33 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

What do you mean they haven't written the law yet? It was written in 1990, "a semi-automatic rifle with A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE and two of the following features", current NJ AWB.

Detachable magazine is understandable.  So is fixed magazine.  What people are discussing here is modifying an AR to a fixed magazine and what would be legal in NJ.  What is a fixed magazine in an AR would have to be addressed by the proposed law.

What is a fixed magazine in other states may not be a fixed magazine in NJ.

2 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Detachable magazine is understandable.  So is fixed magazine.  What people are discussing here is modifying an AR to a fixed magazine and what would be legal in NJ.  What is a fixed magazine in an AR would have to be addressed by the proposed law.

What is a fixed magazine in other states may not be a fixed magazine in NJ.

What I am saying is that if the magazine is fixed, not detachable, as per current law, then the 2 feature rule of the AWB would no longer apply

Forget about the new law, I was saying "it might help with the new law", but my initial post pertains to the current law

It will be a zero feature law...save your money for now.....

 

Sheesh

23 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

I don't think maglock qualifies because CA law states magazine can be removed by disassembling the action. NJ law simply states detachable magazine. I'm not a lawyer but I would assume tgat means detachable in any way other then using tools. And as I mentioned earlier, according to my call to NJSP, that means power tools. The way I see it, its the same as a permanently fixed stock or permanently blocked magazine

Let's pull the thread a bit. 

Let's look at a LA rifle, because it's outside the bounds of these current laws.  

If I disassembled the action, could I swap out the tubular magazine?

it seems to me that this is another one of those interpretation things.  With enough disassembly, nothing is fixed. 

So then is the determinant how "easy" the disassembly is?

7 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

Let's pull the thread a bit. 

Melts look at a LA rifle, because it's outside the bounds of these current laws.  

If I disassembled the action, could I swap out the tubular magazine?

it seems to me that this is another one of those interpretation things.  With enough disassembly, nothing is fixed. 

So then is the determinant how "easy" the disassembly is?

With the current laws you can have a LA with a detachable magazine, if one existed, because it's not a SA. Look at the new mossberg 590M (i think thats the model), mag fed pump SG. It has a detachable mag ang you can legally have all the evil features you want because one of the 2 requirements are not met. The 2 requirements being SA and detachable mag, take 1 of those away and the AWB no longer applies. That is why pump action ARs with all the features are legal.

9 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

With the current laws you can have a LA with a detachable magazine, if one existed, because it's not a SA. Look at the new mossberg 590M (i think thats the model), mag fed pump SG. It has a detachable mag ang you can legally have all the evil features you want because one of the 2 requirements are not met. The 2 requirements being SA and detachable mag, take 1 of those away and the AWB no longer applies. That is why pump action ARs with all the features are legal.

No you missed my point.  I use the LA specifically because it was irrelevant to the SA consideration.  

If I disassembled the action, could I swap out the magazine in a LA or not?

The comment point was that NJ doesn't allow disassembly.  My point was that anything can be disassembled to a point that the mag is then detachable and can be replaced. If one doesn't like my example because I used a LA, fine.  But the fundamental question is, "isn't any magazine detachable if an action is disassembled?"

if so, then any and every magazine in any manner is detachable.

If disassembly of the action is a reasonable way to determine if a magazine is intrinsically detachable or not, then something like the AR Magblock should work in NJ too. 

Just now, JHZR2 said:

No you missed my point.  I use the LA specifically because it was irrelevant to the SA consideration.  

If I disassembled the action, could I swap out the magazine in a LA or not?

The comment point was that NJ doesn't allow disassembly.  My point was that anything can be disassembled to a point that the mag is then detachable and can be replaced. 

Yes, i agree, nothing is ever 100% permanent. But like a fixed stock or blocked mag, a fixed mag must be permanent "enough" to require power tools to remove, meaning it can't easily be done in the field.

2 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

Yes, i agree, nothing is ever 100% permanent. But like a fixed stock or blocked mag, a fixed mag must be permanent "enough" to require power tools to remove, meaning it can't easily be done in the field.

Not being argumentative.  But was the "power tool test" put into writing by a body with authority to obligate the state?

If not, thennit is not relevant as a test of disassembly or permanence, imo. 

1 minute ago, JHZR2 said:

Not being argumentative.  But was the "power tool test" put into writing by a body with authority to obligate the state?

If not, thennit is not relevant as a test of disassembly or permanence, imo. 

That is what I said in the beginning of the thread, it would be nice to have an AGopinion letter on this.

33 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

With the current laws you can have a LA with a detachable magazine, if one existed, because it's not a SA. Look at the new mossberg 590M (i think thats the model), mag fed pump SG. It has a detachable mag ang you can legally have all the evil features you want because one of the 2 requirements are not met. The 2 requirements being SA and detachable mag, take 1 of those away and the AWB no longer applies. That is why pump action ARs with all the features are legal.

Browning BLR is lever action with detachable box magazine.

I'm wondering if this will hold muster in NJ. A bit pricy but easily reversible.

https://www.compmag.net/ar-15-compmag/

'Easily reversible' is probably a no-go for the PRNJ

Now if you put a drop of JB Weld in the hex recess of the locking plate screw so it was NOT removable, then you'd stand a chance of beating it in court, IMHO

2 hours ago, MartyZ said:

I'm wondering if this will hold muster in NJ. A bit pricy but easily reversible.

https://www.compmag.net/ar-15-compmag/

 

2 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

'Easily reversible' is probably a no-go for the PRNJ

Now if you put a drop of JB Weld in the hex recess of the locking plate screw so it was NOT removable, then you'd stand a chance of beating it in court, IMHO

The problem is so many of NJ firearms laws are purposely written so vaguely it's hard to understand what they want at times and they change their mind.  For example when the AWB was first passed they were satisfied with you merely blocking your magazines to 15.  Then in the late 90s (IIRC) they said magazines had to be "permanently" blocked to 15. There was no grace for this. Instantly thousands of gun owners in NJ became criminals.  

14 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

...  For example when the AWB was first passed they were satisfied with you merely blocking your magazines to 15.  Then in the late 90s (IIRC) they said magazines had to be "permanently" blocked to 15...

2006

MagBlockLaw.pdf

7 minutes ago, PK90 said:

2006

MagBlockLaw.pdf

f'ing Corzine, of course

39 minutes ago, PK90 said:

2006

MagBlockLaw.pdf

Thanx, thought it was earlier.