Dan

Would really like to read the public case records!

No details yet besides hearsay. Jury found in favor of the defendant in that the M4 carbine stock was an "adjustable stock" , not a "telescopic" stock. A win for M4 carbine stocks, and for something to set precedance, but its not like it altered the law. You would still be arrested and charged for an unpinned M4 carbine stock (aka AW in NJ), then have your day in court and all over again prove it is adjustable to a jury (of course with the precedence on your side this time).

Ah, didn't know you were speaking from a fungal infection point of view only. And yes I agree a virus would be more probable, even parasites, over a fungal infection. The mechanisms don't really take over to control the brain or CNS, they simply affect a certain portion of it, either physically or chemically to trigger the proper reaction, then let the body do the rest of the work. For instance with the rabies example.... induce aggression, then let the rest of the brain/body do the work (seek out and attack/bite animals).

Good point. Between that case and Merrill, we have 2 NJ cases on our side. I'll play as that last case was around adjustable versus telescopic... Someone do a "test case" with a folding stock and unpinned flash suppressor on a SCAR. According to 2C it is not on the "list", that plus NJAC is not law, only guidelines. So that would be a good test. Technically any AW prosecution should be met with... "NJ v. Merrill , the court found the NJ gun laws around the AWB to be unconstitutionally vague", if the prosecutor tries to use the NJAC evil feature list, technically.. "NJAC are not laws created by the legislature , they are operational guidelines that NJ uses in order to internally enforce uniformity in its dealings". Now , what would the judge or jury say is another question.

I'm sure posting a vid of you with your un-pinned UBR in operation installed on one of your rifles that already has a pistol grip would suffice.

Correct, I've been preaching this as well. But what glennp is saying is the best way for someone to avoid being prosecuted in NJ for AW possession. NJ gun owners owning EBR type guns are in a state of quantum flux of being legal and illegal (taking 2C statutes and NJAC guidelines) at the same time until observed in court. The "substantially identical" crap is still in 2C, and they can try to play that card ignoring the NJAC if they feel they will win. There is NJ v. Merrill (MAK-90) case as precedent where the court found the NJ AWB unconstitutionally vague (NJ decided NOT to appeal for fear it would wind up in federal court with the statutes being struck down). We are screwed both ways. The 2C list can be circumvented with completely new guns like our favorite example the SCAR. BUT , then we have the double edged sword of the NJAC evil features list stating they interpret anything with 2 or more of the features to be "substantially identical" to the any gun on the 2C list. So if anyone is willing to buy a SCAR with a threaded barrel and folding stock, and be the test case, they realistically have a good shot in court as technically only 2C is the "law" they could be tried under. In addition NJ v Merrill could be used as well showing precedent that NJ's AWB is unconstitutionally vague. Thing is I doubt anyone here would want that kind of attention, or to carry that kind of risk (10 yrs).

I believe that any SA firearm that has 2 or more features on the evil feature list for all intents and purposes is considered by NJ to be "substantially identical" to a firearm on the named list. They spell it out for us. "A semi-automatic firearm should be considered to be “substantially identical," that is, identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon if it meets the below listed criteria". They don't say "A substantially identical clone of a semi-automatic firearm on the named list should be considered to be "substantially identical"...". It would be circular logic (not to say NJ's gun laws aren't logical of course...) . They are giving it to us right there, its SI if the SA gun has 2 or more of these things.... even for new types of guns. Yes, though it is still in the statutes, the NJAC evil feature list has essentially replaced it. Look around at the firearms we have in NJ and that is obvious. We can have stuff that looks cosmetically similar, or even new all together SA "cool style" rifles like the SCAR, provided it is not "substantially identical" as defined in the NJAC evil feature list. Period.

I still disagree, here is why: (btw, this is from the actual NJAC , not the original Guideline letter which has some hubbub on what they believe and why they are prescribing the code.) 1. is the named list... no need to paste that here. 2. Any firearm manufactured under any designation, which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed in paragraph 1 above. As used in this definition, the term “substantial” means pertaining to the substance, matter, material or essence of a thing and the term “identical” means exactly the same. Hence, a firearm is substantially identical to another only if it is identical in all material, essential respects. A firearm is not substantially identical to a listed assault firearm unless it is identical except for differences that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm. (you argue that changing the receiver would alter the "essential nature of the firearm") The following are examples of manufacturer changes that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm: the name or designation of the firearm; the color of the firearm; the material used to make the barrel or stock of the firearm; the material used to make a pistol grip; and a modification of a pistol grip. This is not an exclusive list. (you mention the receiver again here, that these example items do not include it with the logic that changing the receiver would create a 'new' type of firearm that would not be subjected to the "substantially identical test". This falls apart as the list is "not an exclusive list", and can be argued that changing the receiver would not alter the "essential nature of the firearm") A semi-automatic firearm should be considered to be “substantially identical," that is, identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon if it meets the below listed criteria: (here is where it comes together, they are PROVIDING us with a list of things that do define the "essential nature" of the firearm in that it would be considered "substantially identical" to a AW... Notice how changing the receiver it not an option for us.) i. A semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: (notice how they say "a semi-automatic rifle", not a "substantially identical clone" or whatnot) (1) A folding or telescoping stock; etc we know the rest...

Mark, just a FYI, this is the upper I have. First time they are in stock in a few months that I have seen. My link 12" DD rail handguard, 14.5" bbl with PWS brake perm attached. Its the t*ts. Lightweight, fast handling, hardly any barrel rise with rapid firing, flexibility of putting whatever optics/rail accessories, and is plenty for 400 yards and under. Great jack of all trades. As other say, buy once , cry once. I wish I had in the past , instead took me 2 AR builds (20" and 16" bbl types) to finally arrive at this, and I'm 100% sold.

They nay not have brains, but they do have central nervous systems. This is what the fungus is taking over. Guess what other types of animals have a CNS ? Sure we have failsafes, things like immune systems, etc. They never get compromised right? Just take a look at rabies. It infects the central nervous system of mammals. Causes a myriad of neurological symptoms, including aggressive and unusual behavior in animals. It builds up high concentrations of virii in the salivary glands so that it may more easily transmit itself to other hosts (other animals bitten by the infected). So here we have a virus that influences animal behavior as a mechanism of transmission. Just add in the whole "undead" thing and you have a zombie.

You really can't go wrong with any reputable quality build, carbine/middy/16-20" barrel, go for it. If you are casually shooting at 200-400 yards at the range, any legal barrel length will be more than adequate. Period. Just when you ask on a forum like this, you will get 10 different philosophies from 10 different people. Take what you will of it all as part of your decision making process. Good luck!

I'd love to know that side of the story. No matter how much I pour over those NJAC guidelines, I can't read it any other way.

I disagree here Vlad. The NJAC evil feature list is to be used to determine if any (new , old, any, etc) SA gun is a "Assault Weapon". They basically nullified the named list and replaced it with the evil feature list. Its right there in plain english, they say if a SA gun meets the evil feature list criteria then it is "identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon". Again this is NJAC, and the original "unconstitutionally vague" named list still appears in the statutes. So effectively its all F'd up as the state could try you on the named list in the statutes, or the NJAC evil feature list. From the NJAC: We know the rest....

I'm going to go with the "razor blades embedded in wood". My legal purpose is extreme shaving.

My link

Ah, so there is a camera taking a picture of the driver as well. I guess you only have a chance if the photo was obscured or if not clear enough to make a ID on the driver.

So far my BCM 14.5" middy with a perm attached PWS comp has eaten plenty of Silver Bear, Golden Bear, and LCM855. No problems reported as of yet. Have an average of 200 of each down the pipe so far. Using a PSA carbine buffer.

True, and we need to fight the AG's latest crackdown on the IO rifle and Auto Ordinance carbine fiascos in which she declared them "substaintially identical" to named banned guns, while ignoring the NJAC evil feature list guidelines in how to determine if something is "substantially identical". It appears that she can ignore the evil feature list without any repercussions, while if we do we are facing 10 years in the slammer. And to the OP, the Draco fails on many grounds to be able to own in NJ, especially the weight limit and "barrel shroud". I believe Bushmaster makes a Carbon pistol that doesn't have the shroud and comes in at 49 ounces if you are interested in looking at those. You would of course need to have the compensator pinned on. NJAC 13:54-1.2 ii. A semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following: (1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (4) Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and/or (5) A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm; and

One thing I want to know is how does the red light camera prove that it was the vehicle owner driving the car at the time of the photo? License plates identify the car and registered owner, not current driver. If one went to court and argued this fact, how could the court find the vehicle owner guilty?

You just know the politicians will always blame it on the guns, not their own failed policies and decisions. Pretty sad state of affairs Newark is. State's largest city, and people strive to avoid it when ever possible. I know they are trying to turn things around with the heavy investments in cultural centers downtown, I hope they succeed. The one thing they have going for them is Newark Penn Station, where thousands of people are forced to travel through without a choice everyday, making it easier to recruit those people away from traveling to NYC for jobs in downtown Newark. Oh wait, there are no jobs, never-mind.

How can they not pay for repairs. It should be covered under comprehensive, just like if a vandal did a number on it....

According to my Hornaday Reloading guide, using a longer OAL (seating the bullet not as deep into the shell) will INCREASE pressures and velocity. The reasoning behind this is that the bullet does not get a running head start into the bore, and expanding gases do not have a buffer, as a longer OAL could potentially force the bullet right into the bore/rifling upon the cartridge being chambered. A bullet seated with a smaller OAL will leave some space between the bullet bearing surface and the bore/rifling, allowing a head start and room for expanding gases to move while the bullet gets seated into the bore/rifling. Generally bullets seated with a longer OAL in which the bullet seats into the bore/rifling will be more accurate, but you should compensate for increased pressure by backing down on your powder charge some.

No need to apologize. These questions always spur a good conversation. There is a lot going on regarding NJ gun laws right now, with the SAF lawsuit on the "justified" clause for CCW permits, and the NJ2AS lawsuit against the NJSP to have them disclose their guidelines on the FID application process in order to force them and local PD's into compliance with the laws around timelines for permit issuance's. That's quite a bit going on in my book. Remember NJ gun owners are a very small minority, and many of us are too busy trying to making a living to pay ludicris NJ property and other taxes to have time to protest and organize these efforts. Little by little, lets win these two, and hopefully we can move onto other things like our "guilty before being proven innocent" wording of the laws, and the rediculous do-nothing AWB.

This indeed could be opening a can of worms. I do think your argument has a double edge to it as well. I'm sure SAF and Calguns will argue that anything short of a detailed mechanical drawing with exact measurements of all parts would be construed as vague. So if CA did go to this extreme, gun manufacturors would be on the bandwagon of slightly changing the specs of "banned" guns into permitted ones. The only worrisome option CA may try is to say all SA guns are illegal, that is pretty clear, and doesn't take a mechanical engineer or ability to understand all the differences between guns to understand. I suppose that would open the door to further action based on an infringment of 2A rights, as it could be argued the intent of the ban is to illegally prevent people from exercising their rights, exceeding the boundary of being "reasonable" (I hate that word, but its what we have to deal with for now).

Glenn I agree with you on this... But, we know the laws are f'd up, and NJ also knows it as well due to NJ v Robert D. Merrill. The bottom line is we are playing a status quo game. The AG has drawn an imaginary line in the sand that she will go after anything that says AK or Avtomat Kalashnikov on it regardless of the NJAC evil feature list guidelines. She also has made it clear that any new cosmetically similar type rifles such as the recent M1 carbine incident will be chased down also regardless of the NJAC evil feature list guidelines to prevent them from being sold in NJ in the first place. The status quo seems to be that she will leave any cosmetically similar type guns alone that have had a history of being sold and owned in NJ over the past 15 years since NJ v Robert D. Merrill decision and incorporation of the NJAC evil feature list guidelines. This is the raw deal as it stands today. So until someone has the balls and enough funding to challenge the NJ AWB, this is what we are stuck with. We keep out heads low, continue on our business, don't draw attention, and we can continue this until we can get the NJ AWB declared unconstitutional. To the OP, please please do not call the NJSP asking "mother may I" regarding certain types of guns. Just go to one of the vendors in our vendor area, and they will assist you with any questions on the type of rifle you are looking for.