GRIZ

Your post reminded me when I was still on the job I carried my MP5 in a Yamaha keyboard case.

Keep in mind the USVI is run by Democrats. VI Democrats, yes but no different than the mainland. They do have very strict gun laws. They also have a homicide rate that's usually about ten times the national average and roughly twice as high as Chicago.

Bush 41 had to send MPs and LEOs to the Virgin Islands after Hurricane Hugo in 1989 as the National Guard and police there were doing a lot of the looting.

I think it's fake news. Found no reference to it on other than gun or ultra conservative websites.

You can buy long guns from a FFL in NJ with a non-resident NJ FID. You can't buy a handgun in a state you're not a resident of. That's Federal.

Serial numbers were not required on firearms in the US until the GCA of 1968.

The better ones do.

It may not be a pistol grip in CA or NY but for the OP it's important what NJ thinks it is.

Does he need the length of the muzzle device to make 16"? If not have nothing on the muzzle until you move.

That looks like it would be uncomfortable to shoot with after a while.

ATF also categorizes short barrel weapons using a pump shotgun type action like those made by Serbu or Knight as AOWs. The receiver was never built with a shoulder stock or barrel 18" or longer. Not a SBS, only $5 tax. NJ and other states would call them sawed off shotguns.

Grips on handguns are called stocks by some manufacturers. Henry's reference to a cut down rifle is in a historical context. The mares leg they and other manufacturers sell never was a rifle.

A mares leg was never a rifle as it was manufactured as a handgun. Never had a full stock, never had any other barrel on it. It was built from the start as a handgun. Never intended to be fired from the shoulder. If you put a full stock on it becomes a short barrel rifle. The stock for the Luger is designed to be attached to a handgun and fired from the shoulder. A handgun with a slot for a shoulder stock is just a handgun. Attaching the stock to that handgun makes it a short barrel rifle.

NJ doesn't use the the term SBR or SBS. I used SBR in my response for clarity. If you read the definition Screwball posted above NJ would call a SBR a "sawed off shotgun". If you removed the stock from a mares leg it wouldn't matter. It never was a rifle.

No. A Luger or any other handgun with a slotted grip for a shoulder stock is a legal pistol. Add the shoulder stock and it's a SBR under Federal law (if not on ATF's list) and NJ law. If you look on the Curio and Relic list (which ATF adds to from time to time) there are a few SBRs that are classified C&R. There are also more modern guns that have C&R status due to rarity and collectability. That really doesn't change their status as far as NJ law is concerned.

Lever action "mare's leg" and AR pistols are legal because they never were rifles. While some of these you can fire from the shoulder that's not how they are designed.

NJ can write whatever definitions it wants to write for state laws. If NJ wanted to say anything under 24" is an SBR in NJ they could do that. That would be more restrictive not contrary and only apply within NJ. Federal law doesn't even consider a shoulder stocked black powder revolver a firearm. NJ sees it as a firearm and a SBR. "Assault weapon" laws are another example where states are more restrictive. There was the time that all shoulder stocked pistols were considered SBRs. However as Screwball said ATF changed that as they ones our there were collectable.

States can have laws that are more restrictive. State laws can't be contrary to Federal law. There is a difference between restrictive and contrary.

http://drug.addictionblog.org/can-you-overdose-on-marijuana/ @HBecwithFn7 I generally agree with your assessment. The above link link lists some of the health and medical issues the pro-Marijuana people ignore. @Mrs. Peel I agree many are ignoring problems legal recreational Marijuana has brought in many states. I have seen and heard about some of them in Colorado. @capt14k if you recall Corey Booker when was talking about he mentioned the disparity of Marijuana arrests among the black and Latino community. While the number of Marijuana arrests has gone down in Colorado the percentage of black and Latino arrests has gone up. The reason? Poor marijuana users can't afford the $200 an ounce charged at the smoke shops. While the illicit marijuana trade has been replaced in some part by legalization it is still there and doing well. Police in Colorado arrest people involved in illegal marijuana trafficking all the time. This has created a situation where Colorado is saying marijuana use is legal but we'll arrest you if the state isn't making money from it.

The legal marijuana issue has become more a social and cultural issue over the years. Gathering support from both the left and libertarians (one thing they both agree on) has helped this issue. Supporters of legalization referring to cannabis as "medicine" and acting as it's the cure for everything has indoctrinated the uninformed. It started with decriminalizing private use and possession by many states in the 70s. California was the first state to legalize "medical marijuana" in 1996 but it took 8 or 9 years to fully implement the law. Court challenges to Federal marijuana laws have failed. The biggest impediment to not enforcing those Federal laws was from our "friends" in the Obama administration with Holder directing the Justice Department not to pursue cases involving state marijuana laws. This brought about the surge of state legalizaton laws. Democrats have an interest in keeping their constituents stoned. There are only 3 or 4 states that don't have some form of legal cannabis. Legalization nationwide is inevitable. Like it or not. Contrary is not the best word to describe Federal sovereignty in this case. State laws don't supercede Federal laws is a better way. Get caught dealing with marijuana outside the scope of state laws and you can still be prosecuted.

I agree.

As I said state laws can be more restrictive but not contrary. For exampme, every state has laws regarding firearms transfers. Some states require you to jump through hoops to buy a handgun. Some states treat a handgun transfer like buying a screwdriver. None deny you the right to have a handgun. SCOTUS has heard cases based on state firearm laws. Some they overturned, some they upheld. You may not like all decisions but you know what? That's in the Constitution too. You need to understand the Constitution and it's scope. SCOTUS interprets the law and that's that. That's the way it is. There have been many SCOTUS decisions I disagree with but have to live with. If you're going to uphold the Constitution you need to uphold all of it. Not just the parts and interpretations you like. Many rights are restricted. You want to demonstrate? You need a permit. You want to fly as a passenger on a commercial aircraft? You must submit to a search. You commit a crime that's a violation of both state and Federal law. You can be tried for the crime in both courts. Etc, etc. Some of those restrictions are beneficial, some are not. I'm not defending any stupid laws. Just telling it as it is.

State laws may be more restrictive than Federal but not contrary. That argument comes up to SCOTUS on a regular basis.

Your statement "you should not have any more rights because you live in VA" demonstrate you really don't understand how things work. Based on your statement no one should be able to open carry because you can't in NJ. You should be championing that right in VA, PA, AZ, and other states as OC has not created blood in the streets like in has in liberal venues like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and more. Your beef is with NJ not VA. Maybe you'd be happy if the rest of the states had the same gun laws as NJ. Saying someone shouldn't have a right in another state is childish and petty. It shows you don't have an understanding of the Constitution. You are in no position to instruct me on the Constitution.

Where you can open carry is a 10A issue. NJ and a lot of other states say no. VA and a lot of other states say yes. There are other amendments to the Constitution.