GRIZ

Maybe stateside units they all had M1s by the end of 41. I've seen photos of soldiers in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor with 03s. Marines landed in Guadacanal with 03s. Also in 44 and 45 there weren't enough Garands and M1 Carbines to go around and a lot of support troops were carrying 03s. My father in law was in the 3rd Armored Division. He told me he had a 03 in basic and got a M1 carbine when he got to his unit. He was never issued a Garand.

Pretty much I guess. If the gun were designed with a permanent magazine (like a SKS) it MIGHT fly in NJ. Remember, the "M1 Carbine Type" is banned by name not by features. For example if you have a lower marked AR15 you're in violation even if it doesn't have any evil features. You can't modify a firearm banned by name to make it legal. Add to that I the M1 carbine is one of the few guns listed by "type". I would also guess the AG's decision is based on what he or she can get a prosecution. Wasn't there a guy in Monmouth Co who was convicted of poss of AW because he had a Marlin 60 that held 17 rds in the tube magazine? Not saying I agree with it at all, just saying that's the way it is.

Plus the action, although semi, is not the same as a M1 Carbine.

NJ AW law says "M1 carbine type". Says nothing about caliber. If it looks like and pretty much functions like a M1 carbine it's going to be illegal. Determination of "type" is pretty much to the digression of the NJAG.

You ate correct Bob. I was doing a private handgun sale with a p2p and the guy insisted on a COE too. I tried to tell him it wasn't needed but couldn't convince him. So I filled out the COE anyway. Might as well have done a COE for a shovel.

Not sure. I always did the transfer within a few days after receiving it.

IIRC it's a copy of your form approved in the space provided. They send a copy of the seller's form to them. IIRC your form is sent through your local pd so they know it's approved. When you get the form back approved you just take it along with your p2p to complete the transfer. You check the collector box on page 1 of your form. Don't forget to write in collector in the box on page 2. You need to do this when it's submitted. If you leave anything blank you will get it back.

LEOSA was passed in 2004 IIRC. State or local LEOs had to depend on whatever the state they were visiting allowed. NJ had no provision for out of state LEOs to carry unless they were on official business. I know of incidents of NYPD officers cutting thru NJ on the way to their home in NY like Blksheep relates. Back on the 70s when I was a police officer in NJ carrying in NYC was okay, not by law but by a wink and a nod. I've known off duty NJ LEOs who had to use their guns in NYC. No one got in trouble except the bad guy. Not a situation I've ever been in as they all were very sticky. Since retirement carrying under LEOSA I've had exactly one encounter carrying in another state and I've been in a bunch of them. That encounter was in Kansas which is a Constitutional Carry state so I was legal without LEOSA.

A friend's uncle who was a 60 something bosun had retired about 20 years before. He spent most of his time on Iowa class. He was brought back to teach new sailors how to run the deck. Brought back as a consultant not a petty officer. Commissioned Officers are in for life.

One of the reasons the battleship was brought back in Vietnam was the high loss of aircraft hitting targets that could be in range of those 16 inchers. As Zeke said, emp or ew has no effect on naval gun fire or artillery when you're using manual gunnery. I watched the 82nd do an artillery raid in training once. The guns and crews are flown to a location, fire a mission, and then fly out. They had their Battery Computer System, state of the art at the time. However, there was one guy with a plotting board strapped to his ruck. Fort Sill stopped teaching manual gunnery for a short time. They quickly realized their mistake. You can do manual gunnery on any large flat surface.

True but I don't think someone carrying under LEOSA would be prosecuted under GFSZA for just driving by the school. If you read the wording of the act it only exempts LEOs while in official performance of their duties. If you want to interpret the GFSZA strictly that would mean an off duty NJ LEO couldn't drive by a school armed. He or she would have to stop, unload and secure the firearm and continue until they were 1000 ft away on the other end. I've seen maps of Elizabeth and Newark with 1000 feet of a school zone marked. There's no way you can go through either of those cities (or most cities for that matter) if you were a off duty LEO in the state and not be in violation. If you're a retired LEO in NJ and have a RPO carry permit GFSZA exempts you from the 1000 feet but state law (as permitted by LEOSA) prohibits carry on school grounds or buildings. LEOSA has no mention of the GFSZA or schools for that matter IIRC. It allows the state to prohibit firearms in or on government owned property. I'm not saying on school grounds but driving by shouldn't be an issue.

The SP-15 and SP-16 must go in together. You will get the approval back via your local pd. If you send in just your form I'm sure you'll just get it sent back. The FFL should know how to do this. If the FFL wants you to fill out your firm and wants to send it in with his I wouldn't worry about it. The form says the 15 and 16 must be sent in together. You don't send in the p2p. That's filled out after the form is approved and you get it back. SP15 and 16 get sent in. You don't send in your p2p.

2 ways to do this: This is how I'd do it: 1. Buy the private sale as you normally would. 2. Pay the FFL for the gun and submit the paperwork for an exemption for that gun. The FFL shouldn't mind holding the gun for a couple of weeks if he's been paid for it. That's what I'm doing now but both guns are private sales from the same seller. You can buy 10 guns from 10 different people with an exemption or whatever. You list all guns, serial numbers, and seller's info on your form. Each seller lists your info and gun info on their forms. It says on the seller form it must accompany your application. If you're buying 10 from 10 different people you'll have 10 seller forms to attach to yours. PITA but that's what you need to do.

I have the seller fill out their form and send it in together with mine. Saves them time in having to match them up.

I sent in an exemption form just the other day. It clearly states "Collector of handguns...enhancement of collection ....historical ...investment ...recreational.. .or any other lawful related purpose". I've alway sent straight it to NJSP and got it back in about 2 weeks. They send a copy to your local pd.

I have never used an FFL in a private sale although that is a viable alternative. I always have permits in hand as others have suggested. I have run into situations where the one gun a month rule is the issue. I have had the seller just hold it for a week or so until the 30 days pass. Sometimes leave a deposit, sometimes pay in full. I have had a seller I've dealt with multiple times hold on to a gun for 2 months because I didn't have a permit. If I wanted to buy more than one from the same seller I have the seller fill out the paperwork. Sometimes give a deposit or even pay in full. If you're asking a seller to hold on to a gun for you, you just need to agree on terms that both of you feel comfortable with.

Correct. The 38 Long Colt they used in the Phillipines was seriously lacking in stopping power. The immediate solution was issuing 45 SAAs they had in stock. Not sure what the Moros got high on. They were radical Muslims who refused to be subject to US rule. Kind of like the same drug used to strap on a vest of explosives. The 45 ACP was adopted as a result of the Thompson LaGarde tests of 1904. You can find the entire report online. Only 40 or so pages. Yes, that's the same Thompson that later invented the Tommy Gun. Keep in mind those 38's were 38 Long Colt not 38 Special which has a longer case and is a slightly hotter round. IIRC the 38 Special wasn't included in the Thompson LaGarde tests although it was around.

Most Federal agencies destroy their out of service and seized guns. Customs used to sell them to FFLS and use the money to fund new firearms. They sold their 686 "CS1" revolvers to FFLs who sold them to the public in the 90s. Someone bought one and used it to commit suicide about a year later. The press got hold of the fact it was a CS1 and got a lot of mileage from "US Customs supplies gun for suicide". Customs started destroying all their old guns as NYPD has for years.

The only way we'll hear Sig's side of the story is if it goes to trial. I don't think that's going to happen as I've already said. It behooves Sig to make this go away as fast as possible. I've had a couple of free lunches from gun manufacturers. They might get a contract from a smaller agency that way but every larger agency has some type of trials the gun has to pass. If it doesn't perform it doesn't get bought. The guns Sig submitted to NJSP apparently passed. The ones Sig sold them was apparently a different lot. I can understand how an agency can wind with a lot of guns with a problem. You usually get a run of consecutive serial numbers on a big order. If there is some defect in some of the guns in that run you're going to wind up with a lot of them. I think Sig is a bit culpable as they tried to take the cheap way out by replacing small parts and then said "let's try replacing barrels". I suspect they knew the barrels were defective in some way early on but continued to try to fix it on the cheap. Total speculation on my part. There were some recall issues I experienced with Glock. When I retired the agency I worked for had been issuing Glocks for 7 or 8 years. Some agents had been using personally owned Glock for up to almost 20 years. We never had any magazine issues with Glock but Glock replaced all our magazines 3 times during those 7 or 8 years. That's like over 30,000 magazines for just my agency Our G26s were in service for a few years. No problems. One day got complete replacement frames for all of them. The new frames worked no problem with the old slides. Not something you'd expect if it were a metal frame gun. Apparently someone was having an issue with the magazines and 26 frames. Instead of heming and hawking Glock replaced everything. I never experienced an issue like what's going on with the Sigs though.

Correct Zeke. We had picked the standard NATO rifle round all along. First the 30-06, 7.62 NATO, and 5.56. Everyone else in NATO used the 9mm as a pistol round while we continued to use the 45 ACP.

I don't know why you would want to do that. You might luck out and get one of the guns that work. You might get one that Sig has been unable to get to run right for sometime. Odds sound worse than a crapshoot to me. More like playing Russian Roulette with only one empty chamber. I find this amusing that all the Sig fans refuse to believe Sig might have made a batch of lemons. People here and on other forums have jumped on blaming the ammo without knowing what kind of ammo they use. I don't know of a single LE agency that uses steel case ammo. I've seen some claim this lawsuit has basis in the fact NJ is an anti gun state. The fact is NJ bought something, it didn't work, they gave the manufacturer the chance to fix it, and they didn't. As a NJ taxpayer I think one would be glad the NJAG is pursuing this rather than all those criminal cases about a single hollow point rolling around in a trunk or all those people being prosecuted for not taking the most direct way to or from a range with a handgun.

http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/New-Jersey-State-Police-Sig-Sauer-Complaint.pdf Copy of complaint.

Back in the 80s and 90s Sigs were considered the creme de le creme. However I never warmed up to them. Their price didn't justify what they delivered. I bought a Ruger P90 in the 90s for less than half the price than a 220. The P90 does everything the Sig does. Unless you're selling a handgun as a target pistol it makes it a service pistol AFAIC. That would mean a certain degree of reliability even if neglected. I doubt Troopers don't maintain their firearms.

Apparently too many. I don't think this might be included in the complaint. Would be presented as evidence. My guess is Sig will just settle this out of court. It would be cheaper and less harmful to their reputation than letting this issue all become public record.

You need to keep checking.