Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is it legal in NJ to have 80% receivers for ARs, Glocks, and others along with all of the parts as long as they are not put together a completed firearm, including tools?   What is the law regarding disassembled magazines?  Could you keep springs, plates, followers, etc.?   Do you have to have a certain number of parts at your residence for it to be considered complete?   Like, what if you had the follower and the baseplate and someone else had the spring, etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no lawyer but...

Are they going to be completed in a legal manner? For example, I had a 80% glock frame, along with a bunch of glock parts sitting at my place for a while. All of it was completely legal. NJ doesnt allow for manufacturing your own weapons so I when I was in PA, I drilled/filled the frame to make it a firearm by ATF standards and then brought it back to NJ and put it all together. 

When you are dealing with 80% frames/lowers and all the associated parts, you just have a collection of parts, with no firearm. AFAIK, constructive possession applies to a combination of parts and a firearm.  

Magazines are a bit different I think. Having a bunch of 30rd mag bodies would probably constitute a high cap mag since its not permanently blocked to 10rds. Thats why people who modify the mags themselves have to go out of state to modify them, or have a FFL who is allowed to handle hi-cap mags do the modification. 

But again, Im no lawyer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, shooter28 said:

I'm no lawyer but...

Are they going to be completed in a legal manner? For example, I had a 80% glock frame, along with a bunch of glock parts sitting at my place for a while. All of it was completely legal. NJ doesnt allow for manufacturing your own weapons so I when I was in PA, I drilled/filled the frame to make it a firearm by ATF standards and then brought it back to NJ and put it all together. 

When you are dealing with 80% frames/lowers and all the associated parts, you just have a collection of parts, with no firearm. AFAIK, constructive possession applies to a combination of parts and a firearm.  

Magazines are a bit different I think. Having a bunch of 30rd mag bodies would probably constitute a high cap mag since its not permanently blocked to 10rds. Thats why people who modify the mags themselves have to go out of state to modify them, or have a FFL who is allowed to handle hi-cap mags do the modification. 

But again, Im no lawyer

 

The lines are getting blurred between constructive possession & constructive INTENT.  I wouldn't advertise you're putting parts together as the Murph's latest round of laws can be interpreted as disallowing what you've already done.  Arguing semantics in front of a Judge means you already opened your wallet to pay for your pleasures...

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just curious...   Nothing to hide and no need, and its not like its cost-effective, anyway, especially when you would include your time, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FAIK, it is 100% illegal to own a 80% receiver in NJ now. 

There is no such thing as constructive intent in NJ unless you are referring to a assualt weapon. 

I also don't believe the new magazine law clearly indicates the difference between magazine parts and an assembled mag. It only refers to modified mags.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

The lines are getting blurred between constructive possession & constructive INTENT.  I wouldn't advertise you're putting parts together as the Murph's latest round of laws can be interpreted as disallowing what you've already done.  Arguing semantics in front of a Judge means you already opened your wallet to pay for your pleasures...

Honestly, is there even a difference per the law? The law never establishes intent, it simple states if you have the parts to complete an assualt weapon, it is considered a complete assualt weapon. 

But the law in question here is Murphys new ghost gun ban, which ONLY bans incomplete recievers that can be readily manufactured into firearms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Honestly, is there even a difference per the law? The law never establishes intent, it simple states if you have the parts to complete an assualt weapon, it is considered a complete assualt weapon. 

But the law in question here is Murphys new ghost gun ban, which ONLY bans incomplete recievers that can be readily manufactured into firearms. 

Why are “ they “ even asking/searching etc? Better question 

Share this post


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

Why are “ they “ even asking/searching etc? Better question 

Why not? It's legal in most states to complete your own firearms. I know a guy right in PA with a small machine shop that a couple friends used to mill out 80% lowers. Not a bad way to learn how to operate a mill either.

If for no other reason than knowing you legally told NJ to go fck itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Why not? It's legal in most states to complete your own firearms. I know a guy right in PA with a small machine shop that a couple friends used to mill out 80% lowers. Not a bad way to learn how to operate a mill either.

If for no other reason than knowing you legally told NJ to go fck itself.

Hmm.. let me rephrase. Why are “ they “ in your domicile to begin with?

does that jive?

Share this post


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

"constructive possession"

a mill, a drill press ,a file , steel sheets with holes in them?

Constructive possession is a law in reference to possession of a prohibited device and in this case if the to be "assembled" firearm is legal to possess, there isn't really an issue. I believe this is settled in case law. This is why NJ made the law clear as day in reference to assualt weapons. 

Can that be applied to manufacturing? Case law never went that far. Well, that is where the new law comes in play, because they knew they can't charge someome with "intent" to manufacture A legal gun. How do you prove intent? So they just made "parts" readily manufactured illegal, and the idea was to ban 80% lowers. They did this effectively, and then some.

With NJ gun laws it's a moot point, but it's interesting for the NFA owners in free states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 6:40 PM, Zeke said:

Hmm.. let me rephrase. Why are “ they “ in your domicile to begin with?

does that jive?

All it takes is a spoofed 9-1-1 call and they will be inside your house. Now add the new Red Flag laws on the books and almost anyone can arrange a SWAT Raid and Search of any residence at any time. Secure from Search and seizures is meaningless in this brave new world. That is why the Gray Man is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wreckless said:

All it takes is a spoofed 9-1-1 call and they will be inside your house. Now add the new Red Flag laws on the books and almost anyone can arrange a SWAT Raid and Search of any residence at any time. Secure from Search and seizures is meaningless in this brave new world. That is why the Gray Man is a good thing.

The red flag laws are scary stuff. I think they need to work their way up the courts.

The 911 call? If my wife both greet the on scene ocifer with no visible signs of dv? No pc.

My main concern is burglary. Or worse home invasion. It’s why you have to keep your house clean!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going to conduct a walk around search under exigent circumstances for any 9-1-1 hangup call. They need to look for signs of a struggle or distress inside the home. Never leave anything laying out in the open inside.

I also worry about fires. That is a good way to get into a home w/o a warrant.

Share this post


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

The red flag laws are scary stuff. I think they need to work their way up the courts.

The 911 call? If my wife both greet the on scene ocifer with no visible signs of dv? No pc.

My main concern is burglary. Or worse home invasion. It’s why you have to keep your house clean!

 

Warrant.  @GRIZ?

Share this post


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

Without cause to think there's bad stuff going on inside, I believe they still need a warrant.  A bogus 911 call to your door isn't enough for you to allow entry (I think).

They need cause. But the red flag stuff ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Red Flag order is the warrant. The problem is that the standard is lowered when compared to a normal search warrant. All it takes is a kid, wife, an Ex, or a GF to make an offhand comment to a school counselor, nurse, doctor, or psychiatrist and those people are obligated to report it to the police who then are required to obtain the order from a judge. There is no investigation, per se, conducted as to the validity of the hearsay information reported.

 

https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/A1500/1181_I1.HTM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BobA said:

Without cause to think there's bad stuff going on inside, I believe they still need a warrant.  A bogus 911 call to your door isn't enough for you to allow entry (I think).

They don't need a warrant.

 

https://medium.com/@GBlawyer/new-jersey-revisits-the-emergency-aid-doctrine-defining-when-police-can-enter-a-home-without-a-7b7da7751eef

Share this post


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

He had a gash on his hand leading them to believe more happened. Short of probable cause they do. 

Share this post


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

They need cause. But the red flag stuff ...

 

Remember the two incidents that happened when this was all new?  The one in Hamilton when the son said something in school?  They didn’t get his guns because even though his wife let the in he wouldn’t open the safe. And then it happened to a member on here and he lawyered up quick via speaker phone. Still got his guns too.  Granted Napen charged him his eye teeth. 

Edited by BobA
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BobA said:

Remember the two incidents that happened when this was all new?  The one in Hamilton when the son said something in school?  They didn’t get his guns because even though his wife let the in he wouldn’t open the safe. And then it happened to a member on here and he lawyered up quick via speaker phone. Still got his guns too.  Granted Napen charged him his eye teeth. 

@Shawnmoore81 was a few years ago before any “ red flag law”. And that was from a face page post.

the one in Hamilton the firearms were relocated to the brothers house?

Share this post


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

He had a gash on his hand leading them to believe more happened. Short of probable cause they do. 

Oh, they can be very creative on that. It is all in how you write the report. The subject was evasive, combative, nervous, sweating, disheveled, had a band-aid, etc. You get the idea. It isn't hard to come up with PC if you know what you're doing.

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...