Hello forum...

I recently purchased a firearm that came with 2 magazines that hold 17 bullets of course I couldn't take them with me because they need to be modify to a capacity of 14 bullets...

I read that in N.J. the highets capacity in a magazine is 15...but of course I also heard 14...

First question...

What's the capacity in N.J.?

 

Second question...

Is It legal to have magazines modify in N.J.?

 

Hopefully someone could help me with these questions...

Sincerly,

A new member to the firearms world...

15 rds in the magazine. Bigger magazines that are permanently blocked to a capacity of 15 are legal. You cannot take possession of the magazines in NJ until they are blocked. You can do it yourself (outisde of NJ) or have them sent to a FFL (who can possess the magazines and have them blocked for you.

15 rds in the magazine. Bigger magazines that are permanently blocked to a capacity of 15 are legal. You cannot take possession of the magazines in NJ until they are blocked. You can do it yourself or have them sent to a FFL (who can possess the magazines and have them blocked for you.

Notice the words PERMANENTLY BLOCKED

If the mags can be restored to a capacity larger than 15 rounds, you're putting your freedom and your RKBA nationwide at great risk.

If a 16th round can be shoved in you "altered" mag, consider yourself fooked.

What Griz said.....just to reiterate.....you cannot be in possession of a magazine that can hold 16 rounds or more, and can be accepted in any semi-auto gun. There are some bolt action guns that might accept detachable magazines larger than 15 rounds, those are legal as long as they will not be accepted in a gun that is semi-auto.

What Griz said.....just to reiterate.....you cannot be in possession of a magazine that can hold 15 rounds or more, and can be accepted in any semi-auto gun. There are some bolt action guns that might accept detachable magazines larger than 15 rounds, those are legal as long as they will not be accepted in a gun that is semi-auto.

 

D'oh! He cannot be in possession of a magazine that can hold 16 rounds or more. If the magazine can fit 15 rounds, it is legal.

here's the definition and exception:

 

y. "Large capacity ammunition magazine" means 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 semi-automatic firearm.

 

j. Any person who knowingly has in his possession a large capacity ammunition magazine is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree unless the person has registered an assault firearm pursuant to section 11 of P.L.1990, c.32 (C.2C:58-12) and the magazine is maintained and used in connection with participation in competitive shooting matches sanctioned by the Director of Civilian Marksmanship of the United States Department of the Army.

Ok so 15 is the max in N.J.

And the mags are getting modify permanently...

Just want to be sure that if the mag is modify there won't be a problem with

Law enforcement God forbid of an unfortunate situation...

D'oh! He cannot be in possession of a magazine that can hold 16 rounds or more. If the magazine can fit 15 rounds, it is legal.

Edited, thanks for pointing that out. You'll notice later in the post, I did say more than 15

 

in a situation like the S&W M&P40, 15+1 is ok, right? mag is only 15, +1 in the chamber

The one in the chabmer does not count. 15 rounds in mag, +1 in chamber is fine.

thats what i thought but after reading so many threads i began to question myself.. thank you nj for your ridiculous rules

I am willing to be wrong here.. but where exactly is the word permanent in reference to altering magazine capacity?

 

can the magazine at any time you have it hold more than 15 rounds? yes.. illegal.. no.. legal.. it does not as far as I am aware state that this modification has to be permanent..

I am willing to be wrong here.. but where exactly is the word permanent in reference to altering magazine capacity?

 

can the magazine at any time you have it hold more than 15 rounds? yes.. illegal.. no.. legal.. it does not as far as I am aware state that this modification has to be permanent..

 

Here lies the confusion and crux. It is written into the Administrative Code. Enforcable only on dealers to hold over their heads in order to keep their license. It is not enforcable on nonlicensees. No law (2A or 2C) says that the mags have to be permanently altered.

No law (2A or 2C) says that the mags have to be permanently altered.

 

Thanks for that clarification Paul. It WILL help me sleep better (no sarcasm!).

Here lies the confusion and crux. It is written into the Administrative Code. Enforcable only on dealers to hold over their heads in order to keep their license. It is not enforcable on nonlicensees. No law (2A or 2C) says that the mags have to be permanently altered.

Not being a wise a** here, a sincere question. While I understand what your saying to be true, don't you think, considering that this is NJ, that some prosecutors would try to prosecute nonlicensees for possession of a temporarily blocked mag? Even if you prevail it will cost you a lot of money to prove you're right.

Not being a wise a** here, a sincere question. While I understand what your saying to be true, don't you think, considering that this is NJ, that some prosecutors would try to prosecute nonlicensees for possession of a temporarily blocked mag? Even if you prevail it will cost you a lot of money to prove you're right.

 

IMO, no. One can't prosecute based on rules made by the NJSP. Only laws passed by the legislature.

 

Anotrher thing on your side is that a previous NJAG said that the temporary blocked mags were okay.

Not being a wise a** here, a sincere question. While I understand what your saying to be true, don't you think, considering that this is NJ, that some prosecutors would try to prosecute nonlicensees for possession of a temporarily blocked mag? Even if you prevail it will cost you a lot of money to prove you're right.

 

 

there are enough real laws for you to follow... avoid making additional ones as some would consider that paranoia..

Little off topic, but does this mean that we do not have to lock our guns in their cases in the situation when you are transporting a gun in a vehicle without a trunk separate from the passenger compartment... as in a hatchback or wagon? The law doesn't say anything about locking it or any specific details on this condition, but the Administrative Code stipulates the case/bag be locked under these circumstances.

Little off topic, but does this mean that we do not have to lock our guns in their cases in the situation when you are transporting a gun in a vehicle without a trunk separate from the passenger compartment... as in a hatchback or wagon? The law doesn't say anything about locking it or any specific details on this condition, but the Administrative Code stipulates the case/bag be locked under these circumstances.

 

 

when you get into what the NJSP considers an ideal situation... and what the law actually reads... the latter of the two is all I think you reasonably need be concerned with...

 

while I have skimmed the law numerous times.. I am not aware of how it directly applies to your scenario..

when you get into what the NJSP considers an ideal situation... and what the law actually reads... the latter of the two is all I think you reasonably need be concerned with...

 

while I have skimmed the law numerous times.. I am not aware of how it directly applies to your scenario..

 

Never-mind, it is not NJAC, I was thinking of a FOPA rule. The gun needs to be in a locked case if the compartment it is in is not separate from the passenger compartment.

 

So for us here in NJ, the gun has to be in a "closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package"

deleted

IMO, no. One can't prosecute based on rules made by the NJSP. Only laws passed by the legislature.

 

Anotrher thing on your side is that a previous NJAG said that the temporary blocked mags were okay.

Well I hope your right. Unfortunately we have no precedent go on ...... although that could be for the reasons you stated.