17 hours ago, Zeke said:

Does the chain weigh 200#lbs?

this seems like work

Please, don't go using 4 letter words in a family friendly forum.

17 hours ago, Sniper said:

Isn't that like hiding from the boogieman under your bed? Why poison the fish?

 

 

I won't tell the boogieman if you don't.

12 hours ago, vladtepes said:

my point is what you described does not exist.. the qualifier is not the mags permanency.. the qualifier is that the firearm has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.. 

no mention of effort.. 
no mention of tools.. 

the simple ability to even accept a detachable magazine.. qualifies the gun.. 

I get it, really. It's just indicative of how bad the legislators here are that they keep pulling this B.S.

38 minutes ago, PK90 said:

I think we're stretching the arm of the law here. If I invent a magazine for the M1 Garand or Marlin 60, does that restrict those firearms to one evil feature? I hope not. I believe that the statement "ability to accept a detachable magazine" is interpreted as to the current configuration. Although, one must wonder why "ability to accept" was used instead of "has". Hmmm.

Even the dweebs in gov't know that "ability to accept" is more all encompassing.

31 minutes ago, vladtepes said:

If you knew NOTHING about guns..

were told by a prosecutor the legal standing is “can the gun accept a detachable magazine” 

and you were then shown a detachable magazine going into the gun..

if you being a reasonable person knew nothing about guns.. were not interested in them.. etc..

would you not accept that you just saw something that fell under the scope of the law?

I would fervently hope that the lawyer at the other table would point out the simple absurdity of the whole "scary, dangerous" etc crap. Even uninformed people on the jury, if reasonable and reasonably intelligent, would see the folly in going along with such selective use of the phrases by the prosecutor.

I know, letter of the law and all that,,,,,Brings me back to the posting a bit back about the other "N" word. nullification. 

1 hour ago, PK90 said:

I think we're stretching the arm of the law here. If I invent a magazine for the M1 Garand or Marlin 60, does that restrict those firearms to one evil feature? I hope not. I believe that the statement "ability to accept a detachable magazine" is interpreted as to the current configuration. Although, one must wonder why "ability to accept" was used instead of "has". Hmmm.

BM 59

6 hours ago, TheWind said:

BM 59

BM59 "type" is outlawed by name in NJ.

1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

BM59 "type" is outlawed by name in NJ.

Therefore a Garand with a magazine is banned, I will stick with my en  bloc clips

not coming here, there will be many many more challenges to gun laws in the coming year.  it's turning

1 hour ago, TheWind said:

Therefore a Garand with a magazine is banned, I will stick with my en  bloc clips

I've seen Garands converted to use BAR and M14 magazines.

Given the inexpensive nature of lowers and lower build kits, if you really needed to have stock adjustability, you could just build 6 completed lowers and call it a day.  For me and mine. we have 3 identical rifles, just with different LOP.

I'm more interested in the fixed mag idea in terms of a pistol build.

10 minutes ago, sota said:

Given the inexpensive nature of lowers and lower build kits, if you really needed to have stock adjustability, you could just build 6 completed lowers and call it a day. 

Think about that for just a second, and how absolutely screwed up the laws are in this state.

A adjustable stock is So Dangerous, that you need to build multiple lowers just so different people can comfortably shoot at the range..

It's beyond nuts!!!!!

 

1 hour ago, sota said:

Given the inexpensive nature of lowers and lower build kits, if you really needed to have stock adjustability, you could just build 6 completed lowers and call it a day.  For me and mine. we have 3 identical rifles, just with different LOP.

crazy talk.. my trigger alone was like $200.. plus the rest of the parts.. stock.. etc.. 

10 hours ago, vladtepes said:

crazy talk.. my trigger alone was like $200.. plus the rest of the parts.. stock.. etc.. 

I think his point was, you build what you want for yourself, then build a basic one that you can swap out the lower for when you bring family members or friends, if LOP is important. Would an occassional shooter care about a $200 trigger?