Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Redlines said:

How are airsoft guns legal in NJ.

Something I wonder as well.

Airsoft guns meet all the legal definitions of a "firearm" in NJ - use compressed air to fire a projectile. 

BB guns are considered firearms in NJ, and there are plenty of cases of people being prosecuted for having a BB gun outside of exemptions for firearms.

There is no distinction in the law for metal vs. plastic projectile.

Best I can figure is that most everyone involved - police, prosecutors, retailers have decided to look the other way on airsoft, but there is precedent for prosecuting people using airsoft guns using firearms laws:

https://newbrunswicktoday.com/article/comedian-takes-plea-deal-avoid-jail-high-profile-gun-case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it comes down to "with sufficient force to injure a person". 

This is why BB guns are firearms and Airsoft guns are not. You could argue the whole eye debate, but eyes are so sensitive anything could injury them. That would turn a spitball tube into a firearm. 

Share this post


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

"with sufficient force to injure a person". 

...

Bruises and welts are injuries, and there are airsoft modified with enough velocity to break skin.  I wouldn't want to be relying on that "injury" argument in court.

Are airsoft "strictly" legal in NJ?  In my opinion, no, an aggressive prosecutor could use existing law to charge you.

I wouldn't classify airsoft as legal - I think a better description is "mostly non-enforced", but if you do something with an airsoft that the police/prosecutor don't like you may find yourself defending against a firearms charge. (See the Bellario case above).

Share this post


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

People have been poped with” imitation firearms” . I think we should arrest every kid that possesses and store that sells these assault imitation weapons of mass murder.  

I believe there needs to be a crime accompanying that.

35 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Bruises and welts are injuries, and there are airsoft modified with enough velocity to break skin.  I wouldn't want to be relying on that "injury" argument in court.

Are airsoft "strictly" legal in NJ?  In my opinion, no, an aggressive prosecutor could use existing law to charge you.

I wouldn't classify airsoft as legal - I think a better description is "mostly non-enforced", but if you do something with an airsoft that the police/prosecutor don't like you may find yourself defending against a firearms charge. (See the Bellario case above).

Since the state has indicated that BB are firearms, and require the proper permitting to purchase, I would question why they haven't described airsoft or paintball in the same manner. 

If that were the case, many people would be in jail right now over the sale and use of them. 

Share this post


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

You mean like the actor? What crime? Creating a public nuisance?

At the end of that day, they were filming this guy driving around in a vehicle hanging out of it with a gun... He wound up being charged with exactly what he should have been. 

Even the state legeslator has moved to make them illegal through various bills that haven't passed. Which should be proof enough they don't believe current law covers them.

A prosecutor can charge you with anything... That's a given.. 

Share this post


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

At the end of that day, they were filming this guy driving around in a vehicle hanging out of it with a gun... He wound up being charged with exactly what he should have been. 

Even the state legeslator has moved to make them illegal through various bills that haven't passed. Which should be proof enough they don't believe current law covers them.

A prosecutor can charge you with anything... That's a given.. 

Pray for the kids playing army

Share this post


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

...

Since the state has indicated that BB are firearms, and require the proper permitting to purchase, I would question why they haven't describer airsoft or paintball in the same manner. 

If that were the case, many people would be in jail right now over the sale and use of them. 

I guess we have to go to the text of the statute:

 

Quote

”Firearm” means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances.  It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.

Please show me where in NJ statutes BB guns are identified as firearms aside from meeting the above definition.

I see nothing above that excludes Airsoft guns as meeting the definition.    If they meet the definition of a firearm then all the NJ firearms laws can apply.

Paintball guns get a pass because their projectile is > 3/8".

 

Even the state legeslator has moved to make them illegal through various bills that haven't passed. Which should be proof enough they don't believe current law covers them.

Sure, because NJ state legislators have previously shown themselves to have a deep understanding of current firearms law and their legislative attempts should be relied upon instead of reading existing statutes...

 

Quote

...At the end of that day, they were filming this guy driving around in a vehicle hanging out of it with a gun... He wound up being charged with exactly what he should have been. 

What is it that you think he was charged with?  In case you didn't follow the case closely - He was initially charged with unlawful possession of a firearm

I believe it was only after the case started to attract publicity that he got offered a plea deal to causing a public disturbance instead.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

Because they shoot little plastic pellets which can't really hurt anyone, unless maybe you hit them right in the eye?

Trick question, or anti-gun person visiting us?

No reading thru the laws and trying to figure out why they are legal. Is it because the ammo is plastic? Some will shoot at over 400fps that will hurt.paitball is covered because the projectile is bigger then 3/8” as stated in the law. Just looking for the law that says they are legal and if NJ treats them as a firearm? It seems by the definition of a firearm in NJ they would be one. I am trying to find out why they are exempted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, Laws do not make something legal. Only in NJ do they first make a firearm illegal, and then outline how they are legal.

The law itself does not clearly define an airsoft gun as being covered. People play airsoft every single weekend in this state without incurring injury directly from being hit with projectiles. Yes, you can argue that a bruise is an injury, but we proceed to the next point.

Second, there is not a single instance of anyone one, The AG included, who has written a statement as to Airsoft guns being covered by the statute. Add in the various legislative efforts, it further confirms that they do not believe they are covered by the statute. Add in the fact they people sell them every day in the state with out being charged, further adds to this conception. 

Being charged with it, is far different from being prosecuted.... No one is this state has ever been prosecuted for owning an airsoft gun or selling one. 

The public perception today, is that they are legal under current law, and that is the only basis that counts in criminal law.  This perception is directly attributed to the states actions in enforcement of the laws. 

If we add in that:

"Weapon" means anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, all:

1. Firearms, even though not loaded or lacking a clip or other component to render them immediately operable;

"

So there is a direct contradiction of the law within itself is Airsoft was included.

 

IF the AG wants to release a directive clarifying this misconception, then he could. If they thought it would work, im sure they would have done it already... especially with these morons in NJ.

 

The only reasonable purpose for not enforcing the law is if you believe this issue doesn't meet its definition.  

Share this post


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

First and foremost, Laws do not make something legal. ...

 

Agreed. 

Quote

The law itself does not clearly define an airsoft gun as being covered.

It also does not define a BB gun as being covered.  However, both bb guns and airsoft guns clearly meet the statutory definition of a firearm.

Quote

Second, there is not a single instance of anyone one, The AG included, who has written a statement as to Airsoft guns being covered by the statute.

Does every possible "firearm" that meets the statutory definition need to further have a statement that it is a "firearm"?  Seems kind of...redundant.

Quote

Add in the fact they people sell them every day in the state with out being charged, further adds to this conception. 

And millions of people exceed the speed limits every day, but are not charged.  Doesn't mean it's legal, means it's not strictly enforced.

Agree that there is a conception that Airsoft is legal.  However, in my view, because Airsoft guns clearly meet the NJ statutory definition of firearms, they are subject to being enforced under NJ firearms law.  Because they are not commonly enforced as such doesn't mean they can't be.

Quote

No one is this state has ever been prosecuted for owning an airsoft gun or selling one. 

Incorrect.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DARYL NORMAN

Quote

Defendant Daryl Norman was tried before a jury and convicted of second degree possession of a weapon with purpose to use it unlawfully, N.J.S.A. 2C:39–4(a), and second degree possession of a weapon by a person previously convicted of one of the crimes listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:39–7(b).

Quote

...the State's expert witness on firearms testified that the weapon was an airsoft spring loaded gun, modeled to mimic the visual features of firearms that use traditional gunpowder.   When the trigger of the airsoft gun is pulled, a pellet, about the size of a BB, is discharged or emitted out of the gun by the force of air.   According to the State's expert, the airsoft gun contained pellets six millimeters in diameter, or approximately .2367 inches.   The expert also opined that these airsoft guns are capable of causing physical injury to humans, especially if the pellets hit the victim in the eyes. ...

Back to your above reply:

...The public perception today, is that they are legal under current law, and that is the only basis that counts in criminal law.  ...

Am I understanding correctly that you're saying popular perception trumps statute in criminal law?

Share this post


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

Agreed. 

It also does not define a BB gun as being covered.  However, both bb guns and airsoft guns clearly meet the statutory definition of a firearm.

Does every possible "firearm" that meets the statutory definition need to further have a statement that it is a "firearm"?  Seems kind of...redundant.

And millions of people exceed the speed limits every day, but are not charged.  Doesn't mean it's legal, means it's not strictly enforced.

Agree that there is a conception that Airsoft is legal.  However, in my view, because Airsoft guns clearly meet the NJ statutory definition of firearms, they are subject to being enforced under NJ firearms law.  Because they are not commonly enforced as such doesn't mean they can't be.

Incorrect.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DARYL NORMAN

Back to your above reply:

 

 

Am I understanding correctly that you're saying popular perception trumps statute in criminal law?

In a court of law, you can only be held to the standard of law in terms of what a person would reasonably believe the law says. 

That state has made it reasonable to believe the law does not cover Airsoft, much like it is entirely reasonable to believe BB guns are covered. 

Thousands of people ARE charged with and "convicted" of speeding, so that point is lost. 

Let's also keep in mind here this Norman individual was charged with using the Airsoft gun in the commission of crime (robbery), and the justification for that is injury to the eyes. The appeal for that case is also interesting in that they never argued any points about airsoft gun not being a firearm.. seeking the lesser charge of imitation firearm. Which is why he lost that point in his attempt for appeal.

again do you think a spit ball tube is a firearm?

It's not whether they are commonly prosecuted, finding a single instance of one used in the commission of a crime is a far outlier to this issue. the state literally allows them to be sold every single day without licenses... thats not looking the other way to a reasonable person. 

Why would the state with the toughest guns laws in the country allow the illegal sales and possession of firearms? Especially when they treat BB guns as firearms? To me, it is only reasonable to assume that Airsoft guns do not rise to the level of injury that the law states. 

It is unreasonable to think the state would treat BB guns and not airsoft guns as firearms if they felt both would fit the definition of firearm. 

If the state kicked in Cobra one tacticals door and charged them with illegal firearm transfers, do you really think it would stick?

At this point, it's more about the precedent the state has set, and not the actual law being as vague it is. 

On the other hand, a lot of people have been charged with unlawful possession of a weapon in the 4th degree, which is for imitation firearms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cursory look at the quotes from NJ vs. Norman, above, seems to indicate quite definitely that NJ has charged and convicted someone for possessing an airsoft gun - which I assume means the court did determine it was a firearm (forgive me if I am misinterpreting this - I'm just going by the above quotes from the case). If this is so, even if it is only one case, it sets a precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RWL62 said:

A cursory look at the quotes from NJ vs. Norman, above, seems to indicate quite definitely that NJ has charged and convicted someone for possessing an airsoft gun - which I assume means the court did determine it was a firearm (forgive me if I am misinterpreting this - I'm just going by the above quotes from the case). If this is so, even if it is only one case, it sets a precedent.

I Included the denial for appeals to give some insight as to what took place during the trial. It clearly indicated that the defendant, Norman, did not attempt to argue that airsoft guns were not included in the statute. PLease keep in mind that a conviction does not set a precedent, an appeals ruling would. In this case the appeals doesn't say that airsoft guns meet the definition of law, just that the jury was correctly instructed and not misguided. I don't disregard it being a nail in the coffin, but this is an extreme case involving a criminal. 

 

 

Against this record, defendant now appeals raising the following arguments.

POINT I

THE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING POSSESSION OF A WEAPON FOR AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE WERE DEFICIENT BECAUSE THE COURT NEVER ASKED THE JURORS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE AIRSOFT GUN WAS A TOY OR WHETHER IT WAS SO BROKEN AS TO NO LONGER RETAIN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A WEAPON.   THE COURT ALSO ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT ON THE LESSER–INCLUDED OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF AN IMITATION FIREARM FOR AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE.  (Not Raised Below)

POINT II

THE PROSECUTOR COMMITTED MISCONDUCT BY ATTACKING NORMAN'S CREDIBILITY ON THE BASIS THAT HE WAS UNFAITHFUL TO HIS GIRLFRIEND.   THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO LIMIT THE PROSECUTOR'S CROSS–EXAMINATION AND IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THAT NORMAN'S BAD ACTS WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING GUILT, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO OBJECT.  (Not Raised Below)

POINT III

BECAUSE THE AIRSOFT GUN WAS A TOY, THE JUDGE ERRED IN IMPOSING A TWELVE–YEAR EXTENDED–TERM SENTENCE UNDER THE GRAVES ACT.

None of the arguments raised by defendant have merit.   As a threshold issue, we note defendant did not object to the jury instructions at the time the trial judge conducted the charge conference required by Rule 1:8–7(b).  We thus review any argument attacking the propriety of the jury charges under the plain error doctrine.   Under this standard of review, we are obligated to disregard any alleged error or omission in the jury charge “unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]”  R. 2:10–2.   Stated differently, defendant must “demonstrate that the jury instruction was clearly erroneous, and that it caused the jury to reach a verdict it otherwise would not have reached.”  State v. Simon, 161 N.J. 416, 477 (1999).

The only time defendant questioned the propriety of the jury charges was at the sentencing hearing.   Defendant moved to set aside the jury verdict arguing that the trial judge committed reversible error when he failed to instruct the jury to determine:  (1) whether the weapon found by Barone was a toy gun, and thus not a firearm as a matter of law;  or (2) whether the gun was so damaged and mutilated that it had lost the characteristics of a firearm because it was no longer capable of being fired.

Share this post


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

In a court of law, you can only be held to the standard of law in terms of what a person would reasonably believe the law says. 

I disagree.  There's plenty of cases of NJ prosecuting people on hyper-technical/unreasonable interpretations of firearms law.  A prosecutor and judge were able to convince a jury that the hollowpoint transportation exemptions did not allow transportation between residences in Brian Aitken's case.

3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

That state has made it reasonable to believe the law does not cover Airsoft, much like it is entirely reasonable to believe BB guns are covered.  

Lack of enforcement does not equal legality.  I think it's obvious when you use airsoft guns in a way the state doesn't like, they come after you using the firearm definition.

3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

Let's also keep in mind here this Norman individual was charged with using the Airsoft gun in the commission of crime (robbery), and the justification for that is injury to the eyes.

So do you now agree that, when the state decides it wants to, they will hold airsoft guns to the "firearm standard", and hire experts to testify to that effect?

3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

again do you think a spit ball tube is a firearm? 

It doesn't matter what I think.  It matters what the statute reads.  (If you do want to know what I think, I think NJ's "firearm" definition is utter horseshit).  If I shoot metal darts or acid-soaked balls with the spitball tube, yeah, I might get charged with it as a firearm.

3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

It's not whether they are commonly prosecuted, finding a single instance of one used in the commission of a crime is a far outlier to this issue. the state literally allows them to be sold every single day without licenses... thats not looking the other way to a reasonable person. 

Why would the state with the toughest guns laws in the country allow the illegal sales and possession of firearms? Especially when they treat BB guns as firearms? To me, it is only reasonable to assume that Airsoft guns do not rise to the level of injury that the law states. 

I can only hypothesize why the State doesn't prosecute airsoft more often.  Maybe airsoft guns were developed and came to the marketplace long after the statute was in place, and it was just negligence/inattention on NJ's part that allowed them to "set a precedent".  Maybe the state only prosecutes them when they're involved in other criminal activity.

I do believe that with the current statute all it would take to stop the sale of airsoft in NJ and start a crackdown on possession of them would be a directive from the AG's office.

I bet it happens sometime during

3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

If the state kicked in Cobra one tacticals door and charged them with illegal firearm transfers, do you really think it would stick?

I doubt the state would do it that way, but yes, if they did it, and had a clueless/anti-RKBA jury, I believe they have a chance at getting a conviction on that with the current statute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the state will do what the state wants to do, no doubt. 

Personally, I DO think that is exactly what happened. Airsoft became something new and the state was negligent in enforcing them as firearms. 

My biggest issue here is not that they loosely enforce them as firearms. They don't enforce it at all, and in one instance they got a conviction when the issue went completely unchallenged. 

They are commonly charged as imitation firearms far more often, and the few instances of people getting in trouble just for simple possession.... the cases seem to vanish..

The other obvious point is that the state government doesn't require ANY permits or licensing to purchase them, and have knowingly allowed it to take places for decades. 

 

I think a better answer or understanding to this issue is that you CAN be charged with an airsoft gun as a firearm, but if it's simple possession your probably going to see it dropped. I wouldn't even put it past most cops to just treat an airsoft gun like a BB gun until you have to hire a lawyer. Which is why i would never just treat them as a toy.

I would like to know where it became common place to NOT do paperwork for an airsoft gun, who made that decision? To me, that is the number one reason the state would never follow through on such a charge for merely possessing one. 

The other primary issue is that the state also would need to be prepared to treat most of these airsoft guns as full machine guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"with sufficient force to injure a person."

Given that the item is designed to, by default, not be injurious to someone, and that lots of people engage in an activity with said item that implicitly recognizes that they will not suffer injury from said item. It's pretty defensible to say that airsoft in general does not meet the definition of a firearm based on that bit I quoted from the statue right above. 

Hop it up and load up metal projectiles, and you may find you get smacked with manufacturing a firearm. Given the nature of most airsoft operating systems, possibly with manufacture of a machine gun. 

At which point pleas out the wazoo will be offered because NJ politicians wil look like the idiots they are amongst their peers if this thing goes to trial and every big box retailer who has been selling cheap ass airsoft guns feels compelled to weigh in on the side of "it's not a gun". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lomgtime Airsofter - been playing since like 2001.  They're legal as they're not specifically illegal - there was some pending legislation years ago that would try to define them as illegal.  However, I would still treat them as if they are real firearms, including transportation, brandishing, etc.  You could get in real trouble for an "imitation firearm" if you were using it to commit a crime.. of course then again if you're using it to commit a crime then you've got other problems.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view, reiterating what's been hashed out in this thread:

Airsoft are "effectively" unregulated - you can buy them in stores/online without any paperwork, background check or registration.  If you don't brandish them in public or use them to commit a crime then you'll probably never have any issues with them in NJ.

However, they are "technically" firearms under NJ law - they meet the definition of a firearm, people have been charged and convicted under firearms statutes with them, and the state has employed an expert witness in at least one case to successfully argue that they meet the NJ statutory definition of a firearm. 

If you use airsoft in a way that pisses off law enforcement/the state you will likely find yourself charged under firearms statutes.

I believe this situation exists because NJ either chooses to, or is negligent in, enforcing existing firearms statutes on airsoft.

 

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...