Hypotheticals further illustrate the weakness of this methodology. A mouse is not an "elephant" solely because it has three characteristics that are common to known elephants: a tail, gray skin, and four legs. A child's bike is not a "motorcycle" solely because it has three characteristics common to known motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars, and a leather seat. And a Bud Light is not "Single-Malt Scotch," just because it is frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern

Read that in context here: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/03/dc-court-holds-batfe-may-not-be.html

Which got me thinking, is there case law out there that follows this judges reasoning? The quote above was his musing about how BAFTE decides if a gun muffler is a gun muffler and not something else. Funny they use muffler instead of suppressor. Point being that using three characteristics to determine the muffler-ness of a gadget is not good enough in the judge's mind.

Now let's consider assault weapons. A purely made up term by a sinister force. It's a political term, it has no real definition so they banned stuff by name and then they extended that reach to ban by characteristics. I'd love to see someone from a dumb AG office like NJ defend the current statute. Anyone see the silly non pistol grip stock they are selling in NY so people can buy AR's? Now the rifle only has one evil feature, a removable magazine, so it's OK. That's what it's come down to, cosmetic features. I'd love to see that law before a judge like this, he'd common sense it to death.

 

Great analogies! Let's see if it ever goes anywhere. As we all know, logic and gun laws do not go together in NJ.

the reason substantially identical exists is simply because banning guns that have not been produced yet is impractical... it has stood the test of time for this long because it is "reasonable"..

Since "assault weapon" is pretty much a made up term by antis, politicians and the media teet-suckers... I would really think that any law that needs vagaries to define what is and isn't legal shouldn't really be made a law. It basically boils down to "because I said so". 

 

If you can't substantially define WHY something should be illegal, but are basing it alone on looks, or cosmetics, then that really shouldn't be good enough to base a law around. 

 

If substantially identical is enough of a reason to make a law then... by my decree... Mustangs and 'Vettes and Camaros and Camrys and Fusions and Chevy SS's are all illegal. (All cuz of those not street legal NASCAR cars that looks like camrys and fusions, etc.)

 

My buddy's (very) not street-legal Mustang drag car looks substantially identical to a Shelby or Roush Mustang that is street legal. Why isn't a normal Mustang illegal? 

 

Cocaine and sugar and baby powder look substantially identical... BAN SUGAR and BABY POWDER! Oregano looks like weed! BAN IT!!!

 

Are you listening NJ legislation!?!?! BAN THESE DANGEROUS PRODUCTS IMMEDIATELY!!!

 

For the children!

And in NJ the evil features are not actually in the law, they are made up by the AG, quite analogous with the ATF making up features of a silencer.

And in NJ the evil features are not actually in the law, they are made up by the AG, quite analogous with the ATF making up features of a silencer.

 The Administrative code IS Law, it's just separate from the Criminal Statute

 

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

 

 

 

Anyway, the Assault Weapon Misnomer aside, this whole case rests on the Judge calling out BATFE for their less than Exemplary method of testing...as in.Not actually DOING Any before declaring this particular Muzzle Device a "Muffler" even though they showed NO Actual data of Sound Supression.

 The Administrative code IS Law, it's just separate from the Criminal Statute

 

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

 

 

 

Anyway, the Assault Weapon Misnomer aside, this whole case rests on the Judge calling out BATFE for their less than Exemplary method of testing...as in.Not actually DOING Any before declaring this particular Muzzle Device a "Muffler" even though they showed NO Actual data of Sound Supression.

 

I beg to disagree and DARE the first Popo to charge a non-licensee with a Title 13 Statute.

It is no more the law then the atf's 6 features of silencers. I don't believe any elected body voted on the administrative code, did they?

The Administrative code IS Law, it's just separate from the Criminal Statute

 

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf

 

 

 

Anyway, the Assault Weapon Misnomer aside, this whole case rests on the Judge calling out BATFE for their less than Exemplary method of testing...as in.Not actually DOING Any before declaring this particular Muzzle Device a "Muffler" even though they showed NO Actual data of Sound Supression.

Admin code is decided by the AG and based on case law.

 

You guys know the AG has the power to eliminate may issue and the NJ AWB overnight right?

Admin code is decided by the AG and based on case law.

 

You guys know the AG has the power to eliminate may issue and the NJ AWB overnight right?

Did not know that. How do we get a pro-gun AG?

Did not know that. How do we get a pro-gun AG?

Become a majority Republican state.

You guys know the AG has the power to eliminate may issue and the NJ AWB overnight right?

?????

Did not know that. How do we get a pro-gun AG?

Elect a pro gun governor.

BTW, "Assault Weapon" was a term made up by gun manufacturers and gun writers back in the 80s.

BTW, "Assault Weapon" was a term made up by gun manufacturers and gun writers back in the 80s.

 

References pleases.

BTW, "Assault Weapon" was a term made up by gun manufacturers and gun writers back in the 80s.

 

There is much dispute over that claim. Truth is, nobody knows, but the popularization of the term started with Josh Sugarmann, who founded the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Oh, by the way Sugarmann is a native of Newtown, CT. 

 

As for the term "Assault rifle" that is a literal translation of a German name for a weapon invented by the Nazis. 

the reason substantially identical exists is simply because banning guns that have not been produced yet is impractical... it has stood the test of time for this long because it is "reasonable"..

 

Actually substantially identical failed pretty rapidly. It is why the administrative code has the feature game in it. 

Actually substantially identical failed pretty rapidly. It is why the administrative code has the feature game in it.

 

I meant substantially identical based on the feature game...

There is much dispute over that claim. Truth is, nobody knows, but the popularization of the term started with Josh Sugarmann, who founded the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Oh, by the way Sugarmann is a native of Newtown, CT. 

 

As for the term "Assault rifle" that is a literal translation of a German name for a weapon invented by the Nazis.

 

Here is a very good website set up like a power point presentation, puts the whole assault weapon thing in perspective I got this link about a year ago when all the nonsense was happening in Wash DC

 

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

I meant substantially identical based on the feature game...

 

There is no substantially identical. There is the feature game, and while it IS in the law for shotguns, there isn't really for rifles without a fixed magazine. 

 

(2)Any firearm manufactured under any designation which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed above.

 

(3)A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock.

 

(4)A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 15 rounds.

 

(5)A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

We just have administrative code and a banned list. 

i always thought, in my non-lawyer point of view, that we followed the administrative code out of the kindness in our hearts (and because it decreases the chances of us getting caught up on something) but it doesn't mean anything by the law.  

Here is a very good website set up like a power point presentation, puts the whole assault weapon thing in perspective I got this link about a year ago when all the nonsense was happening in Wash DC

 

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

That's a great presentation.  I had seen it before, but it's a good review.  Itt certainly provides plenty of ammunition to use against the anti.  

(Puns about shooting are so easy, largely because expressions from shooting are so common in our language.)

Actually substantially identical failed pretty rapidly. It is why the administrative code has the feature game in it. 

  Tell that to Paula Dow, Auto Ordnance and I.O. Inc.  thise two companies got "Substatially Identical" shoved right up their a$$es in the last 5 years

  Tell that to Paula Dow, Auto Ordnance and I.O. Inc.  thise two companies got "Substatially Identical" shoved right up their a$$es in the last 5 years

 

For what exactly? They can make any claims they want, and if someone doesn't challenge it, it stands. I can understand why they don't challenge it. Paula dow is dealing with the IRS. They largely do what they want until congress reigns them in, and it's a point intended to be argued for each occurrence, not to be a comprehensive definition. Much like we are at the mercy of the guidelines.  AUto ordnance runs into  the list. It says M1 type. That is broder than a specific make and model, making it harder to challenge. Even so, I'll ask you the question: did anyone take it to court? Same goes for the AK spot on the list. It's going to take more than swapping a roll mark and a muzzle device for those I suspect. Still, did they bring a challenge? No they acquiesced to the administrative code. 

It's easier for NJ dealers and gun manufacturors to just acquiesce to the State's demands whether or not there is legal grounds to challenge the orders. I don't blame them.

 

The State gets to break the law and mount a legal defence all day long for free, whereas a NJ dealer would have to lay out serious bucks to challenge their authority. Just like the BATF abuses going on at the federal level, I'm sure our State plays the same game here. The "look the other way" and we won't cause any trouble for you situation.

 

Just like our current AWB, as it stands in the statutes it is unconstitutional and we have the case law to prove it. If someone wanted to make a push for a stay of that law, the grounds are there. Of course the admin code was put in place as a band-aid approach by providing guidelines to prosecutors on how to use the broken "substaintially identical" clause in court. Needless to say, I do not think a judge has to adhere to the admin code standards, they only look at the statutes. I'm thinking that in theory, the unconstitutionally vague defense could still be used in a case today where you are charged with owning a NJ defined AW under the substaintially identical clause only because the statutes have not been changed yet. Sure the prosecutor will pull out the admin code "but but, we have this defined here in the admin code"... I'm just not certian how that would play out in the judge's eyes.

 

Of course the easier route is to play the admin code game and stay out of a prosecutor's crosshairs.