Ridiculous that this is going on. We really need to parade around the state house with 30 round mags come next June. If they are going to rub our faces in it, we might as well return the favor.
Of course, it occurs to me that if magazines are ultimately ruled to be covered by the Second Amendment then they would probably arrest us all for carrying illegally…
Maybe then we strip our 10/30s of everything but the shell and use those.
Haven’t heard anything about AWB/Mag arrests based on post-judgement internet posts yet, will relay if I do.
Also just heard that the Troopers attached to the Philadelphia area ATF Taskforce were doing surveillance at the gun show in Oaks PA not too long ago. Bc they are attached to the ATF they have access to all the NICS data as well. So they were following guys across the bridge and called a couple of them to “remind” them to take the guns they purchased in PA to Butch’s gun shop to be made compliant. They said Butch’s specifically bc they were able to associate their driver’s licenses with that store through prior purchase in NICS. I heard that from the same source that told me they were tracking down the people who bought magazines after the ruling.
I heard a few years ago from a very reliable second-hand source that the NJSP has been watching folks from NJ at the Oaks gun show for a while.
I mean, I get that it is illegal under federal law for an FFL to sell a long gun to an out of state resident if said gun is illegal in the buyers state of residence. So there is a federal enforcement nexus. But whats so concerning to me is that the ATF is essentially allowing NJSP to use a federal database that they normally would have no access to, to enforce NJ gun laws.
NYPD is also out there too. I also heard Maryland sends their cops up there too to spy on their citizens.
I don’t believe for a second that their activities were/are restricted to just things that are illegal in NJ, etc.
I’m somewhat in disagreement with Kostas on this one.
NJ went after a stay because seeking cert didn’t increase the risk of anything. Multiple cases were there and the split existed now, so it’s all the same.
They are now asking for the GVR treatment after viramontes, because that path give the other circuits bit N+1 at the apple, and defers NJ’s loss as long as possible. It’s also appealing to the traditional process of the court rather than any merit, which increases the liklihood they will get what they asked for with Roberts. Unfortunately.
But this is not tension between NJ and the other grabber states. This is an assist to NJ. The existing cases waiting there only have three possible outcomes. Denied, granted, or GVRed. It’s almost certain they won’t be denied. Even if the conclusion is acceptable to the court, the reasoning is not and they were carried over to the next term to be lined up for yet more shots at a record number of relistings. They are getting granted or GVRed. They were before the 3rd ruled, it’s the same after the 3rd ruled. The ruling increased the odds of being heard if only because it killed off some procedural arguments that were undoubtedly being made.
What you re seeing is them trying to nudge any attempt to address magazine capacity into more generic hardware and accessory reasoning that will be general and thus open to interpretive abuse. The fact that possibly buys NJ some time is just a freebie.
Do you agree, though, that if SCOTUS addresses the magazine issue and decides they aren’t arms (to split the baby so to speak), that it opens the door for banning detachable magazines altogether or at least limiting them to 5 or even less? They’re either arms or they’re not and, if they’re not, then they can be banned. Otherwise we’re back to the magic bullet (10 round limit is ok but a 5 round limit is a vicarious infringement on owning the firearm). I just can’t see this court doing that.
I do agree that saying they are not arms would open up a Pandora’s box. I do not think they will say such a thing.
The fact that awbs are feature bans based in large part on accessories, I do fear that we may get either a well intentioned but exploitable definition of what’s protected or something very expansive but not explicit so it can be explored in bad faith.
Copyright © 2024-2026. All rights reserved. New Jersey Gun Forums LLC
