I was reading the Sarco denial document.

 

One thing that jumped out at me was this:

 

 

The record shall show the date of sale or other disposition of each firearm, the name and address of the person to whom the fire arm was transferred, and the type, manufacturer, importer, caliber or gauge, model and the serial number of the firearm.

 

[N.J.A.C. 13:54-3.14(a); see also N.J.S.A. 2C:58-1e; -2a(6); N.J.A.C. 13:54-4.12(a), (b).]

 

These statutory and regulatory requirements are clearly designed to allow law enforcement authorities to identify weapons hoarding by licensed purchasers

 

 

WTF?  So, a defacto gun registry?

 

I understand that this is not news, but to see it written, unvarnished, in a court decision is scary.

 

 

He is talking about the ATF bound book.  The FFL's also have a sale of multiple handguns form they have to fill out.  It is a judge who was clearly against them with an agenda, however it is not some state thing.  Every FFL in the states has to maintain that log book. 

I know about the book.  I highlighted the part that scared me.

 

The purpose of the book is to track sale of arms.

 

This judge said "allow law enforcement authorities to identify weapons hoarding by licensed purchasers"

 

That is one of the real reasons, but when you talk to people about this, they always lean on the being able to track a firearm thing, this guys is saying you can own too many firearms and the book exists to track down hoarders.  Who decides what a hoard is?  And even if one is hoarding, there is nothing illegal about that.

It is a judges opinion, fortunately there are no laws out for hoarding.  I quite honestly don't think the judge is that knowledgeable about gun laws, or that we should go bonkers over it.  Just as many people having more than 2 guns is unnecessary.  It is an opinion.  I don't like it either, but I would not put any more faith on it. It is not worth stressing over.  

 

If they wanted to see who has the most guns, they can call up NICS and see whose drivers license number, fid card or social was run the most. 

And I thought this was a thread about Joe getting a statute erected in his honor for buying SO many guns and putting them in safes.....................

 

It is a judges opinion, fortunately there are no laws out for hoarding.  I quite honestly don't think the judge is that knowledgeable about gun laws, or that we should go bonkers over it.  Just as many people having more than 2 guns is unnecessary.  It is an opinion.  I don't like it either, but I would not put any more faith on it. It is not worth stressing over.  

 

If they wanted to see who has the most guns, they can call up NICS and see whose drivers license number, fid card or social was run the most. 

 

 

I don't know anything about them either, but the cited laws are not federal laws and don't apply to "Every FFL in the states." They apply to jersey.

 

[N.J.A.C. 13:54-3.14(a); see also N.J.S.A. 2C:58-1e; -2a(6); N.J.A.C. 13:54-4.12(a), (b).]

Didn't read them, don't know the relevance, but the cited laws are Jersey laws.

I am against weapons hoarding laws. Must hoard more before laws go into effect...lol

Just curious if anyone knows the story behind their sales of magazines "temporarily" blocked to 15 rounds? Were these magazines with just loose mag blocks inside? Or were they secured in a manner not sufficient enough to be considered permanent?

Just curious if anyone knows the story behind their sales of magazines "temporarily" blocked to 15 rounds? Were these magazines with just loose mag blocks inside? Or were they secured in a manner not sufficient enough to be considered permanent?

Who knows at this point...........back when the AWB first went into effect and up until AG Farber changed the state's "interpretation" of what a blocked mag was, putting a piece of wood in a mag to temporarily block a mag was totally legal. I know Sarco back in the day used to sell "high cap" mags that were blocked only with a piece of wood. When they stopped doing it this way is hard to tell.

Just curious if anyone knows the story behind their sales of magazines "temporarily" blocked to 15 rounds? Were these magazines with just loose mag blocks inside? Or were they secured in a manner not sufficient enough to be considered permanent?

 

Yes, back when the policy said blocking a magazine was OK, they did. Then Corzine took office and despite court rulings, reversed this and sent out the gestapo to lean on retailers. They also failed to maintain their bound book due to some guns going walkies. This was within BATFE tolerances, but the state did not let them renew. 

 

And thus sarco moves to PA. 

So if you gather comic books you are a collector. But if you gather guns you are a hoarder and must be identified.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

collector = hoarder. I am afraid of anyone who hoards anything.... pets, =)

In the Sarco case, Sarco was found to have illegal magazines.  Sarco sold wooden blocked mags, altered to 15 rounds with wood and glue.  This is defined in the AG guidelines, 13:54.  These are guidelines and not law, and I agree they are not chargeable *criminal* offenses. 

 

But some people on this board falsely think that 13:54 is never brought up in court, the words there are meaningless, and that no one in NJ is ever charged with a violation resulting from "wooden blocked mags" defined in 13:54.  Notice the NUMEROUS citations of 13:54, regarding stolen guns, reporting, wooden blocks, .....

 

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2011/a1161-08-opn.html

The point I was making is that, what Sarco was doing was not illegal until AG Farber "reinterpreted" the same existing law and said it was now illegal. I don't believe (although I did not read the entire transcript) that the judge ever ruled whether or not the mags were legal or not, but the state argued that they were indeed illegal and that Sarco failed to adhere to AC rules that stated it was not legal to block the mags that way.

Correct.  And the court upheld that the magazines were NOW illegal according to the "new" guidelines.  There were no criminal charges here, since this was a discussion on a license renewal.  This must follow the NEW guidelines, even if the sales of wooden mag blocks were previously legal.  So the judge ruled against Sarco, against gun owners, but correctly according to the "current" AG guidelines.  This ruling was never overturned via appeal.  Charges were not filed for the illegal mags. 

 

Here's the rub.  Are the wooden blocked mags legal now, for gun owners who purchased them before the new AG guidelines?  If you have possession now, does it matter when you bought them?  I'm sure that a judge would side with the AG, and not with us gun owners.....

That would be up to a judge to decide.......and most prosecutors seem reluctant to bring that charge since it's not a slam dunk, and if they lose they will set a precedent that doing so is legal.

 

These statutory and regulatory requirements are clearly designed to allow law enforcement authorities to identify weapons hoarding by licensed purchasers

 

I agree it's a "low-information" judge's interpretation, but this is a useful real-life example to keep your argument toolbox whenever someone says "oh, such-and-such won't lead to a gun registry".

dosent matter how many guns i have.....i only have two arms on my body so why does it matter......i agree the whole idea is fodder

Military Arms Channel posted a link to this memo, which if true is far more reaching than just NJ.

 

http://publicintelligence.net/weapons-discovery-terrorism/