Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So hopefully I am wrong.. but.. a discussion on FB lead to something.. 
YES NJ says the new non-NFA firearm things are OK and are approving them.. but I see a problem... maybe this was covered already but.. 
 

If you have a normal AR and one of these new sub 16in ARs how are you not guilty of:

2C 39:1 w (5) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

 

Share this post


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

So hopefully I am wrong.. but.. a discussion on FB lead to something.. 
YES NJ says the new non-NFA firearm things are OK and are approving them.. but I see a problem... maybe this was covered already but.. 
 

If you have a normal AR and one of these new sub 16in ARs how are you not guilty of:

2C 39:1 w (5) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

 

Discussed ad nauseam. Same with all parts for rifle un pinned.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vladtepes said:

So hopefully I am wrong.. but.. a discussion on FB lead to something.. 
YES NJ says the new non-NFA firearm things are OK and are approving them.. but I see a problem... maybe this was covered already but.. 
 

If you have a normal AR and one of these new sub 16in ARs how are you not guilty of:

2C 39:1 w (5) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

 

Is a firearm in a complete format considered "parts"?

 

Doesn't this also pertain to federal issues of constructive possession as well since it would potentially create an NFA Item?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikey_golds said:

According to NJSP the rule of thumb for "readily assembled" is a 1 - 1 relationship. Your rifle has a mated lower your Other has a mated lower

Which means that if you had an AR, and a "firearm", that's a no-go because you could easily put the firearm upper on the AR lower and have an SBR.

That being said, I think a huge part of this is "intent".  Now intent is something that's pretty hard to prove legally, but I think that you've got a pretty good defense if everything else that you do is legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, vjf915 said:

Which means that if you had an AR, and a "firearm", that's a no-go because you could easily put the firearm upper on the AR lower and have an SBR.

That being said, I think a huge part of this is "intent".  Now intent is something that's pretty hard to prove legally, but I think that you've got a pretty good defense if everything else that you do is legal.

Well from my discussion with NJSP Firearm Investigation Unit they said that would not be a "no go" the rifle has its mate, once I put my rifle upper on the lower its a rifle forever and ever.

So having a firearm which is an other, mated to an upper would not have you in the situation of readily available parts to create an SBR.

You would actually be guilty of re-manufacturing there


Utilizing the receiver of an existing rifle for the purposes of
manufacturing a handgun
(you can read other here as well) would constitute the making of a firearm as
defined above. Individuals desiring to make such a firearm must first
submit an ATF Form 1, Application To Make And Register a Firearm and
pay the applicable $200 making tax.

If an individual were to obtain a rifle type receiver that had not
previously been utilized in the assembly of a rifle, a handgun could be
made and not be subject to the provisions of the NFA. Verification
must be obtained from the manufacturer of the receiver to establish
its authenticity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mikey_golds said:

Well from my discussion with NJSP Firearm Investigation Unit they said that would not be a "no go" the rifle has its mate, once I put my rifle upper on the lower its a rifle forever and ever.

So having a firearm which is an other, mated to an upper would not have you in the situation of readily available parts to create an SBR.

You would actually be guilty of re-manufacturing there


Utilizing the receiver of an existing rifle for the purposes of
manufacturing a handgun
(you can read other here as well) would constitute the making of a firearm as
defined above. Individuals desiring to make such a firearm must first
submit an ATF Form 1, Application To Make And Register a Firearm and
pay the applicable $200 making tax.

If an individual were to obtain a rifle type receiver that had not
previously been utilized in the assembly of a rifle, a handgun could be
made and not be subject to the provisions of the NFA. Verification
must be obtained from the manufacturer of the receiver to establish
its authenticity.

 

It looks like down bottom you're quoting a something relating to the NFA, which is a federal law.  Federal and state are two separate jurisdictions.  One can be guilty of both creating an "assault weapon" in NJ, while also violating the NFA and creating an SBR, in the same act.

Also, if you don't think that pushing out a couple takedown pins and swapping uppers is "readily assembled", then I think we're interpreting that phrase differently.

Last but certainly not least, taking advice from the NJSP regarding firearm laws is an awful idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets go through the whole thing:

 

2C 39:1 w (5) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

"A part of combination of parts"

First per TITLE 13. LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY CHAPTER 54. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS you are in possession of

1)

"Rifle" means any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder and using the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

2)

"Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, assault firearm, automatic or semi-automati crifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectile,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

 

So right there we could stop.

Because you aren't in possession of parts.

Now in Title 13 they do not define "parts" or "readily assembled" --> That is up to the interpretation of intent and opinion letters. However they define "manufacturer" and they include a lot about parts in there:

 

"Manufacturer" means any person who receives or obtains raw materials or parts and processes them into firearms or finished parts of firearms, except a person who exclusively processes grips, stocks, and other nonmetal parts of firearms.The term does not include a person who repairs existing firearms or receives new and raw materials or parts solely for the repair of existing firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, vjf915 said:

Which means that if you had an AR, and a "firearm", that's a no-go because you could easily put the firearm upper on the AR lower and have an SBR.

That being said, I think a huge part of this is "intent".  Now intent is something that's pretty hard to prove legally, but I think that you've got a pretty good defense if everything else that you do is legal.

Federally, in accordance with NFA rules I believe intent is a factor, however here in NJ mere possession is what the law states. 

Share this post


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

possession is what the law states. 

possession of parts or a combination of parts. In the example given you are not in possession of parts because the two items you are in possession of are 1) rifle 2) firearm.

if you want to say, if you go out and buy a stock, and its in your house while the two above are as well, then you are in possession of a part that could convert a firearm to an SBR.

but as the ex sits you are ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mikey_golds said:

possession of parts or a combination of parts. In the example given you are not in possession of parts because the two items you are in possession of are 1) rifle 2) firearm.

if you want to say, if you go out and buy a stock, and its in your house while the two above are as well, then you are in possession of a part that could convert a firearm to an SBR.

but as the ex sits you are ok

Based on that argument... It's open to interpretation in this state. Will a jury believe that a firearm is not a combination of parts?

I personally believe if you found yourself in such a pickle that you needed to defend yourself.... you would be using the readily assembled language in the statute. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

a firearm is not a combination of parts?

See I really don't think it is up to interpretation, if so why would 1) NJSP approve them, 2) simply take everyone that's bought them, knock on their door for suspicion of being in possession of the parts, or combination of items to make an SBR, or assault rifle. State rakes in millions in fines

The definition of firearm does not include its a combination of parts. Once the upper is mated to a lower its a firearm, rifle or in free states pistols. If it is 1 thing how can it be another? If you are a firearm you can't be parts? Because in the definition of manufacturing parts end goal is to be a firearm.

Share this post


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

See I really don't think it is up to interpretation, if so why would 1) NJSP approve them, 2) simply take everyone that's bought them, knock on their door for suspicion of being in possession of the parts, or combination of items to make an SBR, or assault rifle. State rakes in millions in fines

The definition of firearm does not include its a combination of parts. Once the upper is mated to a lower its a firearm, rifle or in free states pistols. If it is 1 thing how can it be another? If you are a firearm you can't be parts? Because in the definition of manufacturing parts end goal is to be a firearm.

One of the definitions of an Assault firearm is clearly labeled as a combination of parts..

 

What more is a rifle than a combination of parts?  

 

If you find yourself trying to justify a reasoning here without directly using the language in the statute, your fate is in the hands of a jury.. 

Like i said before, the line is drawn with the "readily assembled" language in the law.... I cannot readily assemble an assault weapon if i have to deconstruct other weapons to do so. 

The truth is... @vladtepes is correct.. the law has just enough ambiguity to be ignored in general.. but if you found yourself being singled out... you would have a hard time arguing it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What more is a rifle than a combination of parts?

According to NJ a "Rifle" means any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder and using the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

they do not define a Rifle as a combination of parts designed to be... (continue from above)

also the definition of firearm (really long but it is above) does  not state a firearm is a combination of parts....

19 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Assault firearm is clearly labeled as a combination of parts..

my argument to you is that you are not in possession of parts. because what you are in possession of does not define it as a combination of parts...

13 hours ago, mikey_golds said:

or instrument in the nature of a weapon

definition of weapon

"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;2. Components which can be readily assembled into a weapon;3. Gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, or other dangerous knives,billies, blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, sand clubs, slingshots, cesti or similar leather bands studded with metal filings or razor blades imbedded in wood;4. Stun guns; and5. Any weapon or other device, which projects, releases or emits tear gas or any other substance intended to produce temporary physical discomfort or permanent injury through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed in the air.

Components which can be readily assembled into a weapon that could be readily cable of lethal use--> again based on the above you are not possession of components, and they ditched the word combination here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand the standard application of a law?

The law is to be interpreted as if a reasonable person would understand it.

Unless otherwise defined, a law is interpreted through the use of reasonable application. 

Is a firearm made of parts? yes. Does that make a firearm a combination of parts? yes.

Good luck trying to convince a jury otherwise. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JackDaWack said:

Do you understand the standard application of a law?

The law is to be interpreted as if a reasonable person would understand it.

Unless otherwise defined, a law is interpreted through the use of reasonable application. 

Is a firearm made of parts? yes. Does that make a firearm a combination of parts? yes.

Good luck trying to convince a jury otherwise. 

And you can apply prior rulings to current situations

United States, Petitioner v. Thompson-Center Arms Company

You sound like the US Government a disassembled bicycle still being a bicycle.

The supreme court ruled in favor of Thompson Center they could sell conversion kits (PARTS), 16 inch barrel and stock in the same kit for a pistol (10 inch barrel), and this did not equate to the individual being in possession of a SBR w/o a stamp.

 

11 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

The law is to be interpreted as if a reasonable person would understand it.

Unless otherwise defined, a law is interpreted through the use of reasonable application. 

Uh show me that please. Rule of Strict Construction requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner most favorable to the defendant.

And I think we both agree the laws are fairly ambiguous.

13 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Good luck trying to convince a jury otherwise. 

Based on this thread alone I would dance circles around a jury and Gurbir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, mikey_golds said:

See I really don't think it is up to interpretation, if so why would 1) NJSP approve them, 2) simply take everyone that's bought them, knock on their door for suspicion of being in possession of the parts, or combination of items to make an SBR, or assault rifle. State rakes in millions in fines

The definition of firearm does not include its a combination of parts. Once the upper is mated to a lower its a firearm, rifle or in free states pistols. If it is 1 thing how can it be another? If you are a firearm you can't be parts? Because in the definition of manufacturing parts end goal is to be a firearm.

you are on shaky ground here.. 

why would they approve it? because the weapon in itself is not an assault weapon nor does it have the capacity to be converted into one.. 

if your average soccer mom went out and purchased one of these.. and it was the only AR she owned.. no problem.. legal within the law.. the gun in itself is legal.. my concern is when you have other ARs present.. is NJSP going to follow your home from the range and raid your house? will it ever matter? no.. of course not.. well unlikely at least.. 

the question for discussion is.. does possession of a standard AR15 carbine AND one of these new guns put you in position to be charged with  2C 39:1w (5)

A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

my concern with the verbiage is that it specifically says any combination of parts... from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled.. 

yes it is true a standard ar15 is a rifle.. which by most rational people is a combination of parts.. 

an AR upper and lower come apart with two pull pins.. 

my concern is that most rational people would come to the conclusion that having both guns means you absolutely do have an assortment of parts that could be readily assembled into an assault firearm.. there is no machining involved.. no welding.. no additional parts needed.. you have enough parts in your possession to readily assemble a gun that would be prohibited.. which by definition sounds like it satisfies a violation of the law... 

Share this post


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

Based on this thread alone I would dance circles around a jury and Gurbir

now you are getting carried away.. lets not forget who the jury will be.. insert prosecutor standing in front of "non-gun" people popping out two pins and swapping others.. and then talking about how you possessed illegal assault weapons of war.. 

Share this post


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

And you can apply prior rulings to current situations

United States, Petitioner v. Thompson-Center Arms Company

You sound like the US Government a disassembled bicycle still being a bicycle.

The supreme court ruled in favor of Thompson Center they could sell conversion kits (PARTS), 16 inch barrel and stock in the same kit for a pistol (10 inch barrel), and this did not equate to the individual being in possession of a SBR w/o a stamp.

 

Uh show me that please. Rule of Strict Construction requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner most favorable to the defendant.

And I think we both agree the laws are fairly ambiguous.

Based on this thread alone I would dance circles around a jury and Gurbir

 

The law may be general but it isn't ambiguous. You're just trying to argue against reason.

Im not trying to argue anymore than what the law says.... and it does say that an assault weapon is also defined as a combination of parts.. (where as prior case law, bicycles?, did not define them as such)

A combination of parts(not being defined by law) is therefore defined by a reasonable person. You cant even convince a bunch of gun guys that a firearm is not a combination of parts... but you will convince a bunch of non gun people on a jury?

I count it a blessing the NJSP have been on our side, but a prosecutor wont care what they have to say if they want to nail your balls to the wall.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

(not being defined by law)

when not defined by law the court uses rule of Rule of Strict Construction not some reasonable interpretation. And NJ follows the rule of strict construction also known as rule of lenity

In United States v. Rodriquez, Justice Souter suggests that lenity ought to apply when a statute has two plausible interpretations.254

We have two plausible interpretations here? You MUST take mine as the defendant.

Unless you clarify your definitions futher

Share this post


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

I would use something like this on the firearm.

https://pof-usa.com/product/inseparable-pivot-pin-kit/

 

To satisfy the "easily assembled" portion of the law, which would make it difficult to swap combinations of parts between guns. 

Define easy, or readily available how many tools does it explicitly say are reasonable to have to require to then be back to parts in combination.

The AG can opine its 1 tool, you can opine 10

Share this post


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

when not defined by law the court uses rule of Rule of Strict Construction not some reasonable interpretation. And NJ follows the rule of strict construction also known as rule of lenity

In United States v. Rodriquez, Justice Souter suggests that lenity ought to apply when a statute has two plausible interpretations.254

We have two plausible interpretations here? You MUST take mine as the defendant.

Unless you clarify your definitions futher

 

I think the point is arguing that a gun is not parts readily available for your use is a stretch... a battery does not stop being a battery simply because it is in your laptop.. a piston does not stop being a piston because it is in an engine.. 

a stock does not stop being a stock because its on a rifle.. a bolt carrier does not stop being a bolt carrier because its in a rifle.. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not two interpretations. The law applies to anything that qualifies as a combination of parts. 

If you can find a gun expert to sit on a stand and tell a jury that a firearm is NOT a combination of parts... Let us know who he is. 

If a component needs any prior modification it is not "readily available", for instance... A prosecutor cannot take a firearm and swap uppers in a court room with that showing a jury it is not readily available. If he drilled out the pivot pin, he also is tampering with evidence.. 

 

Share this post


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

here are not two interpretations. The law applies to anything that qualifies as a combination of parts. 

you can not define combination of parts, nor has the state. nor has an opinion by the NJSP or AG ever been given therefore there is not 1 interpretation

Share this post


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

you can not define combination of parts, nor has the state. nor has an opinion by the NJSP or AG ever been given therefore there is not 1 interpretation

But i can define it.. its when parts are together.

What other meaning are you trying to suggest it refers to?

 

Your argument is, does a part stop being a part when it is assembled? 

Share this post


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

But i can define it.. its when parts are together. 

define it w/o using the word parts.

and define parts

 

remember the AG hasn't defined these so no matter what you say, we have to look at it under the Rule of Strict Construction.

My argument is once you have an assembled rifle that is what it is by the definitions. it is not defined a collection of parts that make rifle. it is rifle.

signing off to take study for my CPA be back in a few hours to argue rule of law.

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...



×
×
  • Create New...