Does anyone know when the senate hearings are going to be?

If you keep your 10+ mags if this bill passes where can you use them outside of the home?

 

Lot's of ranges get a bit strict with compliance to NJ gun laws. If your'e spotted they'll

either ask you to stop using it, leave, or worse yet notify authorities.

 

I know Range 14 has asked me bout my mags twice.

 

I'm not saying to give up/comply, just gave it some thought and realized regardless of

what you choose it's a major PIA either way.

I say No, but if it does then they will push for five rounds!

I say No, but if it does then they will push for five rounds!

 

Then after 5, they will push for 3, then 2, then 1. They will never stop.

I've sent an email to the Crisite's office, saying that he can count on my vote only if he vetoes all 22. I'm not very optimistic though.

The only result so far - getting emails and letters from his campaign where they're asking for $. I might donate some, after my condition is met.

This whole thread=

To be quite frank I'm kind of done with all this state's bs. I really, truely don't care what they do anymore. I'm done jumping through arbitrary hoops. Everything I currently own meets the requirements of the current laws without grandfathering people like me anything they do, they do so in violation of due process. Read State of New Jersey vs. Robert D. Merrill. Leave me the hell alone, not one more inch!

 

 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff LAW DIVISION-CRIMINAL PART

vs. MONMOUTH COUNTY

ROBERT D. MERRILL IND. NO. 95-02-260-1

__________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

This matter having been opened to the Court by Evan F. Nappen, Esq.,

Attorney for Defendant, in the presence of Michael B. Mangini,

Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor, and

The Court having heard argument of counsel and good cause having been

shown; and

The Court having determined that Count One of the indictment alleging

a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3j is unconstitutional for violating ex

post facto and due process; and

The Court having determined that Count Two of the indictment alleging

a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f and incorporating

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1w(2) as to the definition of "assault firearm" is

unconstitutional for vagueness and due process;

IT IS on this 26th day of February, 1996, ORDERED that the defendant's

motion to dismiss Count One of the indictment be, and the same is

hereby granted.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss Count Two

of the indictment be, and the same is hereby granted.

(Signed)

_____________________________

HON. MICHAEL D. FARREN, J.S.C.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 8, 1993

The model for the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban was struck down in New

Jersey yesterday on constitutional grounds. The Superior Court

of New Jersey found the gun and magazine ban unconstitutionally

vague and a violation of due process rights.

"NRA has argued for years that gun bans violate basic civil

rights and draw distinctions where distinctions don't exist,"

said Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director of the National

Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

"A Superior Court concurs with NRA –– a Superior Court in New

Jersey, the factory floor of the Clinton Gun Ban."

In State of New Jersey vs. Robert D. Merrill, the court

dismissed the gun possession charge as unconstitutional. The

Florio Gun Ban prohibits a list of named firearms (including

"Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms," for example)

and those substantially identical" to the named guns.

Similarly, the Clinton Gun Ban prohibits a list of named firearms

(those "known as" the "avtomat Kalashnikov," for example)

together with "copies or duplicates." Merrill possessed a Norinco

MAK-90, a semiautomatic rifle with Kalashnikov

action. The prosecutor charged that Merrill was guilty of

possessing a banned gun, arguing that MAK-90 was "substantially

identical" to guns banned by name.

The Court said:

"How is this Defendant or any defendant to know if his

firearm is 'substantially identical' unless he is intimately

familiar with the nomenclature of the 37 other weapons?

This is an impossibility and a task which the law cannot

require.... To prohibit substantially identical' firearms

is an unconstitutionally vague approach which cannot be

countenanced (emphasis added)."

The court dismissed the charge of unlawful possession of a

magazine in excess of fifteen rounds, because the law violated

due process and ex post facto protections. In short, when then-

Governor Florio signed the ban, law-abiding owners of proscribed

magazines unavoidably became criminals, whether they kept the

magazines or disposed of them.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Plaintiff LAW DIVISION-CRIMINAL PART

vs. MONMOUTH COUNTY

ROBERT D. MERRILL IND. NO. 95-02-260-1

__________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

This matter having been opened to the Court by Evan F. Nappen, Esq.,

Attorney for Defendant, in the presence of Michael B. Mangini,

Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor, and

The Court having heard argument of counsel and good cause having been

shown; and

The Court having determined that Count One of the indictment alleging

a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3j is unconstitutional for violating ex

post facto and due process; and

The Court having determined that Count Two of the indictment alleging

a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f and incorporating

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1w(2) as to the definition of "assault firearm" is

unconstitutional for vagueness and due process;

IT IS on this 26th day of February, 1996, ORDERED that the defendant's

motion to dismiss Count One of the indictment be, and the same is

hereby granted.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss Count Two

of the indictment be, and the same is hereby granted.

To be quite frank I'm kind of done with all this state's bs.  I really, truely don't care what they do anymore.  I'm done jumping through arbitrary hoops.  Everything I currently own meets the requirements of the current laws without grandfathering people like me anything they do, they do so in violation of due process.  Read State of New Jersey vs. Robert D. Merrill.  Leave me the hell alone, not one more inch!

 

Just curious what you plan to do.  Keep them at home and never use them and hope your house never gets searched?  I don't the the powers that be in Jersey would really care much about that.

 

This is a question all of The People of These United States are facing right now.  Albeit seemingly more immediately in Jersey.  But that remains to be seen.  We could have a federal ban in a month.  Don't think it can't happen.