Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, mikey_golds said:

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.

An assembled rifle is literally a collection of parts.. the definition could not be any more fitting.. 

as stated.. when the government does not define something the standard definition applies.. yes... a rifle is a rifle as defined.. but it does not change the fact that it is made of components.. or PARTS...  the government offers no guidance on the matter so there would be no reason to think otherwise.. 

part /pärt/ noun
plural noun: parts
  1. 1. 
    a piece or segment of something such as an object, activity, or period of time, which combined with other pieces makes up the whole.
    "divide the circle into three equal parts"
     
  2. 2. 
    some but not all of something.
    "the painting tells only part of the story"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the laws were read that way, wouldn’t every single person who owns an AR pistol and a regular AR be guilty as it easily could be converted to an SBR?

Its like people want to be found guilty of something at this point. Build/buy your non-NFA firearm, shoot and be happy

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

 

you aren’t intending to build an assault weapon. You have the other required parts available to build a perfectly legal firearm. 

Share this post


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

I swear the psychology of some gun owners is bat s**t crazy. I guess some shit is to good to be true and has to be over analyzed and prodded into oblivion by a few “well” meaning gun owners. Build it anyway. 

 

1 hour ago, shooter28 said:

If the laws were read that way, wouldn’t every single person who owns an AR pistol and a regular AR be guilty as it easily could be converted to an SBR?

Its like people want to be found guilty of something at this point. Build/buy your non-NFA firearm, shoot and be happy

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with understanding the risks of doing or owning something. It also better allows you to protect yourself if you do choose to exercise such risks.. There is something to be said about keeping one step ahead of what seems to be a very anti-gun administration. 

There is a reason i would suggest building one, even against NJSP guidance, over purchasing one in this state.. If i did buy one, maybe do it out of state.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with understanding the risks of doing or owning something. It also better allows you to protect yourself if you do choose to exercise such risks.. There is something to be said about keeping one step ahead of what seems to be a very anti-gun administration. 

Totally agree, especially in a state like NJ. Just seems like we’ve gone well beyond what is necessary. I feel like we aren’t far from the legality of owning a hack saw and a rifle at the same time. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious while on this topic, AGIAN Does anyone have any knowledge of anyone being charged with 2C 39:1 w (5) the constructive possession or parts to assemble?

  I’m just wondering if some of these laws have ever been actually challenged inside a court room, and the outcomes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shooter28 said:

 

 

you aren’t intending to build an assault weapon. You have the other required parts available to build a perfectly legal firearm. 

 

you are only reading half.. 

 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.

2 hours ago, Blacksmythe said:

I swear the psychology of some gun owners is bat s**t crazy. I guess some shit is to good to be true and has to be over analyzed and prodded into oblivion by a few “well” meaning gun owners. Build it anyway. 

I like to read and understand the law as it relates to guns.... if that does not interest you this thread is not for you.. 

I am simply thinking out loud about a potential problem with the law as it is written in regards to these new guns.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shooter28 said:

If the laws were read that way, wouldn’t every single person who owns an AR pistol and a regular AR be guilty as it easily could be converted to an SBR?

Its like people want to be found guilty of something at this point. Build/buy your non-NFA firearm, shoot and be happy

 

 

THANK YOU!!!! Every single person in America.

Share this post


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

 

you are only reading half.. 

 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.

But they aren’t parts anymore. It’s an assembled, legal firearm, alongside other complete, legal firearms. Owning one doesn’t suddenly make the other illegal unless you start disassembling them and then you do have a collection of parts to assemble an illegal weapon.

A bit of a logic test based on your reading of the law-  Assuming you had no other rifles, wouldn’t owning one of these non-NFA firearms in of itself break the law? A simple twist of a screw driver removes the VFG and now you have an “assault rifle”.

If a simple screw can keep this weapon legal, why wouldn’t takedown pins separating two different weapons be enough to keep both legal? 

 

Share this post


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

But they aren’t parts anymore. It’s an assembled, legal firearm, alongside other complete, legal firearms. Owning one doesn’t suddenly make the other illegal.

A bit of a logic test based on your reading of the law-  Assuming you had no other rifles, wouldn’t owning one of these non-NFA firearms in of itself break the law? A simple twist of a screw driver removes the VFG and now you have an “assault rifle”.

If a simple screw can keep this weapon legal, why wouldn’t takedown pins separating two different weapons be enough to keep both legal? 

If the ATF wanted to flop tomorrow and say that a VFG by virtue is an accessory to the gun and doesnt change it's classification, then that does cause an issue.... 

They just did that with pistol braces... so i see no reason why your proposed logic couldnt take place. 

 

For the sake of argument, you need to contextualize this to NJ's law... 

As pointed out many times, the NFA violations of constructive possession need to show intent. 

 

Personally i believe that take down pins still allows for 'an assault firearm to be readily assembled by simply removing a combination of parts from one firearm to assemble an assualt weapon.'

If that statement makes sense to you... then im not sure what the argument is, notice how i used the exact words of the law and arguably any person with a brain could fully understand exactly what i meant and how the law applies to that situation. 

 

I personally suggested the takedown pin that works by blind pinning an expansion ring... it has to be drilled out if you want to separate the (upper/lower)parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments made about NFA are not relevant.. federal law.. 

my comments come from reading NJ law literally word for word..

is it illegal to possess parts that can be assembled into an “assault weapon”.. per my reading yes..

is a AR stock a stock? Yes.. does it stop being a part once it is on a rifle? No..

If you take a flash hider.. and put it on an AR.. it’s still a flash hider.. a single individual part..

when you say “no you are wrong it’s ok” that’s fine but what in the literal law makes it OK? Unfortunately nothing I am reading..

 

Your comment about the vertical grip is an incorrect comparison.. 

the law is about having parts that can be assembled INTO a firearm.. it says nothing about it being illegal to have a gun that can be prohibited in the removal of a part.. 

Share this post


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

Your comment about the vertical grip is an incorrect comparison.. 

THEY LITERALLY USE THE WORD CONVERT

Now you are saying "into" must mean pieces become 1 thing.

I am defining "into" a MW has it expressing a change of state. You own a screw driver or wrench you are in possession

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ray Ray said:

Here we friggen go again with members here finding ways to NOT own stuff.  Fucking ridiculous.   You want one?  Buy it, build it, do whatever you fucking want!  

I plan on building mine, pulling the trigger (pun intended) tonight on the upper. ordered the lower yesterday.

1.pdf

  • Like 3
  • Informative 1

Share this post


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

Would having a folding/collapsible stock on a bolt gun under the same roof as an AR be breaking the law? The precision shooters on this forum might have some problems if that’s the case. 

My personal belief.... most instances no one would bat an eye... because nothing is really raising a red flag. If the parts were truly interchangeable? I stand by the legality is in the "readily assembled" language of the law. 

IF you had to go to court over this would you argue that a gun is not a combination of parts? Is that something you think a jury could believe?

the prosecutor will argue that if a gun is made of parts, it is therefore a combination of parts...

 

Or would you rely on the fact that disassembling a firearms parts to reassemble another is beyond the scope of "readily assembled"?

The prosecutor will have to attempt to show the jury how easy it is to assemble the assault weapon. If he does it in under 20 seconds by punching take down pins out... how does a jury look at that?

If he needs a bench vice, specific tools... and takes enough time for the jury to pander how exactly easy is this task? 

 

Share this post


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

I swear the psychology of some gun owners is bat s**t crazy. I guess some shit is to good to be true and has to be over analyzed and prodded into oblivion by a few “well” meaning gun owners. Build it anyway. 

EXACTLY

Let's just keep asking questions to the ATF and NJSP until we get an answer that's not good.  /S

Do we enjoy having their boot on our neck that much?

67123186_2898343083724826_8889927230013046784_n.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ray Ray said:

Here we friggen go again with members here finding ways to NOT own stuff.  Fucking ridiculous.   You want one?  Buy it, build it, do whatever you fucking want!  

Perhaps it's the opposite? maybe once you figure out how to get around constructive possession you wont have to worry about it? 

I don't discuss NJ law to figure out what i can't own... It's about figuring out ways to own the stuff I want. People who dig their heads into the sand are betting on blind luck... If some asshat wants to come at me with owning a non-nfa firearm I know how to fight the charges without relying on a silly argument... or in your case no argument at all. But my argument requires foresight.... and prior action....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, mikey_golds said:

I plan on building mine, pulling the trigger (pun intended) tonight on the upper. ordered the lower yesterday.

1.pdf 422.23 kB · 0 downloads

If youre going to use the aero lower, use their mono upper and rail. You will not be disappointed.

and just order the barrel from BCM..

 

Share this post


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

My personal belief.... most instances no one would bat an eye... because nothing is really raising a red flag. If the parts were truly interchangeable? I stand by the legality is in the "readily assembled" language of the law. 

IF you had to go to court over this would you argue that a gun is not a combination of parts? Is that something you think a jury could believe?

the prosecutor will argue that if a gun is made of parts, it is therefore a combination of parts...

 

Or would you rely on the fact that disassembling a firearms parts to reassemble another is beyond the scope of "readily assembled"?

The prosecutor will have to attempt to show the jury how easy it is to assemble the assault weapon. If he does it in under 20 seconds by punching take down pins out... how does a jury look at that?

If he needs a bench vice, specific tools... and takes enough time for the jury to pander how exactly easy is this task? 

 

If I went to court, I would argue the AWB doesn’t apply to bolt guns. My adjustable stock was legally assembled on a rifle that allows an adjustable stock and that’s where it has stayed. Whether it’s 20 sec by hand or 2 min with an Allen key, we don’t actually know if that matters or not to a jury. In the grand scheme of things, what’s 15 min with a common wrench and screw driver?  Depending on how you frame it, everything is readily assembled since we have nothing to further define it. 

Are we now trying to expand the reach of the AWB here? That seems to be where we are going. NJSP specifically called out people falling into a trap and building a SBR by accident if not following their guidelines exactly. If they took the time to mention that, would it also not seem reasonable they make a statement of “if you own any other AR platform in addition to this weapon, you will be breaking the law” ? 

I understand what and why are you doing this. No one wants to be caught with their pants down but I think you are searching for an answer that doesn’t exist because no one has ever faced this charge before, for a reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the sad state of affairs that NJ has fostered for us citizens to live in. No one wants to even have a wiff of illegality, which in itself isnt a bad thing. And frankly I blame the state for this, not the citizens. At this point it seems that the NJSP is good to go with non-nfa. But has there been guidance sent to the other law enforcement municipalities of their legality so some ignorant officer wont tackle you if they see you at the range with what they perceive as an SBR?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 1 last thing anyone that says I cannot quote other cases state or federal because this is NJ - come on don't be ridiculous.

Why is the supreme court holding the conceal carry case until the NY case is opined upon? --> Because that ruling may directly effect how the other courts review the NJ conceal carry case.

Furthermore read about how state laws are challenged which end up at the Supreme Court.

Look at what the plan is in Alabama and how they expect the new abortion bill to be blocked in lower courts due to FEDERAL Roe v Wade, and plan to appeal until it arrives at the Supreme Court's desk - at that time in order to consider the Alabama bill --> STATE LAW, they need to review against a federal opinion. Now this is different because the suing is occurring during the grace period before the law goes into affect - so no one is being arrested. But if someone did get arrested the same process would occur, if the STATE law being challenged is deemed invalid due to FEDERAL your conviction is overturned Flowers’s vs Florida

So once again Thompson Center vs the US Government 

attorney James Bardwell's:

lower court had held in a prior case that that set of parts was a SBR. The court agreed; that if the parts had only one use, to make a SBR, and a person possessed them all that was a SBR also. 

Then the supreme court: decided the [T/C] kit was not a SBR, nor was any set of parts where they could be used for a legitimate purpose, even if they could also be used to assemble a SBR. 

If you don't think I will pull that out in a heart beat you are crazy. The SUPREME COURT ruled on this. Substitute NFA, for SBR or AW, they are interchangeable. 

So now you want to play the psychological aspect I would LOVE to tell a NJ Jury this is Roe V Wade but with firearms. Id break their brains. 

Share this post


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

This is the sad state of affairs that NJ has fostered for us citizens to live in. No one wants to even have a wiff of illegality, which in itself isnt a bad thing. And frankly I blame the state for this, not the citizens. At this point it seems that the NJSP is good to go with non-nfa. But has there been guidance sent to the other law enforcement municipalities of their legality so some ignorant officer wont tackle you if they see you at the range with what they perceive as an SBR?

I'd wager there hasn't been any guidance set. 

Doggies going to be getting the lead with all these SBRs around. 

50chdd6plka01.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Just 1 last thing anyone that says I cannot quote other cases state or federal because this is NJ - come on don't be ridiculous.

Why is the supreme court holding the conceal carry case until the NY case is opined upon? --> Because that ruling may directly effect how the other courts review the NJ conceal carry case.

Furthermore read about how state laws are challenged which end up at the Supreme Court.

Look at what the plan is in Alabama and how they expect the new abortion bill to be blocked in lower courts due to FEDERAL Roe v Wade, and plan to appeal until it arrives at the Supreme Court's desk - at that time in order to consider the Alabama bill --> STATE LAW, they need to review against a federal opinion. Now this is different because the suing is occurring during the grace period before the law goes into affect - so no one is being arrested. But if someone did get arrested the same process would occur, if the STATE law being challenged is deemed invalid due to FEDERAL your conviction is overturned Flowers’s vs Florida

So once again Thompson Center vs the US Government 

attorney James Bardwell's:

lower court had held in a prior case that that set of parts was a SBR. The court agreed; that if the parts had only one use, to make a SBR, and a person possessed them all that was a SBR also. 

Then the supreme court: decided the [T/C] kit was not a SBR, nor was any set of parts where they could be used for a legitimate purpose, even if they could also be used to assemble a SBR. 

If you don't think I will pull that out in a heart beat you are crazy. The SUPREME COURT ruled on this. Substitute NFA, for SBR or AW, they are interchangeable. 

So now you want to play the psychological aspect I would LOVE to tell a NJ Jury this is Roe V Wade but with firearms. Id break their brains. 

The problem is that this ruling is contextualized through enforcement of the NFA.. The appeal was to charges of violating the NFA. The lower courts, applied the NFA law incorrectly... Whereas NJ law, which is allowed to be more strict.. specifically states how parts can be considered a firearm, where the NFA never used such language. 

The ruling in this case applies to enforcement of the NFA, not NJ state law. If they changed the language in the NFA to include what NJ law states, this ruling would be moot. 

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...