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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
They're wrong, wrong, wrong!

The actual number should be 10.6187 rounds!

Do the math!
 
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.
Click to expand...
By this argument, the NJ police carry weapons with the sole purpose of killing large numbers of people in a short period of time.
 
If only.......

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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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'!
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
During that infamous case is when the judge stated that those who own firearms in new Jersey do so at their own peril.
Click to expand...


Nice to know that American citizens have to be in "peril" about something the constitution states as a right.
 
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".
 
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
 
Stop electing these people, problem solved.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
It IS to the disadvantage of government, and it is why laws must be specific whether we agree with a particular law or not.
 
Compliance there, in terms of disposing of or destroying banned items, was thought to be somewhere in the area of 4/10ths of 1%.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Anjrpc

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Do two 10 round Magazines make a 20?
Replies
9
Views
730
Art Eatman
A
B
  • Locked
A3807 10 Round magazine ban in NJ messed up
Replies
11
Views
1K
rromeo
rromeo
D
  • Locked
Group Blasts NJ Legislation For Endangering Civilians While Exempting Police
Replies
6
Views
1K
AnklePocket
A
5
  • Locked
Nj A-2116
Replies
1
Views
360
MD_Willington
M
D
  • Locked
Convincing NJ to legalize the M1 carbine
Replies
20
Views
1K
bjbarron
B
Back
Top