halbautomatisch

Anyone who is rather experienced with shotgun reloading could send me a PM, I would appreciate it, I would like to pick your brain some. Thanks

I'm not saying the NJSP or the AG's office will tell anyone it's legal, since they have their own agenda that isn't necessarly based interpreting our laws objectively, as we have seen time and time again with other firearms.

There are kids much younger than 6 at these shows all the time, the issue for you might be his attention span and how well you can keep him from touching things he shouldn't touch, so you know your kid best. As for carrying, virtually all shows do not allow attendees to carry loaded firearms in the show, but when it comes to OD LEO's, some do allow it and some do not - not sure what Eagle's policy on that is...........

Only problem with you strategy is that you will get put on a waiting list to receive your free medical treatment and will likely bleed to death before they get to you.........

We plow an inch.......but then I only do commercial plowing.

You'd better have someone you trust covering for you...........I don't go anywhere in winter I can't drive to - can't be at the mercy of the airlines to get me home if a storm is coming. Remember.....this last storm was only snow showers until two days out and Saturday is looking like something will need to be done, salting at a minimum. I've got at least two storms worth of salt, but we're going to get another load tomorrow to make sure we get through the weekend without running out.

No.......Trenton turns them around with reasonable (by NJ standards) speed. If that was the case, every town would take that long. Your delay is primarily at your PD.

THIS^^^^^ Because I like the old chit!

I can speak for power tools, but I know that a lot of the hand tools sold at HD and other big box stores are made (crappier) just for them. I sell Jackson wheelbarrows, the same heavy duty contractor model that's been made since the 1950's. When I was looking at the model that they had at HD, it looked very similar to the one I sell, but had a model number I didn't recognize. When I got back to my office, I looked up the model number in the full line catalog but it was not listed in there. So, that means that they are making this model specifically for HD (and probably Lowes and TSC, and other similar stores) and they cheapen it by making the tray a little thinner, the handles a little thinner and so on.

Sure there intent was to ban all "large capacity magazines", however the statute was poorly written and doesn't specify whether or not mags need to be permanently blocked or not. It's obvious that "they" intended to ban all AK type firearms, but because the statute is poorly written, so MAK 90's and other AK pattern rifles are not banned even though that was their intent. IMO it is legal to possess an unassembled large cap mag "parts kit", but I would not recommend anyone do so because even if it is legal, I wouldn't put it past a prosecutor to charge someone and run them through the mill. Even if you were cleared of all charges, you life will be ruined by the time you are exonerated.

Right..........and how many people (as in individuals, not licensed companies) have been charged criminally with violating the Administrative Code?

Where in the actual LAW (as in 2C:) does it say that mags need to be permanently blocked to be no longer considered "large capacity magazines"?

Found it........the important section is near the bottom under the section that reads "Order" - I tried to highlight it but it's not working.. I haven't read this entire ruling...... Cite as Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen v. Florio, 744 F.Supp. 602 (D.N.J. 1990) COALITION OF NEW JERSEY SPORTSMEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James J. FLORIO, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 90-2992(GEB). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. Aug. 15, 1990. Evan F. Nappen, Eatontown, N.J., for plaintiffs. Robert J. Del Tufo, Atty. Gen. of N.J., Benjamin Clarke (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law & Public Safety, Trenton, N.J., for defendants. OPINION GARRETT E. BROWN, Jr., District Judge. Plaintiffs in this action [footnote 1] have brought suit against the Governor of New Jersey, the Attorney General of New Jersey, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, and the Prosecutor of Mercer County as prosecutor and as a representative of the class of county prosecutors in the State of New Jersey, seeking to strike down as unconstitutional portions of New Jersey's newly amended gun control law, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1 et seq. The matter is now before the Court on a motion by plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the purportedly unconstitutional provisions. The Court has had the benefit of able, thorough, and helpful briefing and oral argument by counsel for both sides. Plaintiffs raise three challenges to the statute. First, they challenge the newly enacted ban on large capacity magazines, NJ.S.A. 2C:39-36) (banning possession) and N.J.S.A, 2C:39-9(h) (banning manufacture, transport, shipment, sale, or disposal). [footnote 2] They contend that the law unconstitutionally criminalizes the possession or transfer of large capacity magazines without providing owners of such magazines an opportunity to conform with the new law before being subjected to its penalties. Second, they argue that the ban on large capacity magazines and regulation of semiautomatic, "assault firearms," N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 5(f) (possession) and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(g) (manufacture, transport, shipment, sale or disposal), are preempted by federal law to the extent these provisions prohibit the sale of air guns and "traditional" B-B guns, in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 5001(g)(ii). Third, they contend that federal law providing for the interstate transport of unloaded, inaccessible firearms, 18 U.S.C. section 926A, preempts the newly amended law to the extent that the new law exposes to criminal prosecution people who transport weapons through New Jersey in accordance with the federal law. The Attorney General has cross-moved for dismissal of all the above claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In the alternative, and as to the first claim only, the Attorney General asks this Court to abstain under the doctrine enunciated in Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). The Attorney General concedes that, under the Third Circuit's decision in United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Muir, 792 F.2d 356 (3d Cir.1986), Pullman abstention is inappropriate when a federal court is faced with questions of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause. See id. at 363-64. Before this Court may issue a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must show a reasonable probability of success on the merits, and that they will suffer irreparable injury pendente lite if relief is not granted. The Court also must consider the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and the public interest. In re Arthur Treacher's Franchise Litigation, 689 F.2d 1137, 1143 (3d Cir.1982). For the following reasons, the Court will abstain as to plaintiffs' first claim, grant preliminary injunctive relief on the second claim, and dismiss the third. I. THE LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE BAN New Jersey's newly enacted ban on the possession, sale, manufacture, disposal, shipment, or transport of large capacity magazines became effective on March 30, 1990, the date Governor Florio signed the bill into law. Plaintiffs argue that, with the stroke of a pen, previously law-abiding owners of such magazines instantly became criminals without being given an opportunity lawfully to conform their conduct with the new law. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to protect themselves from the threat of prosecution. The Attorney General contends that the immediate effective date of the large capacity magazine ban does not render the provision constitutionally infirm because New Jersey's voluntary surrender statute provides an opportunity for owners of such magazines lawfully to turn in such items without fear of prosecution. The statute provides: No person shall be convicted of all offense under this chapter for possessing any firearms, weapons, destructive de- vices, silencers or explosives, if after giving written notice of his intention to do so, including the proposed date and time of surrender, he voluntarily surrendered the weapon, device, instrument or substance in question to the superintendent or to the chief of police in the municipality in which he resides, provided that the required notice is received by the superintendent or chief of police before any charges have been made or complaints filed against such person for the unlawful possession of the weapon, device, instrument or substance in question and before any investigation has been commenced by any law enforcement agency concerning the unlawful possession. Nothing in this section shall be construed as granting immunity from prosecution for any crime or offense except that of the unlawful possession of such weapons, devices, instruments or substances surrendered as herein provided. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12. Plaintiffs respond that the voluntary surrender statute is inadequate for three alternative reasons: 1) magazines are neither "firearms, weapons, destructive devices, silencers or explosives," the only items covered by the statute; 2) even if magazines were considered "weapons," [footnote 3] the voluntary surrender provisions would immunize owners only from possessory offenses, not manufacture, shipment, disposal, transport, or sale, which are proscribed under N.J. S.A. 2C:39-9(h); and 3) even if owners of large capacity magazines could turn them in without fear of prosecution, the uncompensated voluntary surrender of such property would result in an unconstitutional "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Before reaching the merits of these arguments, however, the Court first must consider whether to abstain. Although, as a general rule, the federal courts are bound to adjudicate cases within their jurisdiction, Pullman abstention is appropriate when "questions under both state law and the federal constitution are present," and abstention forwards the policies of "promoting comity with the state courts and ensuring the smooth functioning of the federal judiciary." Hughes v. Lipscher, 906 F.2d 961, 967 (3d Cir.1990). Pullman abstention also is appropriate where the state court's resolution of an unsettled question of state law may moot or change the analysis of the federal constitutional issue. Georgevich v. Strauss, 772 F.2d 1078, 1089 (3d Cir.1985) (en banc), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1028, 106 S.Ct. 1229, 89 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986). Although application of Pullman abstention is discretionary with the Court, the Third Circuit requires three special circum- stances as prerequisites: (1) Uncertain issues of state law underlying the federal constitutional claims brought in the district court; (2) Amenability of the state law issues to a state court interpretation that would obviate the need for, or substantially narrow, adjudication of the federal claims; [and] (3) Disruption of important state policies through a federal court's erroneous construction of state law. Hughes, at 968. Once these elements are present, a district court must next determine "whether abstention is appropriate, considering such factors as the availability of an adequate state remedy, the length of time the litigation has been pending, and the potential impact on the parties from the delay in seeking a state ruling." Id. All the factors in favor of Pullman abstention are present in regard to plaintiffs' claim regarding the large capacity magazine ban. First, the uncertain issue of state law underlying the constitutional claim is the interaction between the voluntary surrender statute and the ban on large capacity magazines. The New Jersey courts have not had the opportunity to interpret either statute, alone or in combination. Second, state court interpretation of these statutes will materially alter this Court's constitutional analysis. If the state court interprets the voluntary surrender statute as not providing a remedy for large capacity magazine owners, this Court must consider whether the statute is constitutionally deficient for insufficient notice. If the state court interprets the voluntary surrender statute to the contrary, this Court must determine whether such a remedy effects an unconstitutional taking, rather than a valid exercise of the police power. Third, gun control and regulation is an important state policy that would be disrupted if this Court were to construe state law erroneously. Other factors also favor abstention at this time. At oral argument, defendants indicated that they will move promptly to seek a decision in the state courts, and there is no indication that those courts would not promptly and adequately resolve the questions presented. The present action has been pending for only a few weeks, and the Court does not foresee any potential adverse impact on the parties from a reasonable delay in seeking a state ruling. The Attorney General has taken the position in open court that N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12 does in fact provide for the voluntary surrender of large capacity magazines and this Court has no reason to anticipate that the chief law enforcement officer of the State of New Jersey would change his position and authorize prosecution of those individuals who voluntarily surrendered such magazines for the possession thereof. Moreover, any claimed uncompensated "taking" as a result of voluntary surrender could not be irreparable because, even assuming such a taking was not a valid exercise of the police power, plaintiffs could be made whole through monetary compensation. Plaintiffs assert that the immunity provided by the voluntary surrender statute is inadequate because it would not immunize them from prosecution for manufacture, sale, disposal, shipment, or transport of large capacity magazines. Were the State to attempt to prosecute plaintiffs for manufacture, sale, or transport of such items based solely upon a voluntary surrender pursuant to the statute, the scope of the state immunity, and any constitutional questions presented thereby, would best be resolved in the state forum, and are too speculative to be dealt with here. II. FEDERAL PREEMPTION RE: B-B AND AIR PELLET GUNS Plaintiffs correctly assert that the New Jersey statute's definition of semi-automatic shotguns may include certain B-B and pellet-firing air guns. New Jersey law defines a shotgun as, among other things, "any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder which does not fire fixed ammunition." N.J.S.A. 2C:391(n). B-B guns and pellet-firing air guns fall within the statutory definition of firearms. See N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(f). Also, neither B- B nor pellet-firing air guns fire fixed ammunition-i.e., ammunition encased in an explosive cartridge which propels the round. Thus, semiautomatic B-B and pellet-firing air guns designed to be fired from the shoulder and which have either a magazine of more than six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock, would be classified as assault firearms under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(w)(3). Moreover, any semi- automatic B-B or pellet guns that had non-detachable magazines in excess of fifteen rounds would fall within the statutory definition of large capacity magazines. See N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(y). [footnote 4] The relevant inquiry, therefore, is whether the language in 15 U.S.C. section 5001(g), that "no state shall-(ii) prohibit (other than prohibiting the sale to minors) the sale of traditional B-B, paint-ball, or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure," conflicts with the New Jersey statute. At the outset, it is important to understand the distinction between B-B guns and air-powered pellet guns. [footnote 5] "B-B" refers to the smallest calibre of shot. The B-B is ball- shaped, and made of lead, lead alloy, or steel. B-Bs need not be propelled by air: they may, for instance, be propelled by a spring mechanism. It appears that B-Bs generally are fired from smoothbore barrels. In contrast, a pellet may be one of three higher calibres, .117 [sic] cal., 5 mm, or .22 cal. The pellet is a nonspherical, semi-hollow projectile made of lead or lead alloy. When fired from an air gun, the gases in the barrel cause the pellet to expand and grip the rifling in the barrel. The rifling causes the pellet to spin and thereby produces a more accurate shot than the B-B. Thus, the term "B-B gun" refers only to the calibre and type of projectile the gun fires, whereas a "pellet-firing air gun that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure" refers not only to the projectile, but to the means of propelling it. The defendants argue that the word "traditional" must be read as modifying B-B, paint-ball, and pellet-firing air guns, despite the use of the disjunctive "or" in the statute. They further contend that, in using the word "traditional," the Congress meant to refer only to single-shot B-B and pellet-firing air guns, not semiautomatic ones. However, the statute's plain language, legislative history, and subsequent interpretation by the Department of Commerce suggests a contrary construction. The most apparent contradiction in defendants' position can be found in the express language of the statute. For the term "traditional" to modify both B-B and pellet-firing air guns, the term logically must also apply to paint-ball guns. According to the Congressional Record, paint-ball guns fire "projectiles for marking trees, or paintball games or other similar purposes." 134 Cong.Rec. S15531 (daily ed. October 11, 1988) (statement of Sen. Dole); 134 Cong. Rec. H10071 (daily ed. October 12, 1988) (statement of Rep. Dingell). Such devices are of comparatively recent origin and plaintiffs have asserted without opposition that there are no "traditional" paint-ball guns, and that those used for paintball games are a relatively new development. [footnote 6] The strongest indicia of congressional intent, however, are section 5001's enabling regulations established by the Department of Commerce at 15 C.F.R. section 1150.1-1150.5. [footnote 7] In 15 C.F.R. section 1150.1, Commerce interprets "traditional B-B, paint- ball, or pellet-firing air guns" as those guns that are described in American Society for Testing and Materials standard F 589-85, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Powder Guns (June 28, 1985). Section 1.1, which defines the scope of the specifications, expressly covers "non-powder guns. commonly referred to as BB guns, air, guns, and pellet guns, which propel a projectile by means of energy released by compressed air, compressed gas, mechanical spring action, or a combination there- of...." Id. In adopting this definition, Commerce thereby gave a very broad reading to the preemptive provisions of section 5001(g), for section 1.1 appears to cover all B-B and pellet guns, so long as the guns do not use gunpowder to propel their rounds. Conmerce's interpretation is reasonable, and the defendants have provided no evidence to the contrary. [footnote 8] Further support for this interpretation may be found in the legislative history of section 5001. The Senate introduced section 5001 as an amendment to the House amendments to Senate Bill 1382, the Federal Energy Management Improvement Act. The amendment, entitled "Penalties for Entering Into Commerce of Imitation Firearms," required that toy, look-alike or imitation firearms have a blaze orange plug affixed in their barrels recessed no more than 6 millimeters from the muzzle end of the barrel. [footnote 9] The bill was introduced on the impetus of the Hobby and Toy Industry or America and the Toy Manufacturers of America. 134 Cong.Rec. S15531 (daily ed. October 11, 1988) (statement of Sen. Dole). [footnote 10] The purpose of the bill was expressed in the House debate: The potential hazards and misuses of an object that resembles a deadly weapon ought to be evident to everyone, A person threatened with such an object can scarcely conduct a detailed examination to determine whether it is in fact real. Similarly, a police officer can hardly be expected to make a detailed inquiry concerning just how real the object in the hands of an adversary is before firing his gun. For these reasons, misuse of toy guns presents a real hazard and a prob- lem that needs to be addressed. 134 Cong.Rec. H10071 (daily ed. October 12, 1988) (statement of Rep. Moorhead). Express reference as to the meaning of the terms "traditional B-B, paint-ball, or pellet firing air gun" appears in the statement of Senator Dole of Kansas: B-B or pellet firing air guns such as those made by the Daisy Manufacturing Co. and Crosman air guns are also ex- empted. Similarly, the provision does not intend that paint- pellet guns firing projectiles for marking trees, or paintball games or other similar purposes such as those manufactured by the Nelson Paint Co. be covered. 134 Cong.Rec. S15531 (daily ed. October 11, 1988) (statement of Sen. Dole); accord, 134 Cong.Rec. H10071 (daily ed. October 12, 1988) (statement of Rep. Dingell). These comments expressly identify Daisy B-B guns and air guns, as well as Crosman air guns, as examples of guns exempt from state regulations prohibiting their sale. In the absence of any contrary indicia of congressional intent, it appears that the exception carved out for air guns applied, inter alia, to all air guns made by Daisy and Crosman at the time the legislation was enacted. Defendants have submitted the affidavit of Peter Harvey, Special Assistant Attorney General, who avers that Daisy and Crosman representatives indicated to him that, with one exception, none of their airpowered or B-B rifles are semi-automatic. In opposition, plaintiffs have submitted recent catalog advertisements for various semi-automatic air rifles, albeit rifles manufactured by companies other than Crosman or Daisy, [footnote 11] as well as semi-automatic pistols with magazines in excess of fifteen rounds. Some of these pistols are made by Crosman and Daisy, [footnote 12] and would be banned under New Jersey's prohibition on large capacity magazines. The Court finds, therefore, that the Congress intended to remove from the states the power to prohibit the sale of such B-B and air-powered pellet guns as are covered under the New Jersey statute. Having determined that the New Jersey statute regulates a class of firearms that falls within the preemptive provisions of section 5001(g), the Court next considers whether the statute constitutes a prohibition on the sale of such firearms. In the case of semi-automatic air pistols with a non-detachable magazine exceeding fifteen rounds, the prohibition is express. In the case of a person wishing to purchase semiautomatic air rifles classified as assault firearms under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(w)(3), the prohibition is de facto, for that person must go through the extremely rigorous qualification process required for receiving a license to own a machine gun. To receive a license for air rifles fitting the definition of semi-automatic shotguns, the applicant first must be qualified to carry a handgun under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4. [footnote 13] The applicant then must file with the New Jersey Superior Court a written application, setting forth in detail the reasons for desiring such a license. The Superior Court thereafter refers the application to the county prosecutor for investigation and recommendation. Based upon the recommendation, the Superior Court may grant the license only upon an express finding that the public safety and welfare so require. The Superior Court also may place any conditions and limitations on the license as it deems in the public interest. Applicants must pay a $76 application fee with each application. Any issued license, may be valid for no more than two years. Once the license expires, the applicant must reapply as if he or she were applying for the first time. See N.J.S.A. 2C:68-5. These restrictions are so substantial that they create a de facto prohibition on the sale of B-B and air guns that may fall under New Jersey's statutory definition of semi-automatic firearms. Any potential owner must qualify under two lengthy application procedures, and may be refused at any time the State determines such a license does not serve the public interest. This regulatory scheme vests unbridled discretion over the licensing process with the State. In sum, plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing that New Jersey's ban on large capacity magazines and regulation of semi-automatic assault weapons are preempted by federal law to the extent they prohibit the sale of traditional B-B and pellet-firing air guns. Plaintiffs also have demonstrated the possibility of irreparable injury, because owners of such firearms and large capacity magazines face the threat of prosecution. Moreover, the public interest is served in ensuring that congressional regulation of interstate commerce supercedes conflicting and contradictory state regulations. Finally, there is no suggestion of inequitable conduct by plaintiffs, or that granting plaintiffs such an injunction would in any way be inequitable. Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). The Court is well aware of the ramifications of its findings. The Congress, while attempting to reduce the commission of crimes with toy guns, has removed from the states the ability to prohibit the sale of more dangerous, high-powered air guns, some of which appear capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death. There is no dispute that the Congress may exercise such power under the Commerce Clause however, and the wisdom or desirability of such an exercise is an issue for the Congress and not this Court. III. FEDERAL PREEMPTION RE: INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF UNLOADED, INACCESSIBLE WEAPONS Plaintiffs Covey and Mohler contend that the recent amendments to New Jersey's gun control law are preempted by the federal statute providing for the interstate transportation of firearms. 18 U.S.C. section 926A. The federal statute provides, in essence, that anyone may transport, firearms from one state in which they are legal, through another state in which they are illegal, to a third state in which they are legal, provided the firearms are transported in a prescribed, safe manner. [footnote 14] Plaintiffs argue that, under the recent amendments, they may be arrested for transporting firearms through New Jersey, even though they have complied with the federal statute. In support, they rely on the affidavit of the police chief of Lebanon Township, in which he avers: I am aware that there is some federal law that provides an exception whereby interstate travellers may travel with an unloaded gun locked in their trunk, but so far as I am aware, that would not make them an less subject to arrest in New Jersey either under the new Act or under previous New Jersey gun laws. If the federal law provides them some sort of defense, that is up to the prosecutor and/or judge in the court in which they are arraigned. Aff. of Harry C. Creveling at para. 5. The Attorney General argues that the federal law does not preempt state gun control laws, and that, consequently, there is no conflict between section 926A and the new amendments. The Attorney General further argues that, although the new statute does not have a provision expressly recognizing that the statute is subject to preemption by federal law, no such requirement is needed, as the Constitution's Supremacy Clause provides such a guarantee. The Attorney General's position on this point is persuasive. A straightforward reading of section 926A demonstrates that the statute prohibits only regulation of the interstate transport of firearms, and in no way restricts a state's power to regulate firearms within the state. See Oefinger v. Zimmerman, 601 F.Supp. 405, 412 (W.D. Pa.1984), aff'd, 779 F.2d 43 (3d Cir.1985). Indeed, in section 927, the Congress clearly expressed its intent not to occupy the field of intrastate gun control regulation: No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together. 18 U.S.C. section 927. The Court sees no conflict between section 926A and New Jersey 's recently amended gun control law. The risk that a person transporting firearms in accordance with section 926A will be arrested in New Jersey for possessing an illegal firearm or magazine is the same risk that person encounters whenever he or she drives through a state where such weapons are illegal. For plaintiffs' predicted irreparable injury to become realized, law enforcement officers throughout New Jersey would have to disregard the federal law in its entirety. The threat of such arguably random and unauthorized acts is speculative at best, and does not constitute irreparable injury, the Lebanon police chief's affidavit notwithstanding. [footnote 15] Moreover, the Court is aware of no requirement that the New Jersey law must contain an express acknowledgement of the Supremacy Clause and preemptive legislation in order to pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, plaintiffs' interstate transportation claim must fail as a matter of law, and will be dismissed. An order consistent with this opinion will be entered. ORDER For the reasons set forth in this Court's opinion filed this day, August 15, 1990; IT IS ORDERED that the Court does hereby abstain from decision under Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941), as to the first claim of plaintiff's complaint, until such time that either party can demonstrate that the underlying issues of state law have been resolved in the first instance by the New Jersey state courts, or that further abstention is otherwise unwarranted; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction be and is hereby granted in part; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants, their employees, officers, and/or agents be and are hereby preliminarily enjoined from enforcement of or prosecution under, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(j), and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(h) against any and all owners of semi-automatic B- B or pellet-firing air guns whose guns contain non-detachable magazines in excess of fifteen (15) rounds; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants, their employees, officers, and/or agents be and are hereby preliminarily enjoined from enforcement of, or prosecution under, N.J S.A. 2C:39-5(f) and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(g) against any and all owners of semi-automatic B- B or pellet-firing air guns whose guns are designed to be fired from the: shoulder, and have either a magazine capacity in excess of six (6) rounds, a folding stock, or a pistol grip; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction be and is hereby denied in all other respects; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' interstate travel claim be and is hereby dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). FOOTNOTES 1. Plaintiffs, are the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, Inc.; the National Rifle Association of America; the Congress of Racial Equality; the New Jersey Firearms and Sporting Goods Dealers Association, Inc. and its president Robert Viden; Law Enforcement for Preservation of the Second Amendment, a non-profit organiza- tion; Preston K. Covey and David G. Mohler, individual firearm owners who transport their guns through New Jersey; and various un- named residents of New Jersey who own large capacity magazines. 2. The statute defines large capacity magazine as "a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semiautomatic firearm." N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(y). 3. Weapons are defined under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(r) as "anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to . . . (2) compo- nents which can be readily assembled into a weapon . . . ." 4. If the magazines were detachable and not an integral part of a firearm not otherwise regulated under the New Jersey statute, then only the magazine would be banned, not the firearm. The ban on large capacity magazines in such instances would not be preempted under section 5001(g), as such magazines are neither traditional B- B, paint-ball, or pellet-firing air guns. 5. The following definitions derive from American Society for Testing and Materials ("ASTM") Standard F 589-85, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Powder Guns (June 28, 1985), incorporated by reference in 15 C.F.R. section 1150.1, as well as ASTM Standard F 590-84, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Powder Gun Projectiles and Propellants (reapproved 1989), referenced in ASTM F 589-84 section 2. 1. See also Toy Guns: Involvement in Crime & Encounters With Police, U.S. Justice Dept. Bureau of Justice Statistics (June 1990), a research project mandated by the United States Congress P.L. 100-615 [15 U.S.C. section 5001(c)]. 6. Neither party asserts that the federal preemptive provision concerning paint-ball guns is implicated here. Such guns do not appear to be covered by the New Jersey statute which defines a "weapon" as "anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury." N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(r). As the comments of Rep. Dingell make clear, the paint-ball guns excluded from state regulation include those for marking trees and for playing paintball games, activities which apparently do not, and are designed not to, create a risk of serious bodily injury or death. 7. Department of Commerce regulations are afforded great deference in statutory interpretation. Cf. Helvering v. Winmill, 305 U.S. 79, 59 S.Ct. 45, 83 L.Ed. 52 (1938). 8. While one may suggest that Commerce's reading was overly expansive in that standard F 589-85 arguably covers "non- traditional" as well as "traditional" B-B guns, this Court does not have before it any evidence from which such a distinction can be made, and does not consider the argument at this time. 9. The statute provides an exception for "any look-alike, nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898, or traditional B-B, paint-ball, or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure." 15 U.S.C. section 5001(c). 10. These organizations apparently supported this bill in preference to one introduced by Representative Levine of California, H.R. 3433, which would have banned such devices altogether. 11. Such firearms include the Air Arms Firepower K-Carbine Standard Air Rifle, a weapon modelled after the M-16 assault rifle, that comes available with a 35-shot auto-load system. From 1987 to 1988, Crosman manufactured and sold its Z-77, a carbon-dioxide- powered replica of the Uzi submachine gun. 12. Examples of such pistols include the Crosman 338 Auto Pistol, an air-powered B-B pistol with a 20-shot magazine and the Daisy/Youth Line Model 1500 Pistol, a B-B pistol with a 60-shot reservoir and a gravity feed magazine. 13. To qualify for a permit to carry a handgun under this provision, the applicant must fill out an application, and have it endorsed by three reputable persons who have known the applicant for at least three years preceding the date of application. The applicant then must be fingerprinted by the chief police officer in the municipality where he or she resides and must give the police chief a complete description of each handgun he or she intends to carry. Applicants who have been convicted of a crime, who suffer from drug addiction, mental illness, alcoholism, or from any disability that makes it unsafe to handle firearms, or who are under the age of eighteen, or who, in the state's discretion, pose a risk to the public health, safety or welfare, may not receive such a license. If the applicant does not fall into one of these prohibited categories, he or she may be entitled to a permit if he or she is "thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and ... has a justifiable need to carry a handgun." If a license is issued, the applicant must pay a permit fee of $20. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4. 14. The statute provides in full: Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. 18 U.S.C. section 926A. 15. Based on the police chief's affidavit, plaintiffs arguably could seek a preliminary injunction against him. The police chief, however, is not a named defendant, and therefore this issue is not before the Court.

The state was enjoined by the federal court from enforcing the AWB against air guns in a ruling back in the 90's. I don't have the ruling handy, but I have posted the ruling on this forum in the past.

Yes, but wouldn't this be a different situation? He bought the house and the contents therein now belong to him, he didn't find them in the street or some public space. I understand about the need to have an FPID or PPP to legally acquire firearms in NJ, but this would almost seem like two different aspects in law are conflicting with each other.

Well, you just need to convince one of your buddies that they don't want one they have anymore.

I would think you could buy an AR receiver from a non licensed NJ resident. You would only need a valid FPID card and fill out a COE. ATF regs on 21+ for receiver purchase only applies to licensed dealers.

It would be legal for him to transfer it to you according to ATF regs on what type of firearms can be transferred to out of state residents. But, if he understands the excise tax issue he probably won't want to do the transfer, so you should ask him before you get the receiver sent there..........

Then federal excise tax kicks in..........complete guns have this built into the price from the factory, gun parts do not - part of the reason it's cheaper to build your own AR from parts then buy one complete. The dealer would then need to collect the excise tax, most are not set up to do so.

The only thing I could find in the law says you must be 21 to get a PPP. The sections of the law about inheriting don't give a specific age, but do refer to the inheritor having to comply with the other requirements in the chapter - the quick look I took didn't mention age for ownership there either.........so I still don't know.

THIS^^^^^^^ And...........you as the buyer are under no obligation to keep the pink copy of your permit , as soon as the transaction is complete you could throw the pink copy out if you wanted to.

The bottom line is: People in NJ have been screwed over and had their lives ruined by cops and prosecutors in NJ when they have done nothing illegal, simply because the "authorities" didn't know the law well enough. Even if you do clear you name, you will spend tens of thousands, if not into six figures, to clear your name........ this has actually happened to numerous law abiding gun owners. So, unless you have a lot of spare cash, getting charged will become a life changing event. Building 80% receivers into 100% receivers in NJ is illegal without a manufacturers license - it's black letter law (unlike a lot of other gun related things in NJ). If you want to do it, have at it, no one here is going to care. But, it's not a chance I would be willing to take. If you do get charged, and beat the rap, and set new favorable precedent for all of us, we will hold you up as our hero. But, I will not volunteer to be the martyr and piss away everything I have worked hard for in my life.

Not sure, but they might be eligible at 18. I know in the past, 18-20 year olds could get PPP's and buy handguns FTF legally, so unless NJ changed the age of HG ownership to 21 they should be able to inherit at 18.

Colt and Springfield helped spur these lawsuits because they had a vested interest in getting the law overturned. No one was making M1 carbines at that time (and really have only recently started), so there was no industry support. At this point, I think everyone is hoping/striving to have the entire AWB ruled unconstitutional, which was not something even thought remotely possible in the 90's.

I've seen these for sale a PA gun shows, and you most certainly do need an ATF tax stamp for them. They also make .22 rimfire version that is the pocket AA battery mag lite.