Over One Million Gun Owners Refuse to Obey Ban, No One Turning in Magazines

Prepper said:
That's all? Seems unlikely if you only count the legal guns, and include all the fudds.

Regardless, I suspect no one turned in any mags because no one there actually owns them. Sort of like no one turned in bump stocks in MA because no one owns them. Silly NJ politicians, all this fuss over "high capacity" mags, and in the end it turns out no one actually owned any to be turned in. (Not even the thugs.)
Click to expand...

Lot of people in NJ own those mags because prior to the recent ban(s) the limit was like 15 rounds or something like that. I just think that nobody cares that's why
nothing gets turned in. It's not as if 99% of mostly lawful gun owners in NJ are carrying their guns around on their person anyways.

-Mike
 
Prepper said:
Absolutely. Even if your carry gun has a 10 round mag, and you had to use it or otherwise had a police incident with it, I would expect the "illegal" mags to be discovered, taken and then arrest happen. Because NJ. (Well, MA does the same kind of thing.) What good is a gun if its use likely results in discovery and arrest?
Click to expand...

yup, exactly. That is the risk for those who are keeping them. Because if there really are 1M gun owners there and even if half had these and defied the turn on order they do not have enough law enforcement to go after everyone. So most Likely it will be on a case by case basis. Or they will probably pull some crap when these people come up for license renewal.
 
“New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home,” the court wrote in their decision. “The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified.”

I guess I need to reread the Bill of Rights.
 
dhuze said:
“New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home,” the court wrote in their decision. “The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified.”

I guess I need to reread the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Yup, how many times have we read that a gun law is reasonable because it "...fits the State's interest in public safety..."? Notice that they use the term, "State's interest" and not State's right(s). We shouldn't need to reply that the State's interest in public safety has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment!
 
drgrant said:
Lot of people in NJ own those mags because prior to the recent ban(s) the limit was like 15 rounds or something like that. I just think that nobody cares that's why
nothing gets turned in. It's not as if 99% of mostly lawful gun owners in NJ are carrying their guns around on their person anyways.

-Mike
Click to expand...

This. getting a NJ carry permit is next to impossible
 
d9040a3ddc468d2efc08453582be2d6e.jpg
 
When folks understand that when elected officials in State Houses, and DC seek to pass law that is based solely on agendas, control and feelings and not in already existing and understood law. They have engaged in criminal activity against us ( the law abiding ) and we should be resisting them at every turn now.

Wishing for the day when these clowns can be held personally responsible for their criminal behavior in the guise of being lawmakers. Sickening.
 
If they arrest these people, they'd have 1,000,000 more inmates to support and 1,000,000 fewer taxpayers to do it.

And besides, can you imagine the level of violence this would bring to the nj prison system? These magazine people are savages.
 
Prepper said:
I have been to Newark. It was the most scary 15 minutes of my life! (I was driven from a safer area of NJ to be dropped off at the train station in Newark, and the idiot didn't think to drop me off at the entrance to the station, and never having been there before, I had no idea where he was dropping me off... turns out it was a rapid 15 minute walk to actually reach the station, at night unarmed and with everyone else walking around looking very much like thugs.) I will never do that again.
Click to expand...

Come on now! All you had to do was look for the whites of their eyes. That's basic survival skills man! [rofl]
 
Prepper said:
Absolutely. Even if your carry gun has a 10 round mag, and you had to use it or otherwise had a police incident with it, I would expect the "illegal" mags to be discovered, taken and then arrest happen. Because NJ. (Well, MA does the same kind of thing.) What good is a gun if its use likely results in discovery and arrest?
Click to expand...

But see, there is no such thing as a "Carry gun" in NJ, since no one is allowed to carry. Well, no one other than the "Special class" ones.
 
Hetzer said:
So when those idiots wrote the ban, did they include a provision or instructions regarding turning them in?
Click to expand...
sure. then I sent a postcard to all nj gun owners instructing them to send them to an address in massachusetts, mine.
 
Hetzer said:
So when those idiots wrote the ban, did they include a provision or instructions regarding turning them in?

Edit: nevermind I found it.
Click to expand...
No reason to. They are going to sit back and let the felony arrests for illegal possession trickle in. Traffic stop resulting in a vehicle search. Domestic dispute where cops come to residence. ERPO warrant home searches. Kids and other live-in relatives unable to control their mouths about what you own. Medical emergencies where cops arrive with EMTs. Wife files RO as part of divorce and her attorney tells the court about the illegal weapons, magazines, etc. that you possess. Many chances for discovery that will cause the gun owner untold grief
 
dhuze said:
“New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home
Click to expand...
Beware any legal BS invoking "public safety", "public health", or "common sense". These are trigger words that mean a Constitutional right is about to be violated or taken away...
 
Racenet said:
I'd take Newark any day of the week. Just take a gander at Jersey City, where even the EMS rigs have bullet holes in their sides. Been there, seen that, f*** it!
Click to expand...
I was raised there back when you couldn't tell the difference between Newark, JC, and the Bronx. Spent about 45 years there. It's amazing what crap passed for normal life when I was a kid. Now JC is actually "nice," comparatively speaking that is.
 
“New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home,” the court wrote in their decision. “The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified.”

Question for you keyboard lawyers. Would it be reasonable to challenge based on the SCOTUS decision that these magazines are "in common use" and therefore can't be banned?
 
And the Democrats will scream that this must be enforced, yet immigration and border control need not apply.

They're the enemy, you don't obey your enemy. If we had, we'd all be drinking tea, have a parliament, and be welcoming Syrian "refugees" by the millions.
 
Introducing, sponsoring and passing these bills has nothing to do with implementation or actual impact, good or bad on the citizenry. Indeed, not one thought is given to these minor details.. It's all about the sound bite.
 
PennyPincher said:
Question for you keyboard lawyers. Would it be reasonable to challenge based on the SCOTUS decision that these magazines are "in common use" and therefore can't be banned?
Click to expand...

Reasonable? Yes. Likely to succeed... that's another question. DC v. Heller was a great victory for gun rights, but in the years since then, it has been effectively neutered by anti-gun lower courts. In theory, lower courts are bound by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is bound by the letter of the Constitution and applicable law(s). In practice, any court at any level can do whatever it damn well wants as long as it can provide a superficially reasonable argument to support its ruling. The Supreme Court doesn't even need to do that much, as demonstrated by such ludicrous rulings as Wickard v. Filburn. When gun rights are involved, any court controlled by liberals is going to approve of any anti-gun law, regardless of common sense, the law, the facts, or standing precedent - witness last April's ridiculous ruling by Judge William Young in the Massachusetts assault-weapons ban. The only thing that can stop them is another, very strong Supreme Court precedent in favor of gun rights and a set of lower-court judges that are willing to abide by it.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. Just an amateur who is interested in constitutional law.)
 

Similar threads

Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
261
dfritz
D
Buying more than one firearm
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
state police nipped this one in the bud: wonder what the legal outcome will be?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Man Faced 115 Years In Prison & $17 Million In Fines After ATF Falsely Arrested Him
Replies
8
Views
466
Uzi2
U
Report: Americans Own over 700 Million Ammo Mags with Greater Than 10-Round Capacity
Replies
23
Views
560
1sern
1
Back
Top Bottom