NJ decides 15 rounds should be illegal, 10 is reasonable.


PDA






NJ Accountant
February 16, 2011, 01:16 PM
http://www.ammoland.com/2011/02/15/another-anti-gun-bill-introduced-in-new-jersey/

In response to all the criminals using the NJ approved 15rd magazines legislators decided it was time for action. The new law will change the magazine limit from 15 rounds to a much safer 10 rounds.

The only purpose for currently NJ legal high capacity (15 round) magazines is to kill a large number of people in a short period of time. The citizens of New Jersey will be safer with a reasonable limit of 10 rounds per magazine in place.

The legislators base this statements on absolutely nothing.

In other news lawmakers discuss how dangerous allowing 10 rounds in a magazine is and that something should be done to prevent the sale of these assault weapons only useful for gunning down lots of people.

If you enjoyed reading about "NJ decides 15 rounds should be illegal, 10 is reasonable." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MaddSkillz
February 16, 2011, 01:20 PM
The legislators don't have to base it on anything.

Just remember, it's all about control. And a government cannot have total control if the people have a means to fight back. It's not about crime, it's not about protection. It's just about control. It's all government has ever wanted and ours is not immune.

They know it doesn't make any sense. But they don't care. They just don't want the people to be armed, period. No matter what excuse they use, that's the truth.

NJ Accountant
February 16, 2011, 01:25 PM
Still gotta love it. The things they say and do with a straight face.

MaddSkillz
February 16, 2011, 01:31 PM
Yup, very true. I don't know how they sleep at night, honestly. Maybe they're mutants with no conscience.

Colonel
February 16, 2011, 01:55 PM
If a criminal has a 15-round magazine, then I want two 30-round magazines!

bartman06
February 16, 2011, 02:06 PM
This is why there cannot be National handgun magazine capacity laws. These guys in New Jersey suddenly 15 is to much and 10 is the answer. What's next 5, 2 rounds? High capacity is a subjective argument and because it is it will always be unfair. This will be the next tool used by liberal and extremest to legislate guns away from America. Mark my words guns are no good with out ammo and ammo is no good without magazines.

FIVETWOSEVEN
February 16, 2011, 02:12 PM
Don't most criminals run around with cheaper guns with lower-than-ten round magazines?

Bonesinium
February 16, 2011, 02:27 PM
I had to compromise the 15 rounds, and thought, ok, well it isn't terrible. I can deal with this. If this passes and it becomes 10 rounds, I won't. I will not give up all my magazines that hold more then 10 rounds. I will move out of this terrible state before doing that. I would rather drive an hour to work one way then have to concede to NJ and it's BS.

NJ Accountant
February 16, 2011, 02:50 PM
Maybe they are hoping to drive all legal gun owners insane with ever changing impossible to understand let alone justify laws.

This way when all NJ gun owners snap then can have proof that anyone who wants a gun is mad.

jon86
February 16, 2011, 03:06 PM
Well said Madskillz.

Kingofthehill
February 16, 2011, 03:11 PM
Did it actually Pass? The article reads "IF passed"

hapidogbreath
February 16, 2011, 03:17 PM
And when was the last time a criminal said while illegally purchasing an illegal gun from another criminal, Oh wait !! This gun is illegal in my state. Do you have one that only holds 10 rnds? Do you have one that meets the laws of my state? When will the Politicians get with reality and I'm not talkin' Jersey Shore or American Idol.:what:

LiENUS
February 16, 2011, 03:33 PM
Why not just make it illegal for criminals to possess 15 round magazines. It's a win win then. Law abiding citizens get to keep their 15 rounders and police get an extra charge to tack on for commission of a crime while in possession of high capacity magazines or something, maybe have an extra month for each round over 10 that the magazine can hold on the sentencing.

Tom488
February 16, 2011, 03:49 PM
Did it actually Pass? The article reads "IF passed"
Hasn't even made it to committee yet.

NJ Accountant
February 16, 2011, 03:49 PM
Well in the great Peoples Republic on the east coast all firearms (this encompasses slingshots, air pistols, basically anything) are illegal.

You can only have by exemption which gives a defense if charged with possession of a firearm. These exemptions are very limited and intentionally vague. The assault weapon ban which includes 15+ round magazines makes possession of an assault weapon an additional charge on top of other charges. I believe it is up to 10 years with a hefty fine in addition to whatever else they get charged with. But you can get charged with possession of an assault weapon by itself and pray you don't have any hollowpoints in your assault weapon.

GambJoe
February 16, 2011, 07:18 PM
I can't figure out NJ. When I lived there they had a 15 rd limit (for handguns?). They had a ban on semi-auto's like Mini 14's, AK's and M-1 Carbines. According to the State Police website you could own an AR or a M1 Garrand.

What the? An AR's are less deadly than an AK's?

BHP FAN
February 16, 2011, 07:35 PM
welcome to Califonia.

pezo
February 16, 2011, 07:44 PM
New jersey, home of such jerks like william J Hughes. Assault weapons bans and strict gun control are losers in all fronts. Politically and realistically. More armed law abiding citizens (especially if well armed) equals less crime. You guys need a serious political climate change in that state. Your states views on the right to keep and bear arms are ignorant and bizarre to say the least. Is their a way to get some lobbying or pro heller lawsuits going there. New Jersey NEEDS some good pro 2nd amendment lawsuits filed against it.

JayBird
February 16, 2011, 08:27 PM
well....NJ is right next door to NY. Maybe Bloomberg has a summer home on the boardwalk down there or something..... :uhoh:

rscalzo
February 16, 2011, 08:58 PM
Howard Hughes

He was from Texas. He never lived in NJ.

M-1 Carbines

Never could figure that one out. At one time they were legal. Now they aren't. No idea how they came up with it.

HankB
February 16, 2011, 09:06 PM
It it gets to the governor's desk, we'll see if Christie signs it.

He seems OK on most things, but I hear he's not very RKBA.

thunder173
February 16, 2011, 09:12 PM
I am so glad I was able to leave that state with most of my sanity in tow,....and I have never looked back. I hope I never have reason to visit there again.

NJ Accountant
February 17, 2011, 12:26 AM
You can have FN-FAL clones, AR-10s, HK91 clones, M-14 clones, AK & AR variants just so long as the firearm in question is not on the list of assault weapons and passes the evil feature test.

The M1 carbine is a weird one on the list since it passes the evil feature test and you can get nj legal capacity mags for it. Reason for inclusion, in reality it was the price at the time. They used to be cheap and plentiful same as their mags. The didn't want the unwashed masses to have access to inexpensive semi auto rifle so the tried to ban as many of them as they could.

Compare the assault weapon list to the inexpensive semi automatic rifles available at the time. You'll notice the AR-10 is missing, there wasn't a lot of them floating around at low prices neither milsurp nor new production.

The antis in nj would be alot happier if a cheap semi auto rifle cost no less than 10 grand and a box of 50 rounds $500. Knock the unwashed masses right off of the gun ownership block.

Most of my friends don't mind that I own a firearm, they just don't like that I own several. They like even less that anyone without a disqualification can get one once they get a permit.

This mentality stems from there belief that they themselves can't be trusted therefore everyone they don't know shouldn't be trusted either. The great nanny state of nj will take care of them all.

Slowly, one by one I am waking my friends up, some have already come around. Just takes time to adjust to the light when you were raised in darkness.

HD_Ride
February 17, 2011, 01:10 AM
This is what the legislators were doing when they weren't passing Gun laws.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/former_sen_wayne_bryant_gets.html

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/former_nj_assemblyman_neil_coh.html

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/ex-assemblyman_joseph_vas_is_f_1.html

Bryant was active in Florio’s AWB passed into law. Vas was the co-sponsor of the one gun per month that Corzine signed into law two years ago and old Neil had been around forever just voting the party line and probably still be around if he didn’t get busted for child porn. It's sad to say but this latest bill is just a few Dems trying to make points off the AZ shooting.

speaksoftly
February 17, 2011, 01:19 AM
God bless Texas.

DenaliPark
February 17, 2011, 01:35 AM
Why not just make it illegal for criminals to possess 15 round magazines.

Because it's not about crime & criminals....It's about you!

mustang_steve
February 17, 2011, 02:40 AM
I think 10 rounds is fine if and only if the people who voted "yes" on this bill get charged with accomplice to first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder if a person who was defending himself died due to not having enough shots.

I'm pretty sure it will take that level of "return" (one successful prosecution) to get these people to back down.

230RN
February 17, 2011, 03:56 AM
They're wrong, wrong, wrong!

The actual number should be 10.6187 rounds!

Do the math!

GLOOB
February 17, 2011, 05:33 AM
The only purpose for currently NJ legal high capacity (15 round) magazines is to kill a large number of people in a short period of time.
By this argument, the NJ police carry weapons with the sole purpose of killing large numbers of people in a short period of time.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
February 17, 2011, 06:14 AM
So, as I understand New Jersey (aka 'Joizy in this document), it is illegal to have a .22 rimfire rifle with a tube-feed magazine located almost full-length underneath the barrel that will hold a total of (let's just say) 21 rounds.

I suppose those guns are now OUTLAWED in 'Joizy'!

Does anyone with any sense think for one moment that OUTLAWS (those who are committing crime who don't care about the LAWS and don't even know what the laws are) take pains to be sure THEY are within the law? Of course they don't, the law-breaker is just that - someone who BREAKS the LAW!

On the other hand, we have poor John Q. Citizen who wants to be a law-abiding citizen so he has to have the specially-made .22 rifle with no more than a (Joizy) specified number of cartridges in the magazine and the gun cannot hold any more than what 'Joizy' states can be in the gun. The common criminal, aka, law-breaker and OUTLAW breaks into John Q. Public's house and is armed with 21 rounds against the law-abiding, John, who only has ten rounds in his only firearm - a .22 rifle that now only holds a total of ten rounds.

I think it is totally ridiculous. If only our representatives, law enforcement and judges would ENFORCE ALL EXISTING LAWS on the books, there would be no need to create more laws. We pay these representatives to sit around chewing the fat whilst making up law after law after law - most of which probably don't even know what over half of the existing laws are!

Titan85
February 17, 2011, 07:28 AM
It is amazing to me how law makers can't seem to understand that no matter what laws they make, it won't change the weapons used in criminal acts. Almost all criminals use an illegal weapon to begin with. All these laws just move the power more and more to the criminal and away from the law abiding citizen.

Take what happened in Tuscon for example. Yes, he had everything legally, but if others in the crowd had guns, how much damage could he have done? He would have fired a few shots and then got lit up...end of story

ZCORR Jay
February 17, 2011, 07:31 AM
You would think that the law stating it was illegal to kill others would be enough. This law would just be one more charge against a person but what do they care? It really boils down to a sleazy politician trying to create his/her legacy and say they saved American lives. If only they realized they hindered the American law abiding citizen from protecting themselves... then again our system also lets burglars sue their victims if they get hurt on their property.

Nicky Santoro
February 17, 2011, 08:45 AM
If passed it will just be one more law that is ignored and bypassed like our homegrown AWB. Compliance there, in terms of disposing of or destroying banned items, was thought to be somewhere in the area of 4/10ths of 1%. People will continue to go to the range, but with 10 round mags instead of 15s and still have a supply of high caps stashed out of sight, just like they do now.

NJ Accountant
February 17, 2011, 09:02 AM
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/02/dont-resist-refrain-of-rapists-police.html

Well police is a statist society need to be able to kill lots of people in a short period of time just in case they ever decide to try prevent them from beating innocent citizens instead of assisting in the beatings. (Heavy sarcasm )

Disclaimer : I do not believe that most police in NJ are like this but the behavior exhibited by some shows how far abuse is sometimes taken and the steps to cover it up are an affront to any free society. I support law enforcement and the military as well as limits to their authority governed by the constitution.

Flintknapper
February 17, 2011, 09:15 AM
In response to all the criminals using the NJ approved 15rd magazines legislators decided it was time for action.

Stop electing these people, problem solved. ;)

NJ Accountant
February 17, 2011, 09:23 AM
Almost all the informed on the issues in this state jumped ship haha. Hell NJ grown conservatives think basically only law enforcement should have guns let alone be able to carry them.

Very difficult be an informed gun owner in NJ and not flip out pack and wash your hands of the whole corrupt state.

Tom488
February 17, 2011, 12:42 PM
So, as I understand New Jersey (aka 'Joizy in this document), it is illegal to have a .22 rimfire rifle with a tube-feed magazine located almost full-length underneath the barrel that will hold a total of (let's just say) 21 rounds.

I suppose those guns are now OUTLAWED in 'Joizy'!
No... those guns have been outlawed since 1991. Look up Joseph Pelleteri - convicted in 1996 of possession of an assault firearm for having a Marlin 60 semi-auto .22LR with a 17-round tubular magazine.

NJ Accountant
February 17, 2011, 03:32 PM
During that infamous case is when the judge stated that those who own firearms in new Jersey do so at their own peril.

This was in response to the defense's assertion that the defendant had no intent to break the law as he had never used the rifle nor had read the manual after winning it and was unaware that the rifle held more than 15 rounds.

Carter
February 17, 2011, 04:48 PM
During that infamous case is when the judge stated that those who own firearms in new Jersey do so at their own peril.


Nice to know that American citizens have to be in "peril" about something the constitution states as a right.

Tom488
February 17, 2011, 10:37 PM
Yep... defense argument was that, "the statute says anyone who KNOWINGLY possesses an assault firearm is guilty of a crime". Defense claimed defendant didn't know that his Marlin 60 had a 17-round magazine, and was therefore considered an assault firearm. The court concluded that "KNOWINGLY" in the statute referred to the possession, not the attributes of the firearm. Since defendant "KNOWINGLY" possessed the rifle (ie. someone didn't sneak in and put it in his safe without his knowledge), then he was guilty. "When dealing with firearms, the citizen acts at his peril".

GRIZ22
February 17, 2011, 10:55 PM
Why not just make it illegal for criminals to possess 15 round magazines. It's a win win then.

This is the simple answer to common sense gun laws in NJ. Illegal to use in a crime or additional time for using high cap magazine, assault weapon, hollowpoints, etc

Tom609
February 17, 2011, 11:00 PM
Stop electing these people, problem solved.

The sheep vastly outnumber the sheepdogs around here, and these sheep are a breed that easily wet themselves.

I doubt this feel-good move will go anywhere, but, just in case, I bought a few extra mags today assuming they'll be grandfathered in if it does happen.

Griz makes a good point. Make it like the current law re: hollowpoints used during a crime = more time added to sentence.

Bonesinium
February 17, 2011, 11:09 PM
How would grandfathering them have any purpose? They might as well not even make the law if they were to also do that. It would be just as easy to buy those 15 round magazines outside of Jersey and there would be no way of knowing what was grandfathered in and what wasn't. Impossible to tell. They would have to make some sort of mandatory "high capacity" magazine registration showing you had them prior.

xcgates
February 17, 2011, 11:23 PM
I see a lot of this as being in the same trend as the "no texting while driving" laws. Now, before jumping down my throat, I use those laws as a fairly clear example of a trend towards making laws against specific actions, aimed at the LCD (lowest common denominator), not at the CONSEQUENCES.

Laws that specifically mention "Thou shalt not *insert highly specific thing*" lead to a mindset of "Well, it isn't illegal, so it MUST be alright." With regards to the no texting/talking on a cell phone laws, why not just use the fact that someone is not in control (weaving, not signaling, etc) determine consequence? What is the specific purpose of limiting a very specific action? In this case arbitrary limits on ammunition per magazine.

In general, our constitution (as far as I've determined) was written as specific things government MAY do. Not what we MAY do. Vagueness should be to the disadvantage of the government, NOT the people.

thorn726
February 18, 2011, 04:51 AM
Whoever comes up with this stuff never had to reload. It's not about killing, it's about being able to keep target shooting without carrying 75 magazines! People who propose these limits should be taken shooting and given one 8 round mag and 100 bullets. I bet as long as you gave them small caliber, they'd all get so frustrated we'd have 22 rd mags everywhere in no time.
In general, our constitution (as far as I've determined) was written as specific things government MAY do. Not what we MAY do. Vagueness should be to the disadvantage of the government, NOT the people. It IS to the disadvantage of government, and it is why laws must be specific whether we agree with a particular law or not.

Colonel
February 18, 2011, 06:45 AM
Compliance there, in terms of disposing of or destroying banned items, was thought to be somewhere in the area of 4/10ths of 1%.

Apparently the criminals in Jersey don't use the so-called "weapon of choice of criminals," either:

"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming .026 of 1 percent of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."

Joseph Constance, deputy chief of the Trenton, NJ, Police Dept., in testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in August 1993.

pezo
February 18, 2011, 07:59 AM
What's amazing is even with the supreme courts 2nd amendment rulings and the general pro gun and pro carry trend in this country, how these remaining restrictive states can still try to justify these un-constititional restrictions. Here in michigan we are hearing about the drop in violent crime, coincidentally since right to carry has been in effect. The amount of increased security you feel in this crazy world carrying a gun for protection is worth every ounce of fight you need to establish that right. KEEP FIGHTING! Don't let crooked politicians tell you you can't or can't be trusted to arms for you own defense. Is their a new jersey nra such group?

NJ Accountant
February 18, 2011, 08:56 AM
NJ NRA is the association of new Jersey rifle and pistol clubs. They are providing the legal support for the NJ right to carry case.

First step in the long road of making NJ gun laws even resemble something that could vaguely be construed as constitutional.

benEzra
February 18, 2011, 09:10 AM
Does it exempt NJ LEO's and armed security? If so, why?

NJ Accountant
February 18, 2011, 09:25 AM
Details pertaining to the exact wording of the bill are not yet available but police will almost definitely be exempted for their issued weapons as they are now.

Generally the NJ law makers and populace believe that only law enforcement should have firearms anyway so it makes sense that since "anyone" can have them police would need deadlier ( scarier not necessarily more deadly ) ones.

NJ Accountant
February 18, 2011, 01:04 PM
I Aldo love the fact that they can deny you the right to firearm ownership if someone in your residence is a prohibited person.

http://volokh.com/2011/02/17/police-refuse-to-give-gun-possession-license-because-of-association-with-criminals-new-jersey-courts-reverse/

And that you have to prove to a judge that it isn't the case if the police think you are lying about who lives there.

GRIZ22
February 18, 2011, 02:21 PM
Does it exempt NJ LEO's and armed security? If so, why?

LEOs yes, armed security no.

xXxplosive
February 18, 2011, 02:31 PM
The Best way to see NJ is from your rear view mirror going over the Deleware Memorial Bridge...........

HD_Ride
February 20, 2011, 11:59 AM
The Best way to see NJ is from your rear view mirror going over the Deleware Memorial Bridge........... Let not forget the view isn't bad from the Lower Trenton Bridge either considering all the damage is done in Trenton. Christy (http://njcsd.org/joomla/images/Christie1995001.jpg) was on TV a few weeks ago saying NJ was better than PA, really,, how? Christy must have drunk the RINO-KoolAid. If NJ gun laws mirrored PA laws we would be in great shape.

bushmaster1313
February 20, 2011, 11:21 PM
So, as I understand New Jersey (aka 'Joizy in this document), it is illegal to have a .22 rimfire rifle with a tube-feed magazine located almost full-length underneath the barrel that will hold a total of (let's just say) 21 rounds.



I think tube fed .22's that are not semi-auto are exempt under the current 15 round ban.

Tom488
February 20, 2011, 11:59 PM
Correct. One of the definitions of an assault firearm is:

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

And, 2C:39-1y defines a large-cap magazine as:

"Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.

Nothing prohibits the magazine capacity, fixed or detachable, of a bolt, lever, or pump-action rifle (or shotgun, for that matter).

Murphy4570
February 21, 2011, 06:16 PM
No... those guns have been outlawed since 1991. Look up Joseph Pelleteri - convicted in 1996 of possession of an assault firearm for having a Marlin 60 semi-auto .22LR with a 17-round tubular magazine.

Seriously?

I have a bolt action 1930's vintage Winchester with a tubular magazine, holds like 20 rounds of .22 Short, or 15 rounds of .22 LR.

PS: I will move out of this state. NJ blows.

DenaliPark
February 21, 2011, 07:13 PM
You would think that the civil lawsuits for that infringement alone would be in the hundreds...Police & paramilitaries being allowed weapons & gear denied to "We The People" is totalitarianism, and nothing else!

I honestly think that NY, NJ, MA, IL, & KA, should be walled off, nothing in, nothing out...Let them feast upon their totalitarianism while they starve...Seriously!

xcgates
February 21, 2011, 08:31 PM
Having lived in rural upstate NY, lets keep the walling off to the cities, please.

cl4de6
February 21, 2011, 10:06 PM
Hold on... just relax.

First off, it's budget season. Everybody is far too busy worrying about the budget than to push this bill. The text of the bill has been out since Friday and we haven't seen any articles in the Star Ledger or Courier Post about the menace that 15 round magazines are in New Jersey. If they were serious, you would hear articles in the paper about the threat of high capacity magazines.

My guess is that newspapers looked at the story and then then scratched their heads saying: "Oh, wait. We already have a magazine ban, so they are just arguing over 5 rounds? It's not like we have 75 round drums on the street, so I guess it's pretty good as it is. Let's print an editorial about teachers instead."

Second, the bill was just sent to the Law and Public Safety Committee, where it will probably sit until it dies. I don't think anybody wants to touch this bill, but it is one of those things that is useful to have around. I'll explain why.

The bill was sponsored by the Assemblywoman Annette Quijan of the 20th District, and Assemblyman Lou Greenwald of the 6th district. What do the two have in common? Both represent fairly liberal areas. Assemblywoman Quijan represents an area where most of her constituents are black, Hispanic or immigrants. Democrats outnumber Republicans there by an order of 4 to 1. In places like Elizabeth, guns = crime. There are plenty of people there who wouldn't mind if handguns dropped off the face of the earth.

Assemblyman Greenwald represents a list of wealthy towns like Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Haddonfield and Collingswood, although he bumps into the more blue collar hunter-types like those in Audubon park. Democrats outnumber Republicans here as well, although this area tilted in favor of Congressman Jon Runyan in the last election. People in this district either hunt with shotguns, or they live the kind of life where guns are just something they see in movies.

What does this mean?

It's just a publicity stunt. This is an election year. It's a stunt so that these two can send out flyers in midsummer with scary assault weapons on them and say: "We introduced legislation to ban THESE!

Here's why it isn't going to pass:

Back when One Gun a Month passed you didn't see a lot of complaining because we were in the middle of a recession and who the heck had enough money to buy more than one gun a month anyway? The hunters weren't effected. The IDPA/collector guys were effected, but they could get a special permit from the state police if they wanted to buy multiple guns.

But this law is a different story.

If NJ had gone to 10 round magazines when the assault weapons ban sunset in 2004, this wouldn't be an issue. But their old 15 round law kicked in, and over the past 7 years, plenty of people have purchased handguns.

If you have an AR-15 in New Jersey, odds are that you already have 10 round magazines for it. Maybe you have a pinned 15 rounder, but they are expensive. But if you have a handgun, the odds are very good that you have a 15 round magazine. I think the Assembly knows this. I also think that they know the gun owners of NJ are going to raise a massive ruckus if this gets to the floor.

Why? The other laws didn't really effect people, it was just feel good legislation, but this is a law that will make instant criminals out of people and confiscate their property. Campaign contributers don't like having their property confiscated. Heck, this law will even effect some NJ legislators like Senator Van Drew. He's a gun owner and I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to have to drop his magazines off at the police station and pay for new 10 rounders.

Finally, we have a Republican governor who wants to be president someday. Remember that an elephant never forgets. He will not be President someday unless he vetos this bill.

So all that being said, I doubt it will ever get out of committee.

xcgates
February 21, 2011, 10:31 PM
Doesn't mean you can't fight back, make sure insanity doesn't get anywhere.

Tom488
February 22, 2011, 01:57 AM
Seriously?
Quite...

I have a bolt action 1930's vintage Winchester with a tubular magazine, holds like 20 rounds of .22 Short, or 15 rounds of .22 LR.
And that's perfectly legal. NJ only has magazine issues with semi-automatics.

Tom488
February 22, 2011, 02:02 AM
I honestly think that NY, NJ, MA, IL, & KA, should be walled off, nothing in, nothing out...Let them feast upon their totalitarianism while they starve...Seriously!
Sure is nice to feel all the love and support from our fellow Americans... tell ya what - let's lump Texas and Florida in there, because those facist pinko commie dictatorships don't allow open carry. And, ummm... oh yeah, Ohio too, because they don't allow magazines over 30 rounds. And... umm... Washington, because they don't allow you to shoot suppressed. While we're at it....

... ya see where I'm going with this? Reflect back on the wise words of one Benjamin Franklin, who said, "we must hang together, or we will surely hang separately".

xXxplosive
February 22, 2011, 12:27 PM
Everything in NJ is classified as a "Device".....all Devices are illeagle. Heck, kids Slingshots are illeagle in NJ.....it's a Device.....:eek:

NJ Accountant
February 22, 2011, 02:29 PM
There are two bills that the antis will now keep trying to get through
This 10 round magazine cap and the. 50 Cal ban they tried a few times now.

I figure the 10 round cap will fail the first time through, they will try it next year and the year after. This will go on until it passes or the courts finally tell law makers that arbitrary bans on weapon features and the number of rounds a few pieces of stamped metal can hold is unconstitutional.

mgmorden
February 22, 2011, 03:35 PM
The people who pass these laws base them on absolutely nothing. It's a shot in the dark (no pun intended) and absolutely just feel good legislation.

Case in point: when the initial Federal AWB passed in 1994 old mags were grandfathered. A lot of the politicians later got mad because people were finding a "loophole" and "reusing" their old mags.

Apparently these idiots thought that when you bought bullets they came in magazines and once shot empty the magazine was a disposable item. Yes, those are the types of idiots voting on national firearms laws . . . .

KBintheSLC
February 22, 2011, 06:28 PM
Funny how self-castration comes with a symphony of applause. Probably a lot of hard-line anti's who really believe that de-clawing themselves would be a "victory".

NJ Accountant
February 23, 2011, 01:52 PM
I believe that the fact it is lost on many of us that our dominance in this world is almost based purely upon the tools we have available at any given moment. As above it should just be the law abiding who have to give up their claws.

And limiting the number of rounds in a magazine is like declawing all but one paw. I for one prefer as many paws and claws a possible.

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 01:57 PM
Can't Chris Christie put the kabosh on this? If the bill makes it out of committee and ultimately gets presented as law, Christie won't sign it. I doubt that the NJ anti's have the votes to override the veto.

Horny Toad
February 23, 2011, 02:01 PM
Can't Chris Christie put the kabosh on this? If the bill makes it out of committee and ultimately gets presented as law, Christie won't sign it. I doubt that the NJ anti's have the votes to override the veto.

If this makes it to his desk, he will sign it in half a heartbeat.

http://conservativenewjersey.com/chris-christie-a-conservative-myth-part-7

9mm+
February 23, 2011, 02:10 PM
That's a crying shame. I had much higher expectations of Christie. Damn... :(

rajb123
February 23, 2011, 02:32 PM
Sheriff Andy Taylor in Mayberry NC only allowed Barney Fife to carry a single bullet while on patrol (e.g., one cartrige in his .38 revolver).

....maybe that should be the new standard in NJ???


Yikes, When will the assaults on our 2nd amendment stop?

Horny Toad
February 23, 2011, 02:37 PM
Sheriff Andy Taylor in Mayberry NC only allowed Barney Fife to carry a single bullet while on patrol (e.g., one cartrige in his .38 revolver).

....maybe that should be the new standard in NJ???

Don't give 'em any ideas. Something like that could pass. :uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "NJ decides 15 rounds should be illegal, 10 is reasonable." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!