NJ Magazine backfires as not a single one has been turned in

Status
Not open for further replies.
You probably committed five felonies before you got to work. They can pick you up on anything, it is just a matter if they want to.
You know a prominent criminal defense lawyer wrote a book about that a few years back==Harvey Silvergate--Three Felonies a Day but you are probably right with five felonies today given inflation and all.
 
You know a prominent criminal defense lawyer wrote a book about that a few years back==Harvey Silvergate--Three Felonies a Day but you are probably right with five felonies today given inflation and all.

I heard the five felony number on the radio. I will have to look for Harvey's book, sounds interesting.
 
How would the NJ Apparatchiks (state govt.) know who had previously bought the "normal capacity" magazines?

There probably aren't any long-term retail store sales receipts, or use of govt. geeks scanning old "Completed Auctions" for such magazines on Gunbroker.

The people who now are worried--assuming that a person Like young Beto O 'Dork could one day become president--should be buying all of their guns via contacts on Armslist and similar websites.
And (once you find what you want), it's much easier than waiting, hoping to win an auction on Gunbroker.
 
The primary take away from third world locations of old I got was that regular mundane things most people did were illegal but rarely enforced. By having everyone commit crimes that were expected to be committed in the course of normal life it gave the law enforcement discretion to arrest just about any one at any time on legit charges. That was how unfree locations worked in giving government discretion on who was charged with crimes at any time, imprisoned, or had their assets siezed and stolen by government, or merely made anyone they wanted shut up and cease saying or doing anything that was upsetting someone of authority with the obvious threat of enforcement.
 
Think of it this way. Two thoughts. A law with zero or ultra low compliance does not have acceptance by the population. The other thought is if the state can get you to hide or go underground with your now illegal mags, its the same as a ban. They are out of circulation. Mission accomplished.
 
How would the NJ Apparatchiks (state govt.) know who had previously bought the "normal capacity" magazines?
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Been there and done that in California. It's an "unenforceable" thing because there are many factors that affect enforcement
  • Magazines are not serialized so impossible to prove ownership
  • Most magazines do not have manufacture date/lot number to determine age
  • All parts of magazines are "wearable/consumable" needing replacement if/when worn/damaged
  • So with use over time, even legally "grandfathered" magazines can end up with different parts of the magazine including the body/tube :eek::D

And with "common use" argument and CA failing to provide sufficient justification for "arbitrarily" picking a limiting number of 10 rounds prompted judge Benitez to write, "So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable?

It appears to be an arbitrary judgment ... The State does not ... say why California (or any jurisdiction, for that matter) place the limit at 10 ... The significance of 10 rounds, however, is not addressed

... Federal law has no limit on permissible magazine size. In U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for firearm offenses ... a 'large capacity magazine' is defined for purposes of sentencing as a magazine 'that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition.'

A reasoned explanation or a considered judgment would tend to demonstrate why the 'fit' of a total ban on magazines larger than 10- rounds is reasonable or how the ban is narrowly tailored ... Surly, Turner deference does not mean a federal court is relegated to rubber-stamping a broad-based arbitrary incursion on a constitutional right founded on speculative line-drawing and without any sign of tailoring for fit
."

And judge Benitez calling magazines "arms" throws a big wrench in the states' push to limit magazine capacity for law abiding citizens when he wrote:

"... from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, 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. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are DISABLED, or who have ARTHRITIS, or who are trying to HOLD A PHONE IN THEIR OFF-HAND while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show ... lack of reasonable fit.
"

And I am dying to hear how CA state will respond when question is asked why the state government is not working to protect disabled, elderly citizens protect themselves from being victimized.

Government provides wheelchair ramps and large print publications etc. to help the disabled and elderly citizens. Limiting magazine capacity is not helping the disabled or elderly. Government should be helping the disabled and elderly citizens better protect themselves from victimization by providing even greater capacity magazines and higher rate of fire devices like binary triggers along with noise suppression devices.

"The district court in [Fyock v. Sunnyvale], found that 'magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.' ... The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment." and ruled with judgement concluding, "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"
 
Yep, New Jersey residents are being charged with possession of large capacity magazines:

https://www.nj.com/hudson/2019/08/j...city-magazine-arrested-in-bayonne-police.html

https://wrnjradio.com/man-charged-w...nition-magazine-marijuana-in-mount-olive-twp/

https://www.mycentraljersey.com/sto...-police-gun-jeffrey-michael-winner/866294002/

https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...ing-gun-large-capacity-ammunition/2007488001/

http://www.middlesexcountynj.gov/Go...ssUyQwFn1rGpkAAh522kLdZIigqulxd1hE-IhesuCfmxg

https://www.nj.com/hudson/2019/07/3-face-gun-charges-after-bayonne-traffic-stop-police.html

My prosecutor classmate says "possession of a high capacity magazine makes a great holding" or secondary charge. Conviction makes the owner a felon without gun rights.

Those who disregard this New Jersey law should not complain when/if they are caught with a "high capacity magazine."



,
 
Last edited:
In all but one of alsqr's examples after doing a bit of research, you see these charges in combination with other charges such as felon in possession, drug trafficking, etc. The odd one out after a bit of bing investigation was a Snapchat video based prosecution where the guy apparently was issuing vague threats in the video and the NJ authorities claim that is was in conjunction with display of an "assault rifle" which is also illegal under NJ laws.

The multiplicity of charges is used to get a plea bargain on maybe one charge as the game for prosecutors is to avoid court unless it is a high profile case. Possession cases are simple because you either have the item or not and there is no intent issues mucking with your case. As most cases are resolved by plea bargaining, it is more or less an additional bargaining chip for prosecutors just as marijuana possession was for a time in many jurisdictions. This is one reason that the criminal justice statistics on convictions probably understate the severity of crimes committed. More or less, what I see in the pattern on alsqr's new stories is that mag charges are used as a tool to get "bad guys" that often are impossible to get for their actual crimes. I suspect that there will be a few "good guys" falling into the net but as a side effect ancillary to arrests/investigations for other reasons. Then the surefire fallback possession of an illegal item is used to induce a plea. This is basically how our justice system "works" with the elaborate constitutional protections reserved for those where a trial occurs.

Thus, as of right now, it appears that it is like seatbelt charges tacked on after other traffic offenses. That being said, I suspect that NJ authorities are a bit queasy about using that as a sole charge because the legal winds are changing as is the 2nd Circuit that could conceivably demolish much of NJ's tacked on gun legislation in a moment. While people harp on the 9th, in truth, the 2nd has consistently been the center of anti-firearm, anti-Heller court resistance. Also, the state is and has been widely criticized when it has picked up citizens from other states sojourning through it and NJ needs every buck it can get.

The irony is that NJ is probably one of the states, along with Illinois and Connecticut, that will have to declare bankruptcy in the not too long future and many of those enforcing the law probably will not see the whole of their promised pensions intact. That is to say that NJ will be forced to break its own laws and promises to its workers and I would bet that many of NJ's municipalities are not in much if any better shape.
 
Having worked in New Jersey for two years i absolutely would not give my "high capacity" magazines to the NJ state police. This could have unintended consequences. They would get crushed.
 
Deleting some silliness. If you start posting jokes only, let's not. Also, again a note of caution - it is not a good idea to post that you would disobey or evade the law on a public forum.

There is a different between the prohibition of alcohol or pot. Folks who ignored those laws, used the forbidden product. They didn't bury it so that it was useless.
 
Why would anyone turn one in even if they were trying to comply with the law? It would be easier to just toss them in the trash. The fact that no one has turned anything in doesn't mean anything in my book.

The fact that you can't buy them, or use them is much more telling on the effects of the law.
 
Why would anyone turn one in even if they were trying to comply with the law? It would be easier to just toss them in the trash. The fact that no one has turned anything in doesn't mean anything in my book.

The fact that you can't buy them, or use them is much more telling on the effects of the law.

Part of the issue is that many semi auto pistols have magwells that the require long magazines because they were designed to fit 13/15/17 etc. rounds. The AWB era 10 round mags sold to civilians in those days had blocks installed in the bottom and when people circumvented them--plastic molded blocked bottoms of mags to keep people from making them hi cap again. Functionally, there would be little to tell outside of the magazine that its capacity and who goes around counting shots fired by others at a firing range.

The rather stupid SAFE act magazine limit was struck down because of the insanely stupid idea that one could be charged with having too many rounds (over 7) where many handguns only had 10 round magazines, not NY compliant 7 round magazines. Large Capacity Magazine limits are somewhat more discernible at a distance for many rifles but perhaps not on something like a tube magazine for .22 LRs which used to be quite large.

Second, take a look at NJ and where it sits in relationship to PA and tell me that NJ residents are going to PA to do some shopping or perhaps DE. The patchwork law approach is even worse in knives in many states where effectively crossing county or city lines exposes one to legal jeopardy.

What happens in such cases, the laws are selectively enforced that creates a equal protection issue and general contempt for the law.
 
Banning magazines is one small part of a long term plan.
I'm sure you are all aware that free Americans have been losing their constitutional rights 1 tiny piece at a time. Spread out over decades you hardly notice until it's to late. The same plan is in effect on guns and your 2A rights - first ban a magazine, then ban a trigger part, then add countless safeties, then ban the way a gun looks. Then ban a certain type of gun but use a vague description so others may fit that description, See where this is going?
It's a very long term battle.
 
The rather stupid SAFE act magazine limit was struck down because of the insanely stupid idea that one could be charged with having too many rounds (over 7) where many handguns only had 10 round magazines, not NY compliant 7 round magazines.
The stupidity of the "SAFE" Act is boundless. The original plan was for a 7-round limit, but there was a great deal of pushback because this would have been a defacto ban on a lot of handguns for which the smallest available magazine was 10 rounds, like virtually every Glock before the introduction of the G42. You could keep the pistol, but would have to get rid of the magazines, making it unusable.

So the geniuses that drafted this law decided on a compromise: You could have 10-round magazines, but you could only load 7 rounds in them. Say what? There was an exception carved out for competition in events that require 10 rounds, but no exception for any other use, including in one's own home. So self-defense takes a back seat to competition? This has got to be the stupidest aspect of a very stupid law.
 
Last edited:
I don’t have a choice to become a criminal as a legal owner of NFA items they know where to come anyway. They know a machine gun with a 10 round mag would be silly anyway.
In Virginia, we have state registration of machine guns in addition to the ATF registration. So the authorities certainly know where they are.

Strangely, the AWB that was introduced (abortively) in the Virginia legislature this summer defined "assault weapons" as semiautomatics. So, machine guns would get a free pass while semiautomatics were outlawed. I'm not sure if this was simply an error of omission, or if some wealthy machine gun collectors put some pressure on their favorite legislators. The 10-round mag limit would be a problem.
 
Yep, you might as well have a sign in your front yard. "Please come in and inspect my arsenal of restricted weapons and components".:(
This is a misconception. NFA doesn’t subject you to ATF compliance inspections anymore than buying a single shot 22 does. Do you really think ATF agents go driving around the country inspecting everyone’s silencers and asking to see their tax stamps? I have 10 stamps and there’s never been an ATF agent at my house.

If ATF shows up at your door you’ve almost certainly done something to provoke them.
 
This is a misconception. NFA doesn’t subject you to ATF compliance inspections anymore than buying a single shot 22 does. Do you really think ATF agents go driving around the country inspecting everyone’s silencers and asking to see their tax stamps? I have 10 stamps and there’s never been an ATF agent at my house.

If ATF shows up at your door you’ve almost certainly done something to provoke them.

Where did I say anything about the ATF? The ATF doesn't do much of anything except occasionally make sure dealers are complying with the rules. You're not assuming that the ATF hasn't passed your NFA records to the state, are you? You're complying with federal law, I get that. The problem is it won't be the ATF looking for semi-auto rifles if restrictions are in place at the state or federal level.

Yep, you guessed it. State police.
 
Where did I say anything about the ATF? The ATF doesn't do much of anything except occasionally make sure dealers are complying with the rules. You're not assuming that the ATF hasn't passed your NFA records to the state, are you? You're complying with federal law, I get that. The problem is it won't be the ATF looking for semi-auto rifles if restrictions are in place at the state or federal level.

Yep, you guessed it. State police.
So then I’m confused by your original reply to Jmorris. How does owning NFA items place a big sign in your yard?
 
This topic reminds me of the extremely irrational concerns about regulation 922r: “Does my AK-47 derivative have enough ‘legal’ US parts?”

The parts are Not required to state the origin.

-——The point is that the ATF and State Police (etc) have No Idea what magazines or other components are in Your rifle.——-or which Handgun Magazines are kept under your Roof.
 
Last edited:
I fail to understand why hiding “high capacity” magazines that are illegal is a good thing. The authorities have won when gun owners cannot use their magazines in public such as at shooting range and it is necessary to hide them so someone does not see them and inform the Police.
 
I fail to understand why hiding “high capacity” magazines that are illegal is a good thing. The authorities have won when gun owners cannot use their magazines in public such as at shooting range and it is necessary to hide them so someone does not see them and inform the Police.
Because "We the People" can sue the states for unconstitutional state laws in violation of the Second Amendment and get them overturned. ;)

On 3/29/19, federal judge Benitez RULED WITH JUDGEMENT and OVERTURNED CA's ban on larger than 10 round capacity magazines as UNCONSTITUTIONAL and LEGALIZED millions of magazines already IN POSSESSION :D:thumbup: along with newly manufactured and imported magazines - http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...-2019-03-29-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-MSJ.pdf

Judge Benitez ruling clearly stated,

"Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, 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 ... Finally, subsections (c) and (d) of § 32310 impose an unconstitutional taking ... those who lawfully possess magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds ... California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined." :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

At some point, voters and public in general will see the truth that there is no "reasonable" gun control rather antis and anti gun rights/2A law makers simply trying to move towards gun ban/confiscation.

When that happens (Perhaps with some Supreme Court rulings to overturn/reverse anti gun/2A laws), I believe the push back to reaffirm the Bill of Rights will occur.

After the Supreme Court reaffirms constitutionality of "common use" arms like AR15s and normal capacity magazines originally used with these firearms, what will antis say next?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top