Dan

Yes he does, his specialty is motorcycles and classic car parts. He's in Hillside. I'll PM you the info.

Mmm, my father-in-law owns a metal polishing/chrome company. I'm thinking of having my CAI's BCG polished up now. I don't think he can do hard chrome or whatever it is called that is used on guns, only the shiny stuff for car parts, etc.

FYI, regarding any 556 issues... Just call Sig if there is a problem, they will take care of you. They have excellent customer service. I called for some spare parts of common wear items, as I just like to have them on hand. The guy on the phone over at Sig was about to send them to me for free b/c he thought I may have had a problem. I explained I just want them as spares and I will pay for them, he gave me free shipping in the end.

Little do people know, but the "other room" he goes into is actually a Class 1 laminar flow filtration positive pressure cleanroom. If he brought out the stuff that actually sells and moved it to the front, it would get dirty and nobody would want to buy it. My powder and primers came out of that back room squeeky clean..

Those scars are normal, all 556's that have been shot will have them, unless the owner put a peice of velcro tape or similar on that area to prevent it from happening. Similar to the shell deflector on an AR. Personally I feel it adds character.

I've been there once, I did have to wait about 10-15min for the "line". I'd be pretty frustrated if it was an hour, esp on a weeknight. I just don't understand why most shops don't carry powder and primers. Is there some town ordinances stopping them from doing so?

An hour? Was it b/c he was so busy with lots of customers, or just taking an hour with one or two of them?

This guy is no longer trustworthy to be in LE. That being said I'd be surprised if anything came of this. Two words... double standard.

That was from a 1969 decision. The SAF suit is attacking the core of all the arguments I listed above in my previous post.

That's exactly what I'm thinking.

Wow didn't know about this one. Few fun facts: a) it was a New Jersey court that dismissed the appeal, so surprised on that one b) they used Burton v. Sills as the precedent, which is a flawed argument based on pre-2A incorporation ideology c) they used the tired and twisted argument that McDonald and Heller were both about possessing a gun in the home ONLY My link

This is the question at hand. I do not have the entire story, but obviously they were bullied by the state into no longer carrying anything that looked like an "AK". This is the root of the issue. Besides the IO issue where it was stamped "AK", where I admit they crossed the line; other styles of firearms that may or may not share cosmetic looks with an AK are permitted under the current NJAC guidelines that the state, dealers, and gun owners have been following for the past 13 years. Who knows what was really said behind closed doors that has forced Cheyenne to put their tail between their legs and institute their own selective judgment on what to sell and not based on cosmetics regardless of the state law and code. The original "named list" and "substantially identical" sections of the NJ AWB already have legal precedence as to being deemed unconstitutionally vague. The state's band-aid was to include the evil feature list in the NJAC to guide prosecutors on how to enforce the NJ AWB in a manner that would stand up in court (aka not unconstitutional as it stands in the Statutes). The state chose not to appeal NJ v Robert D. Merrill for a reason, they knew it would eventually lead to a battle over the NJ AWB ban and its constitutionality with the result of it being stricken out of law. You think they wouldn't appeal if they knew they would win, and strengthen the state's stand on the AWB? Highly doubtful.

Yup, i'm not concerned. I'll be using the oh so cheap and high quality corrosive milsurp with it. Its getting the Windex and full cleaning treatment after any range time.. which is hopefully this weekend for its first tryout.

Muzzle brake is definitely chromed. Chamber is not chromed, and doesn't look like the barrel is either. I honestly can't tell for certain, can't find my bore-light (not that it is scientific either). I'm willing to bet that it isn't if the chamber isn't chromed.

Yes, just need the volunteer to be the FFL/dealer, and transferee to face NJ AW charges, along with lots of $$ and legal assistance. I'm pretty sure we'll win! This is how Paula is standing firm on this one... game of chicken, but on her side is state funds and gets to go home at night.

Only if you want to be the challenge case against the AG.

Bob, Here's what I found... Regarding the transfer of a firearm to persons under 21 and 18, take a look at 2C:58-6.1. The range would need to be at least approved by the municipality. Regarding transportation of said firearms, I do not anything in the statutes that indicates you need to prove that you are the owner of said firearms, only that you are transporting them under the exemptions indicated. The only issue at hand is how they came to posses the firearms in the first place without a FPID. We all know the two ways would be to move to NJ with them from another state, and inheritance. Regarding the legal owner needing to be present for temporary transfers... 2C:58-3.2 "Temporary transfer of firearms for training purposes" does not have such a requirement. It does state the person transferring the gun needs to have some type of training certification. When it comes to air rifles, it gets more interesting as there is a Federal law dictating that states cannot classifly air guns as "firearms".

Oh New Jersey... you so crazzzzzy!

At least the civilians have magazines in their guns.

OP, I'm betting you just worded your question wrong. I'll fix it for you: "I like this particular gun that I see online, would a FFL dealer in NJ work with me to make sure that it is NJ legal for me to own before I order it and have it shipped to them?" A: Yes, they will let you know if it is NJ legal or not either giving you permission to have it shipped to them or not for the tranaction. Some FFL/dealers have the ability to permanently alter otherwise non-permitted guns to make them NJ legal as well.

IMO this has can-of-worms potential. I would stick with either factory 15 round or less, or purchase permanently modified mags from a reputable dealer. Otherwise, any work you do to permanently alter a magazine would have to be done out of state for legality purpose. Methods could include fused rollpins, rivets, and the such. It is good to know that NJ Statutes do not define a "high capacity magazine" other than one that holds more than 15 rounds. The NJAC code does have some further guidelines around them needing to be "permanently altered", yet stops at defining what exactly constitutes "permanently". It only gives some examples of what "temporary" means.

Vlad, you did a great job in my book, and outlines today's "legal standard" that we all use. Any of my comments were simply to educate on the history and legal vehicles (Statutes, NJAC, etc) by which we get them. My apologies if anything was threadjacky, no disrespect whatsoever.

Correct, and the AG could at any time could no longer follow the NJAC definition and try someone on "substantially identical" in 2C anytime she wishes. Again, that person would have a good defense, but the thought of being dragged through the justice system is no fun for anyone. This the the big stick she wields in terms of dictating to dealers that they can't sell certain guns any longer even if it meets the NJAC evil feature list test, and isn't a named gun on the 2C list.

Wow, the M74 is no longer listed at JG. Any other place I can find that has it in stock is asking $100+ over what JG had them for. I knew I should have gotten 2!

Wow, good find on the expiration date! This is extremely significant! Perhaps next year when it is time to re-up the NJAC on chapter 54, they reword the "substantially identical" evil list in order to pull more guns into the AW definition!