Under the takings clause of the Constitution the state should be paying for guns, magazines or ammo that was legally purchased, but is being rendered illegal under one of the new bills.

 

We have 1.4 million gun owners in NJ, most of whom own guns with magazines that are over 10 rounds, like most modern semi-automatic pistols. If we assume that the average gun owner has 5 such magazines at $30 apiece, it seems to me that the state will need to pony up $210,000,000 to compensate NJ gun owners for legally purchased magazines that are being rendered useless.

 

I am not sure how much ammo needs to be purchased by the state, as it is unclear what existing ammo is being outlawed.

 

Fortunately, 10 round magazines exist for most semi-automatics. If we went to 7 rounds like NY, taxpayers would need to pay for all the guns rendered completely useless under the act. I estimate in NY that would be a $2,000,000,000 cost. In NJ I am sure there will be some guns affected, but nowhere near the number in NY. If someone can come up with a good approximation, it would be helpful. For arguments sake let's say it is another $200,000,000, 10 percent of NYs number.

 

With these numbers $500,000,000 might be a decent estimate for the price tag on these bills.

 

Please help me refine these costs.

I would say the state will not reimburse any costs to the firearms owner.....in fact fees charged will go up

Any costs involved would be taken on by Local Police Departments.

It might cost some money to reprint some State forms

 

Where it would cost taxpayers the most is that these lawmakers use this as leverage for another term in office...that loss might be incalculable.

The cost will either be borne by gun owners or by taxpayers, so either way it is worth knowing the amount. In NY the takings clause is probably the issue that has gotten it to the NY Supreme Court so quickly. I think it is worth letting the legislature, and the public know that there is a price to pay, though it will probably take a court fight to get them to pony up. We at least need to figure out the amount we are going to sue for.

If the magazine law is signed, (either by Christie or the next Democrat governor), they'll give you a set amount of time to sell your magazines (or otherwise dispose of them) and will have no obligation to compensate owners. Have you seen magazine prices on Gunbroker recently? They WILL expect you to pay taxes on the profits from any magazines you sell!

 

Most of the expense of these laws will be borne by local governments. The FPID and P2P application process uses 1966 systems right down to the typewriter that they use to fill out the cards. The fees charged are right out of 1966, too. It's inefficient and time consuming because they want it to be inefficient and time consuming. Now with a proposed expiration dates on the cards, multiply the waste of time and resources by a factor of 5-10. Ask your chief how much this costs his department right now.

 

(These laws are just another symptom of the thinking that gives NJ some of the highest taxes of any state, that gives NJ an unemployment rate that is #4 nationally, and is why a moving company ranks NJ as the #1 state that people are leaving.)

I'm not sure if it applies. Depends on how the final version of the law is written. The AWB in NJ gave you the option of disposing of or rendering inert any AW. It also let you block and later permanently block any magazine. You could keep your stuff and there was no requirement to turn it in to the state. If you did so that was voluntary.

Add to the overall cost the cost of litigation. With the 5 year FID reapplication requirement, there will be a de facto ban, as the infrastructure simply can't handle 500k applicants next year and the year after, to be followed by 200k applicants every year thereafter...before accounting for new applicants.

 

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the internet ammo ban may violate the interstate commerce clause.

 

Defending all this isn't going to be cheap.

I would say the state will not reimburse any costs to the firearms owner.....in fact fees charged will go up

Any costs involved would be taken on by Local Police Departments.

It might cost some money to reprint some State forms

 

Where it would cost taxpayers the most is that these lawmakers use this as leverage for another term in office...that loss might be incalculable.

 

I agree that they do not intend to compensate firearms owners, but thanks to our NY bretheren this issue will get litigated. I'm trying to figure out how much we sue the state for.

 

I am hopeful that non-gun owning voters will start to see this differently when their taxes go up to pay for this.

Brought this issue up today in Winberg meeting... Of course no answer...

Most of these bills if signed are going to wind up be challenged in court. I wonder where money for defense of these POS is going to come from.

It is my understanding that you can have 10 round mags in NY but only carry 7 rounds in them unless that has changed.

NY had previously grandfathered pre-ban magazines. That went away with no compensation. There are also weapons that have been outlawed, but no compensation offered. As I understand it the loading a 10 round magazine to 7 rounds is a transition measure for one year, after which the magazine must only hold 7 rounds.

 

In NJ I don't believe the bills provide any form of compensation, grandfathering, or really contemplate any form of transition. As a result, the bills are effectively confiscation without compensation. If they took a piece of land, they'd have to pay you for it. I would like to see a price tag pinned on these bills. Every gun, magazine, or round banned should be paid for.

How are we supposed to modify already permanently modified mags? How are we supposed to sell reduced cap mags to people who don't want or need them when they can get standard mags? Between these 2 facts we cannot alter or sell our mags.. I'm sure you could sell a couple of your mags, but when you have 50 mags who are you gonna sell them to? thats a couple hundred bucks to get altered even if you could?

It is my understanding that you can have 10 round mags in NY but only carry 7 rounds in them unless that has changed.

 

If you already own them, you cant buy 10rnd mags anymore in NY.

If you already own them, you cant buy 10rnd mags anymore in NY.

Which raises the question of how to distinguish an already owned one from one bought across the state line in that free state of NJ [sarcasm]. In the federal AWB, post-ban magazines had to be stamped "LE Only." Obviously they can't do that at a state level.

OK, after taking a breather and allowing our senators' fax machines to cool off, I'm back.

 

Sweeney said he'd consider bringing the bills to the senate in April, so now's the time when decisions are being made. I've done two letters and have just completed a third, pasted below.

 

We still have bills with no letters. If you haven't already, please cut and paste and modify my three letters and send them to your local senator. And please pick a bill and write a letter and share it with the group.

 

This is an important push. Sweeney has signaled that he's willing to be somewhat reasonable, so let's give him the ammunition he needs.

 

Dear Senator. Sweeney,

I am writing to express my opposition to bills S2497/S2475/A3664, all of which would reduce legal magazine size.

The bills that would define any magazine with capacity over 5 rounds as “high capacity” are on the face absurd. I am not aware of any pistol magazine that holds 5 rounds or less, so this effectively a dishonest and most likely unconstitutional ban on all magazines.

I am also opposed to the bill that would define 10 rounds as “high capacity.” Again, this is reduced capacity. The large majority of defensive pistols come with a standard capacity greater than 10 rounds. By effectively prohibiting the firepower available in most “commonly used” defensive firearms, this will certainly lead to a constitutional challenge under the “common use” criterion of the Heller decision.

Finally, I believe limiting magazine capacity will simply reduce defensive effectiveness of law abiding citizens while doing nothing to reduce a criminal’s fire power.

A criminal can walk into a premeditated situation with a satchel full of magazines and multiple weapons. This was indeed the case in many recent mass shootings. The report of the Virginia Tech massacre review panel concluded: “…10 round magazines that were legal would not have made much of a difference in the situation. Even pistols with rapid loaders could have been as deadly in this situation.”

On the other hand, a citizen who responsibly stores a defensive firearm in a small bedside safe will likely have a single gun with perhaps one spare magazine. This obviously puts the criminal at an advantage.

Estimates of hit rates of highly trained NYC police officers between 1990 and 2000 have shown an effective hit rate ranging from 9% to 25%. Multiplying this by 10 rounds implies that under the proposed bills, one could expect to hit once or twice. Unlike in the movies, a single hit from a bullet usually does not incapacitate an attacker, so it is critically important to have multiple hits. In a recent defensive shooting incident, a mother--protecting herself and her children from a home invader--hit the invader 5 times, and he was still able to flee to his car. It is very likely that, had she run out of ammunition after just one hit, he might have continued his attack and killed or injured the mother and her children.

In the battle against violence, I ask you to focus on legislation attacking the root of the problem, not constitutionally dubious legislation that scapegoats law abiding citizens while doing nothing to reduce violence.

Sincerely,

Most of these bills if signed are going to wind up be challenged in court. I wonder where money for defense of these POS is going to come from.

 

I will donate my time to any organization that wants to fight any of these bills and when we win I expect the state to compensate me.