm has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.. no mention of effort.. no mention of tools.. the simple ability to even accept a detachable magazine.. qualifies the gun.. I get it, really. It's just indicative of how bad the legislators here are that they keep pulling this B.S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted December 27, 2018 38 minutes ago, PK90 said: I think we're stretching the arm of the law here. If I invent a magazine for the M1 Garand or Marlin 60, does that restrict those firearms to one evil feature? I hope not. I believe that the statement "ability to accept a detachable magazine" is interpreted as to the current configuration. Although, one must wonder why "ability to accept" was used instead of "has". Hmmm. Even the dweebs in gov't know that "ability to accept" is more all encompassing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted December 27, 2018 31 minutes ago, vladtepes said: If you knew NOTHING about guns.. were told by a prosecutor the legal standing is “can the gun accept a detachable magazine” and you were then shown a detachable magazine going into the gun.. if you being a reasonable person knew nothing about guns.. were not interested in them.. etc.. would you not accept that you just saw something that fell under the scope of the law? I would fervently hope that the lawyer at the other table would point out the simple absurdity of the whole "scary, dangerous" etc crap. Even uninformed people on the jury, if reasonable and reasonably intelligent, would see the folly in going along with such selective use of the phrases by the prosecutor. I know, letter of the law and all that,,,,,Brings me back to the posting a bit back about the other "N" word. nullification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheWind 17 Posted December 27, 2018 1 hour ago, PK90 said: I think we're stretching the arm of the law here. If I invent a magazine for the M1 Garand or Marlin 60, does that restrict those firearms to one evil feature? I hope not. I believe that the statement "ability to accept a detachable magazine" is interpreted as to the current configuration. Although, one must wonder why "ability to accept" was used instead of "has". Hmmm. BM 59 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,365 Posted December 27, 2018 6 hours ago, TheWind said: BM 59 BM59 "type" is outlawed by name in NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheWind 17 Posted December 28, 2018 1 hour ago, GRIZ said: BM59 "type" is outlawed by name in NJ. Therefore a Garand with a magazine is banned, I will stick with my en bloc clips Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
myhatinthering 462 Posted December 28, 2018 not coming here, there will be many many more challenges to gun laws in the coming year. it's turning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GRIZ 3,365 Posted December 28, 2018 1 hour ago, TheWind said: Therefore a Garand with a magazine is banned, I will stick with my en bloc clips I've seen Garands converted to use BAR and M14 magazines. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sota 1,191 Posted December 28, 2018 Given the inexpensive nature of lowers and lower build kits, if you really needed to have stock adjustability, you could just build 6 completed lowers and call it a day. For me and mine. we have 3 identical rifles, just with different LOP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sota 1,191 Posted December 28, 2018 I'm more interested in the fixed mag idea in terms of a pistol build. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted December 28, 2018 10 minutes ago, sota said: Given the inexpensive nature of lowers and lower build kits, if you really needed to have stock adjustability, you could just build 6 completed lowers and call it a day. Think about that for just a second, and how absolutely screwed up the laws are in this state. A adjustable stock is So Dangerous, that you need to build multiple lowers just so different people can comfortably shoot at the range.. It's beyond nuts!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted December 28, 2018 1 hour ago, sota said: Given the inexpensive nature of lowers and lower build kits, if you really needed to have stock adjustability, you could just build 6 completed lowers and call it a day. For me and mine. we have 3 identical rifles, just with different LOP. crazy talk.. my trigger alone was like $200.. plus the rest of the parts.. stock.. etc.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted December 28, 2018 10 hours ago, vladtepes said: crazy talk.. my trigger alone was like $200.. plus the rest of the parts.. stock.. etc.. I think his point was, you build what you want for yourself, then build a basic one that you can swap out the lower for when you bring family members or friends, if LOP is important. Would an occassional shooter care about a $200 trigger? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites