I agree with vladtepes and glennp that if one possesses all the parts to assemble a high capacity magazine, they are violating the law.

 

However, I think that some of you are putting the cart before the horse regarding disintegrating links for belt-feds.

 

First, one must establish that any number of links is even a "container" per the law. IMHO, I do not believe that they are. So there is no need to determine if one, fifteen, sixteen, or even one-hundred links is a large capacity magazine.

this is the killer..

 

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.

 

that is the obvious catch all...

"container" is not defined in NJ law..

 

so the only logical course of action is to observe the actual definition of the word..

 

con·tain·er (kn-tnr)

n.

1. A receptacle, such as a carton, can, or jar, in which material is held or carried.

2. A large reusable receptacle that can accommodate smaller cartons or cases in a single shipment, designed for efficient handling of cargo.

container [kənˈteɪnə]n

1. an object used for or capable of holding, esp for transport or storage, such as a carton, box, etc.

2. (Business / Commerce)

a. a large cargo-carrying standard-sized container that can be loaded from one mode of transport to another

 

obviously.. by literal definition...

16 links in a shoe box.. is a disassembled high capacity magazine..

 

the point of my posting is not to argue.. or fight.. I hate NJ gun laws just as much as the rest of us.. the point is instead to point out the hypocrisy that is NJ..

 

disassembled 20 round AR mag.. JAIL

20 links in a shoe box.. OK

 

how is that reasonable.. both are.. by definition containers capable of continuously feeding 15+ rounds of ammunition through a semi automatic firearm..

Per Dictionary.com

 

CONTAINER:

1.anything that contains or can contain something, as a carton, box, crate, or can.

2.a large, vanlike, reuseable box for consolidating smaller crates or cartons into a single shipment, designed for easy and fast loading and unloading of freight.

 

LINK:

1.one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

2.anything serving to connect one part or thing with another; a bond or tie: The locket was a link with the past.

3.a unit in a communications system, as a radio relay station or a television booster station.

4.any of a series of sausages in a chain.

5.a cuff link.

 

I fail to see the connection, pun intended. A link is not a container.

Per Dictionary.com

 

CONTAINER:

1.anything that contains or can contain something, as a carton, box, crate, or can.

2.a large, vanlike, reuseable box for consolidating smaller crates or cartons into a single shipment, designed for easy and fast loading and unloading of freight.

 

LINK:

1.one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

2.anything serving to connect one part or thing with another; a bond or tie: The locket was a link with the past.

3.a unit in a communications system, as a radio relay station or a television booster station.

4.any of a series of sausages in a chain.

5.a cuff link.

 

I fail to see the connection, pun intended. A link is not a container.

 

right.. read the first definition again..

a container contains.. which means to hold..

 

 

con·tain

   [kuhn-teyn]

1.

to hold or include within its volume or area: This glass contains water. This paddock contains our best horses.

2.

to be capable of holding; have capacity for: The room will contain 75 persons safely.

3.

to have as contents or constituent parts; comprise; include.

4.

to keep under proper control; restrain: He could not contain his amusement.

5.

to prevent or limit the expansion, influence, success, or advance of (a hostile nation, competitor, opposing force, natural disaster, etc.): to contain an epidemic.

 

 

a link holds ammo.. as in it contains ammo.. an ammo belt holds ammo.. it is a container that is capable of feeding ammunition..

it is ok that we disagree.. I am just reading the literal definition of things here..

Is a paper clip that holds objects a container? Is a notebook a container? Are all fruits oranges, or are all oranges fruits?

 

You are reading the definition backwards. If something contains something, it holds it. If something is held together by something else, that something else is not always a container.

 

Contain may mean to hold, but hold does not mean to contain. Reread your definition.

 

ETA: We can all hold hands (linked like a chain), but we are not being contained by anything.

Is a paper clip that holds objects a container? Is a notebook a container? Are all fruits oranges, or are all oranges fruits?

 

You are reading the definition backwards. If something contains something, it holds it. If something is held together by something else, that something else is not always a container.

 

Contain may mean to hold, but hold does not mean to contain. Reread your definition.

 

ETA: We can all hold hands (linked like a chain), but we are not being contained by anything.

 

if you really believe the intention of the law..

is to disallow someone to own a 16 round Glock magazine, but allow for a 100 round belt.. both devices that feed a semi automatic firearm..

then I will obviously not sway you..

 

I am simply saying.. that I FIRMLY believe the intention of the law as illustrated by the vagueness of "other container" as a catch all.. and the statement explaining magazines would have to be permanently altered to ONLY accept 15 or less says it all..besides belt fed how many other containers are there that feed ammunition (besides those expressly listed)?

 

the intention is obvious.. to me at least.. and that intention is not one of looking the other way with 50 round belt fed semi automatic rifle..

keep in mind we are talking about a state that has banned things like "bayonet lugs" ... the M1 carbine.. and so on..

Oh. I definitely believe that the intent of the law was to limit magazines to 15 rounds. Belt-fed firearms were overlooked. If the Legislators knew about them, they would have been put on the banned list.

 

IMO, I believe that someone MAY be prosecuted for a 16+ round linked belt. I do not believe that they would even be charged for two 15 round belts. The intent of the possessor was to limit the rounds in an attempt to follow the law.

Going back to the original post regarding disassembled magazines, I believe that the possessor MAY have the intent to reassemble it into a 'high' capacity magazine. It depends upon the totality of the circumstances.

Oh. I definitely believe that the intent of the law was to limit magazines to 15 rounds. Belt-fed firearms were overlooked. If the Legislators knew about them, they would have been put on the banned list.

 

IMO, I believe that someone MAY be prosecuted for a 16+ round linked belt. I do not believe that they would be even charged for two 15 round belts. The intent of the possessor was to limit the rounds in an attempt to follow the law.

 

so in following that logic.. is 16 links in a box.. the same as a disassembled 16 round mag in a box?

and I believe they were not knowledgeable about belts either.. which is why I am SURE they included "other" to allow themselves a catch all for anything they could not think of at the time.. and the argument that a belt is or is not a container.. that is IMO a somewhat weak leg to stand on..

 

I really think it is just one of those things.. like the ban list.. substantially identical and all that.. where the belts fell through the cracks.. lets face it.. people are not really arrested for things like JUST high cap mags.. (or 16 link belts) so all this is just really discussion...

 

but at the end of the day.. if they could find a prosecutor who was intelligent enough to link 16 rounds together with links that a defendant had in his control in a court room.. to the average NJ gun clueless juror.. do you really think a high cap mag conviction would be that far off?

 

that is more the point..

Going back to the original post regarding disassembled magazines, I believe that the possessor MAY have the intent to reassemble it into a 'high' capacity magazine. It depends upon the totality of the circumstances.

 

the discussion is not so much right or wrong.. the discussion is more will they prosecute..

a disassembled high cap mag is capable of being put back together and violating the high cap ban.. this is likely why they are of the opinion that they will prosecute unless it is permanently altered.. NJ said.. unless a mag is permanently altered.. it runs the risk of prosecution.. disassembly is not permanent..

unfortunately that runs back to the belt thing..

2 15 round belts is NOT permanent.. it is still capable of assembly into a 20 round belt..

which is why I have been stating this opinion..

the ONLY legal argument left.. is one that a belt does not constitute other container.. which is an argument I am not sure I would trust my freedom to..

Apples and oranges. Both are fruit, but are completely different fruit.

 

 

 

 

By the way, you and I both have the ability to possess 100 round mags and we are the ones discussing this.

By the way, you and I both have the ability to possess 100 round mags and we are the ones discussing this.

 

that is something I certainly agree with as being ironic.... LOL

 

totally off topic.. but I am finally getting settled up here and going on some interviews.. hopefully I get a job soon.. pretty sure first "cool" thing will be a SBR AR.. =D

Vlad, somethings to consider.....for what it's worth.

 

I asked Evan Nappen whether a belt/ links were considered a container when he spoke at the NJ2AS meeting a few months ago. His reply was that there is no case law on that, but in HIS opinion they were not, but he again said there is no case law so of naturally caution should be used.

 

Also, before Sarco was thrown out of NJ, and while they were actively fighting for their licenses to be renewed, they had no problem selling 1000 count boxes of disintegrating links to anyone who walked in the door and paid for them at their Sterling, NJ location. Keep in mind they were being as careful as they possibly could be while their appeal was winding through the courts, and I'm sure they would never have sold them in NJ if they had any doubt they as to their legality.

The bottom line is that someone could be charged for high cap mags if it was a linked belt, or blocked mag via what the state feels is a "temporary" method. Both situations are not covered in the statutes, and all we have are some NJAC guidelines that tell us if you just put a stopper in the mag, that the state will try to prosecute you.

 

In the end it will come down to convincing the jury that your belt or blocked mag does not fit the definition of a "high cap mag" as described in the Statutes.

 

I haven't been able to find any prior case law on either subjects, not that it doesn't exist, I just can't find any. Needless to say, in either case, it is walking the line, just like transporting HG's and hollow point bullets, pinning stocks and muzzle brakes, and many other "open to interpretation" ambiguous NJ gun law related stuff that we try to follow to the best of our abilities.

 

I'm sure in the end, if the State doesn't like any gun owning NJ citizen, they could put on a world of hurt after rummaging through a gun collection or following you around on your way to go shooting... Unless all you own are non-SA long guns.

3 pages of nonsense

 

15 round limit in magazines!