NJ legislature makes deal - 10 rd limit exchanged for reasonable deviations

[smogmage]

bushmaster1313 is 100% right in his statement in regards to the Constitutionality of magazine limits. The SCOTUS has not ruled on such an issue and there are states where magazine limits exist and they have yet to be declared Unconstitutional as far as I know.

He is entirely wrong. The question has not been addressed by scotus and therefore has not undergone the final test of Constitutionality. For you to say that he is right and mag limits are Constitutional is entirely incorrect precisely because it has not undergone a scotus test. Only after it has been tested can it be determined by the courts; congress can pass unconstitutional laws all day long and it takes years if not decades before they can be challenged in court. But we don't need courts to read quite clear English and to know for ourselves what our Rights are.

Jumping on your allies is counter productive. You want to win this battle then you have to get out there and start winning people to our side one person at a time.

Anyone suggesting that magazine limits are acceptable or frankly any restriction whatsoever on our Inalienable, Inherit, Right to Keep and Bear Arms is no ally of mine.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

He is entirely wrong. The question has not been addressed by scotus and therefore has not undergone the final test of Constitutionality. For you to say that he is right and mag limits are Constitutional is entirely incorrect precisely because it has not undergone a scotus test. Only after it has been tested can it be determined by the courts; congress can pass unconstitutional laws all day long and it takes years if not decades before they can be challenged in court. But we don't need courts to read quite clear English and to know for ourselves what our Rights are.




Anyone suggesting that magazine limits are acceptable or frankly any restriction whatsoever on our Inalienable, Inherit, Right to Keep and Bear Arms is no ally of mine.

bushmaster1313 made the following statement
"BTW
I do not think it unconstitutional for a state to ban magazines more than 10 rounds."

In the above statement show me where he supports limits on magazines because I just don't see it. Now lets be honest you are reading things into this that are not there. Your lack of reading comprehension skills are showing. Bushmaster1313 is not only correct in his statement but limits were recently upheld in NY recently if I remember the reports correctly. So until the SCOTUS makes a ruling otherwise the Constitutionality of State magazine limits are simply fact and Constitutional.

Now you may not like it but its the cold hard truth. Its the reality of the situation. Now you can waste your time attacking another gun owner for making a simple factual statement or you can work to expand support for the Second Amendment. Somehow though I believe you are just one of those talkers. The kind that like to talk but are unwilling to do any actual workin support of the RKBA.

 

[goon]

Nevermind

 

[JRH6856]

When we have people who've been "defending the Second Amendment since goon's been in diapers" who support a ban on 30 round magazines, isn't that a problem?

Since Bushmaster1313 has not reponded to my question regarding scrutiny, I don't really know what his thinking is, but so far, he has really made no statement indicating that he supports any kind of magazine ban. He just said he believes that such a ban by the states would be Constitutional. Others have inferred that to mean he supports such a state action but I suspect that is because they see the Constitution as the only line of defense against such action. It isn't. As QoT says, there are other things we can do and need to do if we are going to win this war.

 

[goon]

Since Bushmaster1313 has not reponded to my question regarding scrutiny, I don't really know what his thinking is, but so far, he has really made no statement indicating that he supports any kind of magazine ban. He just said he believes that such a ban by the states would be Constitutional. Others have inferred that to mean he supports such a state action but I suspect that is because they see the Constitution as the only line of defense against such action. It isn't.

You may be right... it is possible that we're jumping to conclusions and making incorrect assumptions.
If that is indeed the case, then I will owe him an apology.

Having said that, he (or she) did imply that "trading" a reduction in magazine capacity for shall-issue CCW would be "the real compromise" back in post #32.

The real compromise would be to trade 10 round magazine limit for shall issue.

As you say, it's possible that we've read things into these statements that may not be there. I'll leave all of that alone until bushmaster1313 has a chance to clarify.

As for the Constitution being the only thing preventing limits on magazine capacity, a ruling on that would take a lot of things to go in our favor. I'd prefer to keep it from ever coming to that. I see us as the best thing to prevent those limits. But we ain't gonna do that if we've already decided we're defeated.

As QoT says, there are other things we can do and need to do if we are going to win this war.

Such as... no defeatist attitudes. No deciding that a ban in the next ten years is all but assured. Otherwise, we're beaten before we even start.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I do not support a 10 round limit.
I just think that the Constitution allows it, in the same way the Constitution would allow a gun friendly state to ban the carry of loaded revolvers made before 1900 on public safety grounds. Sure, that restricts the ability of the People to carry their SAA as a carry piece, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

 

[smogmage]

Gonna have to point out a rule. If I get censored for it dont see why anyone else shouldnt.
4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Originally Posted by smogmage View Post
He is entirely wrong. The question has not been addressed by scotus and therefore has not undergone the final test of Constitutionality. For you to say that he is right and mag limits are Constitutional is entirely incorrect precisely because it has not undergone a scotus test. Only after it has been tested can it be determined by the courts; congress can pass unconstitutional laws all day long and it takes years if not decades before they can be challenged in court. But we don't need courts to read quite clear English and to know for ourselves what our Rights are.
Anyone suggesting that magazine limits are acceptable or frankly any restriction whatsoever on our Inalienable, Inherit, Right to Keep and Bear Arms is no ally of mine.

bushmaster1313 made the following statement
"BTW
I do not think it unconstitutional for a state to ban magazines more than 10 rounds."

In the above statement show me where he supports limits on magazines because I just don't see it. Now lets be honest you are reading things into this that are not there. Your lack of reading comprehension skills are showing.

 

[smogmage]

I do not support a 10 round limit.
I just think that the Constitution allows it, in the same way the Constitution would allow a gun friendly state to ban the carry of loaded revolvers made before 1900 on public safety grounds. Sure, that restricts the ability of the People to carry their SAA as a carry piece, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

On what rulings exactly are you basing this? And what exactly does Shall not be infringed mean?

 

[goon]

I do not support a 10 round limit.
I just think that the Constitution allows it, in the same way the Constitution would allow a gun friendly state to ban the carry of loaded revolvers made before 1900 on public safety grounds. Sure, that restricts the ability of the People to carry their SAA as a carry piece, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

In that case, I misunderstood and do owe you an apology.
But I still disagree with you.

 

[JRH6856]

The situation is NJ is such that I can see why trading a 10round mag limit for shall issue permitting is a gain for RKBA in that state. The alternative of may issue permitting is an effective 0 round mag limit on all who may not be issued permits. Which would you rather have? A permit to carry 10 rounds or no permit and 0 rounds?

Unless and/or until SCOTUS rules on carry outside the home, we have to go state by state and each state is different. There are 50 states with 50 constitutions or charters, which are similar in form and function but different enough in detail and wording to render what applies in one state effectively moot in others. Recognizing those differences, and the different paths that must be taken because of those differences is not a defeatist attitude, it is realistic one.

 

[goon]

The situation is NJ is such that I can see why trading a 10round mag limit for shall issue permitting is a gain for RKBA in that state. The alternative of may issue permitting is an effective 0 round mag limit on all who may not be issued permits. Which would you rather have? A permit to carry 10 rounds or no permit and 0 rounds?

Unless and/or until SCOTUS rules on carry outside the home, we have to go state by state and each state is different. There are 50 states with 50 constitutions or charters, which are similar in form and function but different enough in detail and wording to render what applies in one state effectively moot in others. Recognizing those differences, and the different paths that must be taken because of those differences is not a defeatist attitude, it is realistic one.

From the past discussions you and I have both participated in, it's pretty plain that you're a well-educated person and that your grasp of the law is undeniably superior to my own. I can't fault you for looking at it as a realist and I respect the level-headed influence you bring to these discussions.

But though the situation you describe may be a victory for some in NJ, just the fact that they have to consider such a "compromise" a victory makes for one hell of a sad situation.

 

[JRH6856]

But though the situation you describe may be a victory for some in NJ, just the fact that they have to consider such a "compromise" a victory makes for one hell of a sad situation.

Agreed, it is a sad situation, and it is easy for outsiders who don't have to live with the consequences to criticize small advances made through compromise. The perfect is often the enemy of the good. One can starve to death insisting on steak when all that is available is hamburger. Better to eat the hamburger and continue working to keep all the cows from being ground up in the future.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

glad to see progress being made

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Gonna have to point out a rule. If I get censored for it dont see why anyone else shouldnt.
4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.






bushmaster1313 made the following statement
"BTW
I do not think it unconstitutional for a state to ban magazines more than 10 rounds."

Why bless your lil ol heart. You take a quote of mine add emphasis to it and then fail to acknowledge the added emphasis was your doing. Now I'm just an old grandmother from the Hills of Kentucky who spent a great deal of her life as a NCO in the United States Army at a time when Women were really not welcomed. Now as a result of my lengthy time in the U.S. Army I amassed a vocabulary of colorful adjectives in 6 different languages that I can use if I was to choose to launch a personal attack.

 

[HOOfan_1]

I am sure everyone involved with this bill knows it will do nothing but screw over honest people. We all know this is just another step to complete bans



The more corrupt the government, the more numerous the laws

 

[JRH6856]

We all know this is just another step to complete bans

That depends on who takes the next step and and in which direction.

 

[xXxplosive]

In the first place.....only in NJ could a business agent from the Iron Workers Local get elected to Senator.....this is the most corrupt state ever never mind the Iron Workers Local and I had 18yrs. in ...trust no one in NJ and don't come here...there's nothin' here for ya.

 

[rem44m]

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of pro-RKBA citizens in NJ for every dedicated anti.

I don't understand this, if this is the case, why is NJ so anti?

Just trying to better understand a place I'll never visit.

 

[xXxplosive]

NJ has always been run by the State Authority / NJSP.....elected officials are lawyers, Judges, Ex-Presecutors or the same, Business Agents....Deal Makers, Liars and Bullies, that's what they bring to the table....want to come here.....I don't think so....there's nothin' for ya.

 

[Midwest]

I don't understand this, if this is the case, why is NJ so anti?

It has been that way for a long time...


http://cemeterysgunblob.com/2012/01/14/when-did-new-jersey-become-so-anti-gun/

http://cemeterysgunblob.com/2012/01/15/when-did-new-jersey-become-so-anti-gun-part-deux/

.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"I don't understand this, if this is the case, why is NJ so anti?"

In the nations most densely populated state, we are outnumbered 100:1 or more by new immigtants, old minorities, and huge union voting groups, all of whom vote for the one handing out the most goodies.


Willie

.

 

[bushmaster1313]

"I don't understand this, if this is the case, why is NJ so anti?"

Lots of white liberals who are afraid of letting minorities have legal guns.

 

[benEzra]

I do not think it unconstitutional for a state to ban magazines more than 10 rounds.

I think it should run afoul of the "in common use for lawful purposes" test laid out in D.C. v. Heller, particularly given the fact that over-10-round firearms have been on the civilian market since the 1860s and mainstream since the 1870s.




Model 1860 Henry and 1866 Winchester, capacity 16 and 15 rounds, respectively (Wikipedia)

I suspect that over-10-round magazines now constitute the majority of firearm magazines owned by civilians in the United States, but I have no hard numbers on that.

That's not to say that SCOTUS couldn't find some way to rationalize even so egregious a restriction as a 10-round limit...Dredd Scott v. Sanford, Korematsu v. United States, and Kelo v. City of New London show that the court can rationalize pretty much anything given the right political/media context.

I will say, though, that I can think of *no* compromise the anti's could make that would justify conceding over-10-round magazines. None whatsoever. So to even talk about trading the imposition of a 10-round limit for the "right" to stop and pee on the way to the shooting range? From my outside-NJ perspective, the fact that this conversation is even occuring in NJ at all boggles my mind.

 

[Midwest]

This might shock some here......


Those tube fed .22 rifles are considered 'assault weapons' in New Jersey.


http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/36565-old-18-round-rifle-illegal/

Question:

My uncle has an old 1974 Marlin Glenfield Model 60 long rifle. This rifle was made in '74 with an 18-round tubular magazine. He wants to give the gun to me, but I am concerned that it holds 18-rounds.

I can't find anything in any laws about anything about if a gun was manufactured before the 15-round law was enacted (which I'm not sure when it was). Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!

ANSWER #1

Unmodified, it's an illegal NJ Assault weapon.

To make it jersey-legal, remove the inner magazine tube.
Get a small tubing cutter (as used by plumbers) and replace the cutter wheel with a similar sized thin washer.
Use the modified tool to score (not cut through) the brass tube to prevent the follower inside the mag tube from going far enough to have the completed assembly (tube inserted in the rifle) accept more than 15 .22LR cartridges.


ANSWER # 2

2c:39-1y: "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.

So, a fixed magazine with more than 15 rounds, and the inclusion of "tube" in the second piece seems to make them pretty much illegal...


.

 

[Horny Toad]

This might shock some here......


Those tube fed .22 rifles are considered 'assault weapons' in New Jersey.

Lever action? Perfectly legal. I purchased a brand-new lever last year that holds more than 15 rounds. You might have missed the part I've bolded:

2c:39-1y: "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.