kman

That's actually how NJ's laws are set up. Most states tell you what is illegal, i.e. they set forth what you cannot do. NJ is the opposite - read the statute - the NJ Code bans firearms and hollow points ENTIRELY. Then NJ provides certain very specific circumstances by statute where you are exempt from the ban. So literally in NJ whatever is not specifically allowed by the law is absolutely forbidden. Moral of the story: forget about hollow points. Too much of an issue in this state. Would be nice to have them but not worth it. Get flat point or FMJ, and then spend your time trying to figure out the laws governing the firearm. If you try to understand the rules on hollow points, you will go nuts. And cops will go nuts when they see hollow points on you or in your car because they don't understand the law and they don't need to either - they can just arrest you - and "let the courts straighten it out". Cops will even go nuts if they find hollow points in your house. Because the law to the cops is simple. They are banned. Easy statute for them to cite in your arrest papers. Then it is up to you to find an exception to the ban in the NJ law. And those exceptions are very very narrow!

Alternatively, my Ruger SP-101 trigger is so hard to pull that my wife's friend could not even pull the trigger. Index finger did not have the strength to pull it back. Could not fire the gun double action. Now that is ridiculous.

Here's some perspective: First, once you have the FID, you have it till it is taken away. And to take it away requires a court order, i.e. a New Jersey Judge has to hold a hearing and hear evidence and decide you are legally disqualified from having it. So you were issued it, you have it, that's it. Second, back in the 80s when my dad moved, he went to the police in the new town he moved to, and they told him his old one was good, that he didn't even need to get a new one. He never got a new one. He moved out of state in the 90s. I don't think the law has changed since then. Maybe someone could speak up if they can point to a law that says oherwise. What has changed since then? At some point, dealers started requiring the address on your NJDL and your NJFID to match before they would sell you a rifle or shotgun, so if you moved, you needed to get a new card from your new town so the addresses on your NJDL and NJFID matched. I think the NJSP required that of dealers. That's why everyone reapplies with their new town police when they move instead of just keeping their old cards. But you aren't moving out of your permanent residence, you are just temporarily staying somewhere else for a while because you are a student, and will return back to your permanent residence afterward. You have two residences. Your permanent address stays constant. Just because you sleep elsewhere doesn't mean your permanent address is no good. You still are entitled to stay there. You still receive mail there. You just have two addresses for a while. So keep your permanent address on your drivers license. If your DL has your permanent address, and your FID is issued by the same town PD as your permanent address, then you should be good. Why change your DL address if you are temporarily somewhere and your permanent address is also good? Keep your DL with your permanent address, in the same town as the town that issued your FID. Then there's no problem. If you are looking at it as whether you can have rifles or shotguns with you at your temp address, you can have those with you wherever you are in the state as a FID holder as long as they are unloaded. PLUS you can have them, LOADED, in your residence - in any of your residences, or on property you own, by statute, regardless of whether you have a FID or not. Same with pistols. The law even recognizes you can have two residences - after all there is an exemption allowing transport between two residences, isn't there? So basically, if you have a permanent address that is constant, and are temporarily staying somewhere else, I don't see why you would want to apply for a new card. There's no point. It doesn't make a difference with regard to buying, and it doesn't make a difference with regard to possession. Theoretically, if you were returning from the range to your temp address with handguns in the car, and a cop pulled you over, and your DL address was very far away, you would have to explain to the police officer that you are traveling to your temporary address, and not the address on your drivers license, in order to substantiate that you are traveling from range to home under the exemption. No big deal. Many people have more than one address. You could keep a copy of your temp residence lease with you, so you can show him. Your DL address is your permanent address. Your lease shows one additional address where you are staying temporarily. Both residences are residences of yours.

Sounds like a real jerk to me. If it was a wal mart kid's bow it would be lower power than a hunting bow but that doesn't matter - it can still cause serious injury if there is no proper backstop that is big enough to take all of the shots. Wal Mart sells plenty of stuff that can cause serious harm so just because he bought it there doesn't mean anything. Even just throwing an arrow over the fence is dangerous and not comparable at all to a ball going over the fence. And since when is it your responsibility to put in a "better fence" so his kid can fire arrows at it? The guy thinks basically that your family should be happy to be his kid's backstop. If his kid is going to be shooting a bow in the backyard, he ought to have a proper foam target, and at a minimum a big sheet of plywood or OSB behind it to take any arrows that miss. Better yet, if this guy thinks it is no big deal, then he can put the target against the side of his own house and have his kid fire in that direction with his back to your property, instead of shooting it in your direction. I used to shoot arrows in my backyard when I was little, but it was a very weak regular bow and I had a lot of distance behind the target so a missed arrow would go into the ground, not into the neighbor's property. If one more arrow goes over the fence, or through the fence, you probably are going to have to call the police in order to get this guy to take his parenting and property owning responsiblilities seriously. You don't have to press charges, you can just have the police make a visit.

Just like they let pellet guns with silencers sell in this state and then abruptly sent a letter to dealers this past month saying they are illegal. The NJ State police is always right no matter how many times they change their mind. It is a potential issue is all I am saying. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

Regardless of whether the law in your town specifically bans discharge of bows or not, firing arrows onto a neighbor's property is still actionable under criminal law and civil law on the basis of trespass, recklessness, nuisance, etc. If the arrow harms someone, then whoever fired it could be convicted of assault or reckless endangerment. If the arrows keep coming over the fence, then you can get him arrested for harassment. You could get a restraining order against him. Because there are so many laws already out there, you could get him on any number of things. If he is a reasonable person, he will apologize and promise it will never happen again and beg you not to bring the authorities in. If he is not reasonable, all you have to do is go to the police and sign a complaint and they will certainly make him regret ever picking up a bow. Then you can take your time in deciding whether you want to drop charges against him, or have him explain himself to the town judge.

Good eye there finding that link. Looks like Bloomberg wants to use this info he got from Armslist to revive the bill banning private sales. Reading the article, two things to consider: 1) If you post a "WTB" ad on Armslist, Bloomberg is going to grab it and try to use databases to find out who you are and run a background check on you. 2) Felons are running "WTB" ads looking to buy guns, and presumably since they know they will get bounced at the background check, they probably will try to buy the gun without paperwork (or, something Bloomberg didn't consider, they might just rob you of your guns). Instead of forwarding this information to the ATF so undercover ATF agents can offer sales to these prohibited people and make arrests under existing law and take criminals off the streets, Bloomberg wants to use this information to have new laws passed taking away everyone else's rights.

You gotta really read this article with a critical eye to see how they are misrepresenting the process of online sales. They are saying that many websites sell guns "with no background checks and no questions asked". Well, of course the website doesn't do a background check or ask questions, because that is not the right time to do it, that's not how the legal process to purchase online is set up. The online dealer ships the gun to a retail dealer in the state of the purchaser, and then the buyer goes in person to that dealer with ID, and that dealer does the background check in accordance with Federal and State law. The online seller/dealer doesn't isn't the one that does the background checks. And yet, this is what Bloomberg is complaining they don't do. They don't do it because that's not how it is done. So the Bloomberg formula is 1) grossly misrepresent existing laws and procedures to make people think they need to pass new laws, 2) get new laws passed, 3) grossly misrepresent new laws and argue for even more laws, 4) get more laws passed, repeat repeat repeat.... If Bloomberg's investigators really saw illegal gun sales go down, you think they wouldn't notify the ATF and have the dealer or seller raided and shut down? Of course they would. So this is a bunch of nonsense.

The case involving the MAK 90 was one case, that actually went through a full blown (and expensive) trial, in one county in NJ. Since it was not appealed and no decision of an apeal court was obtained, that decision isn't binding on any other judge in NJ but is just persuasive authority. Any other judge and prosecutor combo could decide at any time that they aren't going to follow that case. With the Mak 90 at least you have a good argument it is not "Avtomat Kalashnikov Type" since the MAK 90 was made in China and had changes to the design from real AKs. Saigas are made in Russia, by the same company that makes AKs, I think Mr. Kalashnikov himself is still affiliated with the company, and are made in the same factory that makes AKs for the Russian army. That's a tough sell if the state really put you to your proofs, that it is not an AK type gun. And especially if afterwards you end up "converting it" by moving the trigger guard back and restoring the pistol grip and thus un-doing much of the changes that differentiate an AK from a Saiga in the first place. Hell, a couple posts earlier someone said here that the Saiga "is an AK type gun but they are legal". Well the statute says that if it is an AK type gun it isn't legal. I think the NJ law is unconstitutional, impermissibly vague, etc., but a judge and prosecutor could really screw you if they wanted to here. Like I said, it seems the practice is that it is legal if it doesn't have the features, otherwise the NJ State Police wouldn't allow them to be sold, but you won't find one in my house. I know a true AK is full auto and we are talking about semi-autos here, and I know the NJ State Police says it is OK, and I know that these laws are unconstitutional in the first place, I know all these arguments, and I agree with them, and all, but when you go into a courtroom the sky isn't blue unless you get a certified expert on the sky to testify under oath that the sky is blue. I'd be concerned if I was charged with a felony and had to find an expert to testify that a rifle made by Kalashnikov by the same company and in the same factory as AKs, that operated in the same fashion, was not an "AK type".

This is why I won't own one in this state even though they are supposedly legal when lacking 2 evil features. That part of the law is just too damn ripe for a zealous prosecutor. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

Very well put. It is inconceivable how much our own military have embraced gun control. "Armed forces" indeed. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

Time to appeal to the Supreme Court. Or fix it in congress.

Both circumstances you describe involve handgun possession outside of exemptions and would be felonies. That is how messed up our laws are. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

Funny how some of those who support the right to bear arms will rush to defend rules forbidding members of the armed forces from bearing arms. If a soldier can't be trusted with a beretta then he or she has no business being in the armed forces in the first place. Like it or not war is hell. And the US has been at war for 12 years now. While people like to think that our wars are limited and surgical, the people we are fighting don't see it that way. It is ridiculous that one person with a gun can cause so much mayhem when surrounded by soldiers and sailors in a military facility of all places. We don't teach all of our soldiers and sailors and airmen to shoot? That is ridiculous! Should be the first thing taught! Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

Could be weak hammer spring Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

To put things in perspective my lever henry .22 rifle is illegal in ny because the tube holds more than 10. NY banned all mags over 10 not just semi auto mags. So be careful because it is not all intuitive what is legal there and what is not. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

Willing ti bet that now it has come to their attention a FID requirement will be written into the administrative code at the next revision. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

Never been to a gun store in North Jersey that didn't ask for the FID to handle a gun. I always assumed it was a combination of ultra caution by the dealer mixed in with a clever way to avoid spending time with a customer who doesn't have documentation in order to buy.

If it takes this much discussion to determine if it is NJ legal and it is still unclear, what do you think a NJ judge is going to decide? Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

Opening up a shooting range in the meadowlands would be the holy grail. So much space. You could site it so a stray bullet would be impossible to end up anywhere populated. If I only had capital to spend to attempt it. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Are letters such as this publicly available? It would be instructive to be able to read through them in chronological order. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I have a nomenclature objection. 'Buyback' is a nonsense term that would only make sense if the gun was initially owned by the government in the first place and thus subject to being reacquired by the government. These guns were never owned by the government in the first place. The government never had any ownership interest in these guns in the first place. They were made by private enterprise fir sale to the public. Using this term perpetuates the nonsense notion that firearms are or should always be subject to givernment control. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Google "Steve's Gunz" - he tunes Taurus brand Winchester lever clones so that they work 100% out of the box, I've wanted to buy one from him for quite some time.

I would keep the .22 upper. The 226 is actually a really great gun in .22 caliber. Works fantastic. Quite reliable. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

226 in any caliber plus the caliber conversion kits for the other available calibers. Then you have 9mm, .40, & .357 sig and .22 Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2