SJG

BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE Newington, N. H. (February 20, 2015) – SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces. BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed.

They want $125-$160 to install, absurd!

A lower federal court opinion declaring a law unconstitutional only effects the parties in that specific case and has no binding effect either in the circuit where the federal court sits or outside the State where it is located. Within the next few days it is likely that a stay will be applied for an an appeal filed to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision is also not binding on any Texas State Court Judge or on any State Court Judge in any other State. If the decision is affirmed by the Circuit Court, the decision is only binding in that Circuit and no where else. Unless the United States Supreme Court agrees the Statute is unconstitutional none of this will impact NJ although it is possible that it could provide impetus for a change in Federal Statutory Law. It is also possible the decision could result in a similar suit being filed in NJ to get the ball rolling here.

I have mixed feelings about lasers. With a red laser, I found that I was more accurate, without the laser, and found it distracting. I suppose green would also be distracting. The other downside, as you point out, an assailant can "track" your movement and location unless it is deactivated when you change position. They do, of course, reveal to you when you are "on the torso" of a possible target when you can't really sight in your target although I generally train to be able to point and shoot without using sights,if I have to. There may or may not be a psychological deterrent effect, although, if you are going to draw your weapon, to defend yourself, you want to fire. They may have a "cool factor" but I am not sure if there is really an advantage. What am I missing?

What is the difference between Duracoat and Ceracote?

Which is better and why?

Anyone have it? Available with different coverage limits, for liability and criminal defense etc.

I had problems with the GSG when it was new. I did some simple mods that resolved the issues. That includes using HK pins in lieu and applying loctite to a few screws. In the beginning I had jams, but those just seemed to resolve with use and a good cleaning. The 15-22 is ok, but not great either. I think the way to go is to just purchase a dedicated .22 upper if you already have an AR. That solves the plastic cheapo issue.

why do you call yourself the soup nazi? I am sure there is an interesting story behind that

Its not the lack of enforcement, it is the fact that they are sold in the state, the state police permits it, and there has never been a prosecution of anyone for it. These factors are exactly what a court would consider to be persuasive. You see custom and practice is relevant regarding the issue of agency interpretation. Do you know of any FFL in the state that will not sell a 40 cal mag designed to hold 15 rounds? To say that you are correct because the law bans "AK types" is way to much of a generalization, when you, yourself know the limitations on that issue. Anyway, I enjoyed your argument. Best, SJGLAW

If your argument was correct, then 40 round mags designed to hold 15 rounds of 40 cal would be illegal and seized by the State Police because you can squeeze more than 15 rounds of 9mm in them. The fact that this has not happened is because of long standing agency practice which belies your argument that because the statue is clear, it is ok for it to be interpreted to reach an absurd result. Of course, if you load it up, with more than 15 you have a problem. Statutes are not applied in isolation, they are applied to specific facts. No attorney client relationship exists between the writter and any member of this forum.

Different issue, you have changed the thread question, you father's house might be if you can show that you sometimes reside at that location. A person can have more than one residence.

There are basic rules of statutory construction that are applied when an issue is raised concerning the interpretation and application of a statute. Statutes are not supposed to be construed to reach absurd results or results contrary to legislative intention. I doubt this issue was ever discussed or considered when the statute was adopted or if there is any legislative intent or history on the issue. The statute although not expressly stating that the limit assumes that the magazines are loaded with the caliber of ammo they were designed for only makes sense if interpreted that way, otherwise, as others have pointed out standard 15 round 40 cal mags would be illegal, as they can hold more than 15 rounds of 9mm and would not be permitted to be sold in NJ, which of course, they are. Literal interpretations of statutes are only done, where absurd results are not reached. Clearly, if you use 40 round mags to file 9mm, you should not be loading more than 15 rounds, and if you do, you do it at your own peril. Frankly, as this is a public forum, and can be viewed by anyone, why would anyone want to give the State of N.J. more ideas on how to screw us? I am all in favor of vigorous debate, but where the debate takes place, in some instances should be in non public sections of this website, where those given access can be pre-screened.

How much is the operation?

1 The New Jersey Administrative Code is law 2. If there is a conflict between a regulation and a statute, the statute will prevail over the regulation. The reasoning is that regulation conflicts with the statute and the e legislative intent to delegate rule making authority to an agency to promulgate an administrative regulation consistent with the statute 3. There is a big difference between "one or more" and "not more that one" I have not yet read the proposed regulation, but if it is being quoted correctly here, it may do more that just create consistency with our existing statutory restrictions.To me, it looks inconsistent. I need to study this issue further. 4. The main purpose of the NJAC is to create categories for weapons that cannot be sold. Criminal indictments for weapons violations cite state criminal statutes. I have never seen an indictment for violation of an administrative regulation. An administrative regulation may be cited by a court, and frequently is in a civil case, or in a regulatory adminsitrative trial and may be cited in an opinion in a quasi criminal case where the focus is an administrative code violation. 5 Presently the statue indicates :3)A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock. If the statute is not changed, then the "one or more" means any one or more of the described evil features. This is what they did to NY and what they tried to do on the federal level last year. A detachable magazine would be a no-no even though it is presently ok in a semi shotgun. The point to be made is that this regulatory change is not consistent with how the statue is presently written and permits the State Police to usurp the power of the Legislature in violation of the NJ Constitution. At least this is how I see it now, but would need to study this further

I have the p320, i love this gun. It cycles any type ammo, never FTF or FTE and the trigger is better than that on my modified glocks. I am not interested in other calibers, but it is nice to know that the modular design makes that possible. A keeper.

From a legal perspective this is an interesting discussion. From a practical one, I doubt you will ever see anyone prosecuted because they shouldered the weapon unless the opinion letter, with its inherent flaws ends up in a codified agency regulation. This is not to suggest that the opinion letter should be disregarded, but it is only an opinion letter and does not provide the "notice" that a statute, agency regulation, or court opinion would. We may see this subject further addressed. Prosecutors usually do not prosecute where there is an automatic built in defense based on existing agency interpretation.

Ok, so I decided to buy the P320 in 9mm and it shoots like a dream. I love the texture on the grip and how it fits my hand as much as or better than the Gen 4 Glock I own. The trigger beats out the trigger mods I did to my Glock, but not by much, although I think the pull is smoother. I think the P320 is a little heavier than the Glock 19 but not by much. It comes with a decent holster, but I probalby will not use the one it came with since it is more of a clam shell than a pancake fit. What i do like about it is that the entire FCG is modular, you just take it out and you can install it in a different Sig body and caliber. That is kind of neat, although I have no present plans of doing that. This is definitely a keeper.

Anyone own or fired this striker fired Sig? What do you think of it?

This is a thorny area of the law. Even if you obtain an order expunging a mental health record, you have to perfect the order by serving it on various entities, including the mental health facility. If you fail to do so, the order is not perfected and the facility will not destroy/segregate the record amd if ;aw emforcement checks, they can locate it. The key here is that the needed background check, trumps the expungement order and the State can inquire into it. Howerver, the fact it was expunged, is a good thing in the sense that a judge concluded you were not a threat to yourself or others and it should be fairly easy for the applicant to produce the requisite evidence that he no longer suffers from the disability. Frankly, the entire NJ process, makes little sense, unless justified on the basis of redundancy in light of the need to undergo a NICS check at the point of purchase anyway.

I disagree with many of the prior posts on this subject. I do agree that ultimately it will be up to the courts, but what evidence is introduced will be critical to the result achieved before the trial court and will inform the basis of an appeal if necessary. I do agree that it will be costly in legal fees. Documenting with evidence that can be introduced, not only the threat but also its execution involving others will be critical. A class action is not the appropriate vehicle and will not succeed. The only chance is an individualized action.

I have a Kaw, price is right and satisfied with it

Seconds?

You will get a tax bill with interest tacked on. Bad move not to have health insurance irrespective of your political philosophy but that is your call.

At a minimum, you should have a least a one year supply of ammo on hand. More is even better.