Clearly the solution in NJ is to make everything a belt-fed. No more than three rounds fit on the feed tray itself.

Sadly, as a New Yorker who moved to NJ several years ago it wasn’t hard to see this coming. I brought all my 10 round mags with me when I moved and never bothered to upgrade anything (pistol or rifle) to 15 round. Sure enough, the lousy laws in NJ changed and caught up with my old home state.

quote:

Originally posted by hile:
Clearly the solution in NJ is to make everything a belt-fed. No more than three rounds fit on the feed tray itself.

While technically true, you'd be limited to the length of belt that you could carry and feed without an ammo can. Otherwise, the ammo can would become the "high capacity magazine."

Don't feel bad. Standard-capacity magazines are treated the same way NJ treats standard-capacity slingshots: They're felonies to possess.

Interesting, but honestly unless they are on duty, they should be like everyone else. It's not like they'd ever be charged with the crime, but still.

^^Sorry chief, I left my duty mags back at the station like I was told. Give me a few to get back to the precinct, grab my mags, drive to the scene, throw in traffic: see you there in about an hour!

This new statute does raise the issue of: if LEOs are only allowed to carry full-cap magazines on duty, then why would they carry their sidearms off-duty at all?

Is the department going to provide them ten-rounders to carry when off-duty?

If an LEO used their personal magazines, would that open the door to personal liability should they be required to use their sidearm while "off duty?"

Does this create some third category of magazine that is neither personally owned nor duty-capacity?

What happens when an officer is on-call, but is forced to respond to a crime and gets outgunned because he's only allowed to have ten-rounders? I would think that this would be a legitimate concern for the police unions?

Reap. The. Whirlwind. Bitches.

The moral of this story is "Don't blindly support Democrat and RINO gun-grabbers, individually or through your unions, because there are likely to be unintended consequences."

And yes, I'm a LEO, and a NJ resident.

Another forum has a thread on a related subject in which it is argued that this law cannot pass Constitutional muster because it's an "ex post facto" law (making illegal now something that was legal in the past, without grandfathering):

quote:

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

flashguy

Might as well get the 30s if the 15s are illegal.

My NJ friends are not complying btw.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Another forum has a thread on a related subject in which it is argued that this law cannot pass Constitutional muster because it's an "ex post facto" law (making illegal now something that was legal in the past, without grandfathering):

quote:

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

flashguy

Ex Post Facto applies to criminal activity, not property.

Say you bought a hot dog yesterday from a hot dog cart.

But today, the state legislature passes a law against buying hot dogs from hot dog carts.

You cannot be arrested today for buying that hot dog yesterday, if you committed the act prior to the passage of the statute.

In this case, it's not possessing reg-cap magazines yesterday that is going to get you in trouble, it's holding on to them today that's the violation. Once the law passes, you still have them = violation after the date the law passed.

This NJ law is more similar to imminent domain, not ex post facto.

Akins (creators of the Akins Accelerator) lost a case similar to this (5th Amendment taking: Akins v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 619 (2008)), but I do wonder if the outcome would have been different if the case had been filed by an owner of the device rather than the manufacturer.

The problem with imminent domain is that property taken for use by the public is compensable. But, if the gov't doesn't take it for public use (i.e. nobody can have it: they destroy the property instead of making it public property) then they don't have to compensate you for it: police powers.

Let's check in with New Jersey in a week or two and see how many of these terrible high cap mags have been turned in. My bet, you'll be able to count the number on the fingers of both hands.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Let's check in with New Jersey in a week or two and see how many of these terrible high cap mags have been turned in. My bet, you'll be able to count the number on the fingers of both hands.

Sadly, my Captain (a Jersey resident) lost all of his plus ten round mags recently while out at sea. Or so he told me.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Another forum has a thread on a related subject in which it is argued that this law cannot pass Constitutional muster because it's an "ex post facto" law (making illegal now something that was legal in the past, without grandfathering):

quote:

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

flashguy

Ex Post Facto applies to criminal activity, not property.
...
In this case, it's not possessing reg-cap magazines yesterday that is going to get you in trouble, it's holding on to them today that's the violation. Once the law passes, you still have them = violation after the date the law passed.

OK, the law makes possession of reg-cap magazines a criminal activity, but prior to the law it was not criminal. They are making the action of possession criminal when before it was not. I think that qualifies as ex post facto.

flashguy

The 10 round magazine came about as a political compromise of the Assault Weapons Ban. There’s no science that supports it.

Same with this law. There is no scientific research that supports the intent of the law. It’s all “Everbody know dude.”

Sadly, what fails in research can still become law.

Hey Gov., what do I do with all these magazines they turned in?

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
The 10 round magazine came about as a political compromise of the Assault Weapons Ban. There’s no science that supports it.

Same with this law. There is no scientific research that supports the intent of the law. It’s all “Everbody know dude.”

Sadly, what fails in research can still become law.

Some time back (I think during the Connecticut bans) I got in a debate with one of my wife's wingnut liberal friends about this topic. The entire debate came to an immediate halt when I asked her "How many rounds do you think it would take me to kill you if you entered my house in the middle of the night uninvited? Trust me, its way less than 10." These people are insane. Its just unfortunately that some have to be negatively impacted by that insanity.

I always wondered about that number.

In the liberal's mind, I guess ten casualties is a number acceptable to them.

I find it odd that the homicide numbers were much higher years back when the higher capacity magazines were not as nearly prevalent. Even the AR style rifles were relatively few in numbers.

Yet today when the numbers are significantly higher of those style firearms, the rate is significantly lower.

As far as suicides, a ten round magazine isn't going to suddenly make one sane.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Let's check in with New Jersey in a week or two and see how many of these terrible high cap mags have been turned in. My bet, you'll be able to count the number on the fingers of both hands.

Sadly, my Captain (a Jersey resident) lost all of his plus ten round mags recently while out at sea. Or so he told me.

That is happening a lot in my area. Everyone I know has had that happen to them. Throw them in the ocean or hand them over. No one out of state wants a 30 round magazine that can only hold 15. They covered their collective asses by saying we could have sold them out of state.

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
The 10 round magazine came about as a political compromise of the Assault Weapons Ban. There’s no science that supports it.

Same with this law. There is no scientific research that supports the intent of the law. It’s all “Everbody know dude.”

Sadly, what fails in research can still become law.

This is only the start. Next year the State will introduce bills to ban all semi*automatic firearms. Even a 10/22 will be banned if they get their way. I am just buying time until we move to Georgia.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Let's check in with New Jersey in a week or two and see how many of these terrible high cap mags have been turned in. My bet, you'll be able to count the number on the fingers of both hands.

Well, so far it's appearing to be not terribly effective, the ban.

quote:

Million Plus NJ Gun Owners Defy State Law, Refuse to Turn Over Banned Gun Mags

Ammoland Inc. Posted on December 14, 2018 by John Crump

New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- New Jersey's standard capacity magazine ban is now in effect making New Jersey's one million gun owners criminals in the eyes of the state. But in an act of mass definace, New Jersey residents refuse to comply.

Full article: Million Plus NJ Gun Owners Defy State Law, Refuse to Turn Over Banned Gun Mags

So I presume all AR mags in New Jersey are .458 Socom??
9 round is legal correct??