Jump to content
IGNORED

NJ high capacity magazine and other silly gun laws


Recommended Posts

So I've seen a lot circulating around about Nappen saying the NJSP has verified it is immediately illegal to transport magazines over 10 rounds, yet we have 180 day grace period to destroy, permanently modify, sell to a legal owner, or hand in our magazines directly to the police for any magazines greater than 10 rounds per the newly signed laws.

Aside from this law being absurd and doing absolutely nothing to make anyone safer...it does beg the question...how does one sell to a legal buyer or even hand in a magazine to the police if they cannot be transport legally?  How would one drive them to the post office or the police station or a buyer in say PA? :headscratch:

For some reading that will make you sad/angry/disgusted/annoyed/etc...review Nappen's page on large capacity magazines.

http://www.evannappen.com/book-update---large-capacity-magazines.html

And to make you really want to hurl, take his quiz that highlights how ridiculous this state is:

http://www.evannappen.com/uploads/1/0/8/0/1080251/nappensgunlawquizfinal1.pdf

My favorite part in the first link, highlighting how insanely stupid the laws are here, was how Nappen apparently defended a client who owned a drum magazine for a machine gun

Quote

New Jersey’s law banning large capacity ammunition magazines is as ill-conceived as most of New Jersey’s other infamous gun laws. Large capacity ammunition magazines that fit firearms other than semi-automatic firearms are legal. For example, we had a case in Camden County in which our client possessed a drum magazine for a machine gun that did not fit or function in any semi-automatic firearm. After filing our motion, the charges were dismissed, and the magazine returned because it was not prohibited under New Jersey law, which bans only large capacity ammunition magazines for semiautomatic firearms, not fully-automatic firearms.

 

Sad to see NJ continually snowball into gun regulation hell. :shakehead:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

makes no sense until you look at those who wrote the laws :rofl:  i thought that also you drive to police station and hand them over only to get arrested :shakehead: i wish i could get out  of this liberal hell ....for me I will not give up anything i have so all things illegal in new nazi jersey was moved out of state... i went to a Nappen seminar on gun laws a couple months ago he was telling  this  in nj are we are the only state that is illegal to have a sling shot that is because in the 20s ? people used a slungshot  as weapons and they are banned sometime latter while looking at the law they had no idea what it was so some dip shit figured it must be a sling shot that was being sold in stores all over so they changed the i to a u. :shakehead:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all makes sense when you realise most all leftist inspired anti gun rights laws are not for a second about protecting the public. Most all leftist anti gun rights laws are about leaving you open to the criminal element thus making you more dependant on the authorities and down the road disarming their political opposition it has been the tactic of leftists since before Stallen or Hitler or Mao and Pol Pot just listen to the violent rhetoric RIGHT NOW from Maxine Waters and Michel Moore. Oh and don't play along with their stinking word games they are STANDARD CAPACITY MAGAZINES. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, this is straight from the Firearms Unit within the State Police.
The magazines are legal to transport, as long as you are transporting them to a gunsmith/armorer to have them “blocked, or to have them destroyed.
There is no other legal reason they gave that will allowed you to transport them.
STUPIDITY at its finest.
If you want to contact them call the division Head Quarters in West Trenton, Firearms Unit.
Hope this helps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

This law is about to fall.  This comes from a federal judge ruling AGAINST CA's mag ban:
 

http://reason.com/blog/2019/04/01/here-is-why-a-federal-judge-nixed-califo

Here Is Why a Federal Judge Nixed California's Ban on 'Large Capacity Magazines'
The Second Amendment covers magazines holding more than 10 rounds, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez says, because they are commonly used for lawful purposes.


Jacob Sullum|Apr. 1, 2019 1:10 pm

On Friday evening, a federal judge in San Diego blocked enforcement of California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, deeming it inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep arms for self-defense. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez concluded that "California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny." Benitez, who in 2017 issued a stay that prevented the law from taking effect, also agreed with the plaintiffs that the ban amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation.

In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes. Benitez notes that highly popular firearms owned by millions of Americans, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California's arbitrary limit, which was originally imposed in 2000 and extended to pre-existing hardware by a 2016 ballot initiative. "Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense," Benitez writes. "This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment."

While Benitez thinks that is the appropriate test, he also concludes that California's ban on "large capacity magazines" (LCMs) fails "strict scrutiny," which requires the government to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, and even "intermediate scrutiny," which requires that the law be substantially related to an important state interest. The LCM ban "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state," he writes. "It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored—it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit."

Benitez emphasizes that the avowed aim of the LCM ban—reducing the lethality of mass shootings—is related to a small subset of "extremely rare" crimes: cases where the need to switch magazines creates a "critical pause" during which the perpetrator might be overpowered or his victims might escape. Defensive uses of guns are far more common, and at the beginning of his ruling Benitez describes several cases in which having more than 10 rounds could have made a critical difference. "From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family," he says, "the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine."

California reasoned that 10 rounds are plenty for someone firing a gun in self-defense (except, somehow, for active and retired police officers), since the average number of rounds used in such cases is just 2.2. But by the same logic, the state might argue that gun owners do not really need ammunition at all, since firearms are merely brandished in the vast majority of defensive uses. If there are situations where an LCM makes a significant difference in the hands of a mass shooter, there will also be situations where it makes a significant difference in the hands of someone defending himself or others. Benitez suggests a few:

Quote

When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California's ban covers the entire state at all times.

Proposition 63, which required heretofore legal owners of pre-2000 LCMs to surrender them, remove them from the state, or sell them to licensed gun dealers, passed in 2016 with support from 63 percent of voters. But constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval. "Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy," Benitez writes. "Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet this is the effect of California's large-capacity magazine law."

Edited by Haskell_Hunter

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very good news. 

Haskell you should post this recent court ruling as a new topic so there can be a discuss as to what the legal implications this court ruling can have on the NJ law. Is there a current legal challenge to the NJ 10 round limit and what impact does this new Federal court decision have on the NJ law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

This law is about to fall.  This comes from a federal judge ruling AGAINST CA's mag ban:

I hope you're right. It IS our Constitutional right.

This is going to the 9th Circuit Court. There are now more right-leaning judges on  this liberal appeals court, but still ….

Edited by BothBarrels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets hope this gets things going and bring NJ down to earth ,although i dont think this will go to scotus with Jutice Roberts it seems he may not be a gaurantee..i was reading someplace that casEs may wait in hopes trump replace RBG  or Breyer.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, buckhound said:

lets hope this gets things going and bring NJ down to earth ,although i dont think this will go to scotus with Jutice Roberts it seems he may not be a gaurantee..i was reading someplace that casEs may wait in hopes trump replace RBG  or Breyer.. 

It's headed to the SCOTUS, that's for sure.  It's already in the courts.

https://www.anjrpc.org/page/MagBanThirdCircRefusesFurtherReview

 

Edited by Haskell_Hunter

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...