MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gun Owners Don't Seem Eager to Comply With New Jersey's New Magazine Ban

Police officers, who can now charge people who own 15-round magazines with a felony, were outraged when it looked like they might receive equal treatment.

Cabela'sCabela'sThanks to a December 5 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, New Jersey's ban on gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds took effect on December 10. By that date, all owners of heretofore legal "large capacity magazines" (LCMs) were required to surrender them to police, render them inoperable, modify them so they cannot hold more than 10 rounds, or sell them to authorized owners. Those who failed to do so are guilty of a fourth-degree felony, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to 18 months in prison.

How many of New Jersey's 1 million or so gun owners have complied with the ban by turning LCMs in to law enforcement agencies? Approximately zero, judging from an investigation by Ammoland writer John Crump. Crump, an NRA instructor and gun rights activist, "reached out to several local police departments in New Jersey" and found that "none had a single report of magazines turned over." He also contacted the New Jersey State Police, which has not officially responded to his inquiry. But "two sources from within the State Police," speaking on condition of anonymity, said "they both do not know of any magazines turned over to their agency and doubted that any were turned in."

I also contacted the state police, where Sgt. Jeff Flynn told me they have received "zero" LCMs. Flynn said I should address any other questions about the law to the Attorney General's Office, which I did. Leland Moore, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, said I should talk to the state police. Crump got the same runaround. When I pointed that out, Moore said by email, "We do not have information on how many LCMs have been received by local police in the hundreds of municipalities across NJ. That's not something we track."

Law enforcement agencies, of course, would not necessarily know about gun owners who complied with the law in one of the other approved ways. It's possible that some gun owners destroyed their suddenly illegal magazines, modified them, or transferred them to, say, gun owners in other states or retired cops, who are exempt from the magazine ban. But there is no direct evidence of that either.

How many contraband magazines are we talking about? That's hard to say, but Crump notes that "the standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds," while the Glock 19, "which is the most popular pistol in the United States, holds 15 rounds." The 3rd Circuit likewise noted that "LCMs often come factory standard with semi-automatic weapons." Based on the number of gun owners in the state, the number of guns they own on average, and sales figures for guns that are sold with magazines holding more than 10 rounds, Crump calculates that New Jersey residents owned "at least 2 million" LCMs before the ban was enacted. So even if we assume that half of those were destroyed or transferred, there are still 1 million or so illegally owned by otherwise law-abiding people in New Jersey.

As J.D. Tuccille has periodically reminded us, noncompliance with arbitrary gun restrictions seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Some gun owners may be deliberately disobeying the law, while others may not be aware that the products they legally purchased and have legally owned for years are now evidence of a felony.

According to Crump's state police sources, "the plan that has been discussed among officers is only to file charges against people who are guilty of other crimes." Plans can change, of course, but if the only LCM owners who are treated as felons are the ones who come to the attention of the police for other reasons, that is not exactly reassuring. After all, a routine traffic stop could result in a felony charge against someone with an LCM in his car. Likewise for an LCM owner who makes the mistake of inviting police officers to his home—in response to a burglary, say.

Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik is outraged by New Jersey's "crazy" magazine ban, but only because he worries that it could be enforced against off-duty police officers. The original version of the law included an exemption for "any law enforcement officer while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty," who was allowed to have a magazine holding up to 15 rounds. An amended version that Gov. Phil Murphy is expected to sign soon extends that exemption to officers who are off duty.

On Twitter last Friday, Kerik complained that Murphy "is endangering the life of every off duty NJ cop! Gang bangers, drug thugs and really bad guys don't give a damn about magazine capacity...So he takes the good guy's ammunition, and the bad guys are loaded for bear!" Last Sunday on Fox News, Kerik vented some more. "You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle," he said. "That's insane."

Something similar happened with the seven-round magazine limit that New York legislators hastily enacted in 2013, except in that case it was former cops who were overlooked. They angrily demanded the double standard to which they were accustomed, and the legislature gave it to them a few months later. Notice that Kerik readily concedes New Jersey's magazine limit will have no impact on criminals, and he takes it for granted that the difference between 10 and 15 rounds could be the difference between life and death for someone using a gun in self-defense. Yet somehow that extra margin of safety is intolerable for citizens without badges.

State Policemen's Benevolent Association President Patrick Colligan told the Trenton radio station WKXW the omission of an exemption for off-duty cops "was simply an error," adding that "quite frankly, I think just the date, the December 10 date, caught up with everybody." It seems doubtful that police will accept that excuse from ordinary people who own the magazines that only the privileged few are allowed to possess.

[This post has been updated with responses from the New Jersey State Police and the Attorney General's Office.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • steve sturm||

    I'd hate to be the gun owner who shows up to his local range to find out the State Police are there watching for anyone with a LCM...

  • Sevo||

    Me, too, but I'd hate worse to be the one needing that 11th round when 10 didn't save your butt.

  • IceTrey||

    Carry an extra mag.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, it could just as well be the 16th or 18th round that you needed.

  • ||

    They're allowed to have 11 rounds though... 10 in the mag and 1 in the pipe.

  • I can't even||

    Well... More likely the other guys at the range tell him to leave or stash the illegal mags. I've seen it happen when somebody shows up with an M1 Carbine (banned by name as an assault rifle in NJ).

    Decent ranges are fairly few and far-between here in NJ and most ranges let the cops shoot for free - so the cops are usually pretty cool when doing their free target shooting.

  • some guy||

    So the courts say that magazine size limits are constitutional, but is there a threshold below which they magically become unconstitutional? Could a state ban all magazines that hold more than 5 rounds? What about 3 rounds? 1 round?

    Has SCOTUS decided where the dividing line is?

  • See Double You||

    SCOTUS's Heller and subsequent McDonald decisions failed to lay out the level of scrutiny* courts are to apply to state laws which infringe upon the 2A.** So lefty courts apply lower levels of scrutiny to laws infringing on the 2A instead of the usual level of scrutiny applied to infringements on fundamental liberties, strict scrutiny. These levels of scrutiny make a world of difference in whether a state law gets overturned.

    *the Court appeared in Heller to disapprove of rational basis scrutiny, but I don't think it explicitly ruled it out.

    **some have postulated that the Heller majority couldn't agree on said scrutiny, but if that's the case, there's no reason the justices who favored certain levels over others could not have written separate concurrences.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Scrutiny is one of those court-made exceptions to the Constitution which drive me crazy. I can't imagine any of the founders putting up with such nonsense.

    Or putting up with the elective enforcement of the natural rights, or pretending the 9th and 10th are meaningless. Far as I know, abortion wasn't illegal until the WASPs get excited over all the papist immigration, and the idea that the unenumerated right to an abortion gets more protection than the enumerated right to keep and bear arms ... bizarre. The founders would not understand why we put up with it.

  • See Double You||

    My biggest beef with SCOTUS is selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the States and the arbitrary way it applies its tiers of scrutiny to laws which infringe on the rights enumerated therein. For example, why do laws which infringe on 1A rights generally get strict scrutiny while 2A only gets intermediate scrutiny? All the rights in the Bill of Rights should be considered fundamental rights, incorporated against the States and entitled to the highest level of protection (strict scrutiny).

    But a libertarian can dream.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    ...why do laws which infringe on 1A rights generally get strict scrutiny while 2A only gets intermediate scrutiny?

    Because FYTW. The fourth circuit recently upheld Maryland's ban of some 40 weapons on the basis that while it would not actually make life any safer, it would serve to make some citizens "feel" safer.

    In other words the judges do whatever the fuck they want to achieve their desired ends. This of course is all building toward a major Supreme Court case. I say time to bring it on, and if Ginsberg drops out anytime soon and we get another Gorsuch of Kavanaugh [or Amy Coney Barrett] in her place, so much the better.

  • ConstitutionalDon||

    If SCOTUS can add homosexual marriage to the 14th Amendment they can add National Guard Only to the 2nd. If they can ignore Baker v. Nelson, they can ignore Heller. When people cheer for the courts to make things up so their friends can be happy, they also give the courts permission to make things up so other people's friends can be happy. The courts did not do this to us. We the People did this to us.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Indeed, the only level of "scrutiny" the Constitution contemplates is "Just freaking comply with it".

    Rational basis is just "not gibbering insanity" basis. Intermediate scrutiny is just rational basis that doesn't care to admit it, and all "strict" scrutiny requires is that the judge think your reason for violating the Constitution's actual command is a reasonably good one.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Any act of a state legislature that purports to supersede our right to keep and bear arms is not a law at all, it is a usurpation.

    -jcr

  • Violent Sociopath||

    In fact, Heller clearly and specifically rejects any form of interest-balancing. Inferior courts, in defiance of Heller, have gone ahead and employed interest-balancing anyway, usually by construing the "core" Second Amendment right narrowly, and embracing a standard that can best be characterized as "intermediate scrutiny in name, but rational basis in practice" for any law that doesn't specifically prohibit keeping a handgun in your own home.

  • See Double You||

    I remember; you're right. The travesty is that SCOTUS hasn't slapped down this continuing bullshit pulled by the lower courts; instead they have simply denied cert, which effectively guts the 2A even post-Heller. Maybe we'll finally get a responsive SCOTUS with Kavanaugh on the bench?

  • perlchpr||

    Kavanaugh isn't the best on 2A that Trump could have pulled off the short list, but yeah, I'm kinda hoping for some action here.

  • Whorton||

    If only someone would bother to arrest the federal judges in the area who no doubt have firearms with LCM's.

    I am suspecting that their law also has exemptions for "retired police officers." Why the hell should they be exempt. Sounds like a violation of the equal protection clause.

    As "some guy" noted above, why couldn't the legislature arbitrarily change the limit to a single round for all magazines?

    The fact that the people are ignoring the laws gives you an understanding of the level of contempt for such laws.

  • See Double You||

    I am suspecting that their law also has exemptions for "retired police officers." Why the hell should they be exempt. Sounds like a violation of the equal protection clause.

    The Third Circuit recently upheld the New Jersey law excepting retired police officers from the ten-round magazine restriction despite an equal protection argument. Its grounds were that these officers have the training to use firearms. They attempt to distinguish military personnel, reasoning that police officers have training in how to use firearms in places where our Constitution applies (as if military personnel don't get such training before entering foreign wars!). This reasoning is extremely weak and would never survive strict scrutiny (or even intermediate scrutiny).

    It's a travesty of legal reasoning - as if only police officers are properly trained to use firearms. Moreover, how is such training relevant to the size of the magazine? It makes no sense that a trained officer needs more rounds than an untrained (or trained) non-officer needs.

    Though couched in terms of intermediate scrutiny, the Third Circuit actually applied rational basis scrutiny, which is illegal under Heller. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 n.27. It's clear the Third Circuit had an agenda and worked backward to achieve it. If SCOTUS wants an informed public which trusts the judiciary, it needs to put these lower courts in their place.

  • Naaman Brown||

    The Heller (D.C. handgun ban) and McDonald (Chicago handgun ban) decisions looked at bans on handguns and bans on having an operable gun loaded in the home for self defense.

    Heller held that the 2A protected an individual right to keep and bear arms for all traditionally lawful purposes which included having a handgun in the home for self-defense.

    D.C. being a federal jurisdiction, state and municipal gun bans appeared to be safe.

    McDonald incorporated the 2A under 14A to apply to the states as well.

    Heller and McDonald knocked down bans. The contention is what constitutes reasonable regulation. To prohibitionists reasonable regulation will always be prohibition or compromises always in the direction of defacto prohibition. Like requiring registration, then freezing the registry.

    NYC required registration of rifles in the 1960s at a very small fee and promised not to raise the registration fee. Rifle owners complied. NYC did not raise the registration fee as promised, but did add a $140 rifle permit fee plus a $96 background check fee, $236 in fees. And kept redefining what was a legal rifle and sent owners notices to surrender their gun to the NYPD or sell it to a federally licensed dealer, or take it to a residence outside the city.

  • Doug Huffman||

    Yes, it is called a slippery slope.

    More sophisticatedly, it is Sorite's Paradox of the Heap. If I remove a grain of sand from a heap of sand is it still a heap? If two grains are removed, is it still a heap?

    Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and The Truth. From my cold dead ands works for me.

    An (((LCM))) allows one to earn additional Side Boys at the Pearly Gates.

  • Eddy||

    Is Kerik even allowed to possess a firearm? Wikipedia says he pleaded guilty to eight felonies.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    My guess is the ex-cop privilege outweighs the convicted felon thing.

  • BYODB||


    According to Crump's state police sources, "the plan that has been discussed among officers is only to file charges against people who are guilty of other crimes."


    Such as defending yourself in your home using a magazine over the legal limit, for instance.

  • Naaman Brown||

    The late 19th and early 20th century Florida permit to own a pistol or Winchester repeating rifle was only meant to be enforced against non-residents (particularly negro migrant workers), until a 1941 case when it was mistakenly used against a resident with standing to sue in court. One of the justices opined that it was not only a violation the Florida state constitutional RKBA but that it was contrary to the federal 2A. CORE mentioned it in their Heller amicus.

    All short "trapper" rifles made by factories with barrels shorter than 16" rimfire or 18" centerfire and Mauser pistols with shoulderstock holsters were made contraband by the 1934 National Firearms Act ban on "sawed-off rifles" unless registered. Since then, ATF decided those guns are curios and relics and treats them as ordinary Title I GCA firearms and does not check whether they were registered as Title II NFA firearms before coming out of the closet (or gun safe).

    Then there's the Ken Ballew raid, Ruby Ridge stand-off, Waco raid, siege and tank attack. Selective enforcement.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Notice that Kerik readily concedes New Jersey's magazine limit will have no impact on criminals, ""

    It will have some impact. Just not the way people think. Charge stacking to coerce a guilty plea.

  • Zeb||

    Last Sunday on Fox News, Kerik vented some more. "You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle," he said. "That's insane."

    How does that make the least bit of sense? The law, unamended, specifically allowed on-duty police to have larger magazines. Off duty cops have exactly the same need or lack of need for a larger mag as any other civilian.

  • Rossami||

    In fairness, the unamended law is a physical impossibility. That is, your magazine that's legal while you're on-duty becomes instantly illegal as soon as your shift is over. You can't store it at home, carry it with you to with you on your way to work, etc. The only possible way to comply would be to store all the larger magazines at the police station and only issue them once you're on duty. That moves it from a physical impossibility to a mere logistical impossibility.

    The law makes no sense (amended or not) but for a different reason. If an on-duty cop has a legitimate need for a larger magazine, so does any civilian in a dangerous situation.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I guess if they can't keep them in their homes at least, the exemption isn't worth much.

  • Longtobefree||

    So why is keeping the military magazine at the station such a problem? Until the cop has clocked in, he should not even have a firearm. Keep all weapons in the armory at the police station; the cop logs in, is issued a weapon and appropriate ammunition, and does the shift. Them the evil nasty gun and ammunition is safely locked up to protect the peace of the community. Hardly a logistical impossibility.
    It is somewhat in line with legalizing marijuana without legalize possession and purchasing.

  • Naaman Brown||

    In a lot of jurisdictions cops are expected to be able to respond at anytime to a crime in progress and to be armed and have ID on them. They may be off shift but never actually off duty.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Of course New Jersey may be different.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's not a "military" magazine, it's the ordinary civilian magazine. They just arbitrarily decided to label any magazine of normal capacity "large" capacity, to pretend they weren't limiting people to having unusually small magazines.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    On Twitter last Friday, Kerik complained that Murphy "is endangering the life of every off duty NJ cop! Gang bangers, drug thugs and really bad guys don't give a damn about magazine capacity...So he takes the good guy's ammunition, and the bad guys are loaded for bear!"
    ...
    Notice that Kerik readily concedes New Jersey's magazine limit will have no impact on criminals, and he takes it for granted that the difference between 10 and 15 rounds could be the difference between life and death for someone using a gun in self-defense. Yet somehow that extra margin of safety is intolerable for citizens without badges.

    Some animals are more equal than others.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    In Animal Farm didn't the "pigs" come out on top?

  • Cloudbuster||

    Which was intended as a warning, not an endorsement.

  • John C. Randolph||

    retired cops, who are exempt from the magazine ban.

    Something something equal protection clause...

    -jcr

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Some animals are more equal than others

  • I can't even||

    Actually, right now, they are not exempted from the ban.

    The ban on carrying hollow-points applies to retired cops and it looks like the mag ban will apply too.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    "You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle," he said. "That's insane."

    Learn to shoot better maybe?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Learn to shoot better maybe?

    Obligatory.

  • Ecoli||

    I never click links, but I hope that is the one where the DEA agent shoots himself in the leg while bragging to elementary school students about his knowledge of guns.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    It think the only thing that could have made that video better would be if one of the kids asked if he needed a tourniquet for that.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Here's what I've never understood about magazine limits:

    Obviously, the argument is based around "limiting damage from a would-be mass shooter." But if someone is intent on being a mass shooter, won't they just bring multiple magazines, which are readily changed in a fraction of a second?

    No, it disproportionately impacts the responsible owner, who possesses a gun for self-defense reasons. That person may not carry an extra magazine everywhere. You've just created a "lots of bullets for the bad guy, versus 10 bullets for the innocent guy" scenario. (And of course, that ignores the whole "criminals don't follow laws anyway" thing).

  • Naaman Brown||

    Most people carrying a gun for self-defense do not want to carry a magazine pouch with spare magazines.

    The Columbine Highschool shooter with the 9mm carbine and the Viirginia Tech shooter carried bags with ten-round magazines.

    What's to understand? There are people who believe that limits imposed on the law abiding will protect them from violence by law breakers. Making class 4 felons of gun owners who keep their once-legal magazines in ignorance or defiance of a ban will protect them from the gun criminals who do murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault.

    Face it, after the public destruction of Beatles' White Albums there have been no repeats of the Helter Skelter murders.

  • IceTrey||

    Let's just ignore you can carry a sack full of ten round mags if you want.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Those who failed to do so are guilty of a fourth-degree felony, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to 18 months in prison.

    Thankfully we just passed some serious, and I mean serious criminal justice reform.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "reached out to several local police departments in New Jersey" and found that "none had a single report of magazines turned over."

    Maybe they destroyed them. I think this is no different than drug prohibition. The hammer hits when you get caught with it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I read an article a couple of years ago that said compliance for registering your AR-15 (NY SAFE Act) was at 3%.

    I doubt it's increased by much.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Only the government should have guns.
    This worked out really well in Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, and Mao's China.
    You didn't see crime there, now did you?
    Except the crime that was done by The State.
    But that doesn't count.
    The State can do no wrong.
    Ask any progressive.

  • BILKER||

    or democrat

  • FiftycalTX2||

    If you know any cops or retired cops, especially ones that live outside their district, DROP A DIME on them. Get a burner phone or go to a shop someplace and dial 911 and tell them you KNOW this person has ILLEGAL WEAPONS and tried to SELL you some. Then hang up. I don't believe in the "holiness" of cops and if I can't have one they should not either. Let them go back to 38 cal revolvers and 30-30 lever actions for their "SWAT" team.

  • Longtobefree||

    Many lever action rifles have tubular magazines that exceed 10 rounds.
    "Load on Sunday and shoot all week" comes to mind.

  • LiborCon||

    Yah, but those are 22 LR. Not something practical for police work. A 20" barrel lever action holds 10 rounds of 357 or 44 Magnum, or 6 rounds of 30-30.

    Plus tube fed magazines take a lot longer to reload then swapping magazines.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Those gun nuts are a rebellious breed. What's it going to take to get them to give up this one tiny liberty?

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    Deportation to Russia for every legislator who voted for it. We can start there.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    He was talking about the other gun nuts.

  • Longtobefree||

    Repeal of the second amendment; get to work on that will you?

  • drisco304||

    So does that mean people with large mags have to turn them in to police that also have large mags?

  • aajax||

    "It seems doubtful that police will accept that excuse from ordinary people who own the magazines that only the privleged few are allowed to possess."

    Well, they certainly won't accept it from members of a socially disfavored group, anyway.

  • perlchpr||

    Reason appears to have just thrown away the comment I left on this topic before. I'll try again.

    ----

    That didn't work out so well for the ruling government the last time.

    The Battles of Lexington and Concord

    "About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord."

    What was the end result of that interaction?

  • IceTrey||

    Why would people turn them in if they can buy a follower that makes them legal? When the SHTF you put in the old follower and Bob's your uncle.

  • perlchpr||

    I don't know how the NJ law is written, but that doesn't work to comply in CA. A tall follower in a 30 round magazine body, which can be "readily converted" back to being a full 30 round magazine, is still illegal.

  • Zeb||

    Pretty sure the NJ law says that owners can convert ones they already have.

  • LiborCon||

    You can convert them, but it has to be permanent:

    "Render the semi-automatic rifle or magazine inoperable or permanently modify a large capacity ammunition magazine to accept 10 rounds or less"

  • BILKER||

    "tall follower" mags are still legal in the late great state of Kalifornexico.

  • Longtobefree||

    Of course, the reality is that the 20 round magazines are not illegal. They meet the constitutional construct of the second amendment of the US Constitution. It is the NJ law that is illegal.

  • Jerry B.||

    Wonder how long before this goes to SCOTUS?

  • Naaman Brown||

    We would need a squeaky clean plaintiff like Heller or McDonald preferably live with an attorney before SCOTUS.

    That Miller decision with a dead criminal non-plaintiff and no lawyer before SCOTUS sucked.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It was meant to suck, it was a setup.

  • jerryg1018||

    NJ's ban on 15+ round magazines has several faults. One is that it violates the Constitution's Ex Post Facto clause.
    Ex Post Facto prohibits retroactive laws. NJ's law is retroactive, magazines purchased prior to the law are grandfathered by Ex Post Facto. Secondly, law enforcement officers are exempted, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. One group can't be favored over another.
    The courts need to learn they must obey the Constitution rather than create exceptions to Constitutional rights. It's time for the public to begin demanding impeachment for judges who make unconstitutional rulings.
    NJ is not alone with the poor response to their magazine ban, NY and CT have had poor response to their assault weapons ban.
    The problem with bans like these is there is no way to enforce them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    There are no exceptions. None.

    Which is why it was part of the Bill of Rights and not a suggestion to government.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    ...why do laws which infringe on 1A rights generally get strict scrutiny while 2A only gets intermediate scrutiny?

    Because FYTW. The fourth circuit recently upheld Maryland's ban of some 40 weapons on the basis that while it would not actually make life any safer, it would serve to make some citizens "feel" safer.

    In other words the judges do whatever the fuck they want to achieve their desired ends. This of course is all building toward a major Supreme Court case. I say time to bring it on, and if Ginsberg drops out anytime soon and we get another Gorsuch or Kavanaugh [or Amy Coney Barrett] in her place, so much the better.

    Meanwhile for those persons who choose to live in places like NY, NJ, CT, or MD, welcome to your new felon status because your State government has made you into an outlaw.

  • perlchpr||

    She went in for cancer surgery recently. She may not be around long.

  • BILKER||

    hope the other carpet munchers won't be either

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I don't expect a lot of bump stocks to be turned in, either.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Turning millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons is a feature, not a bug, I'm sure.

  • BadLib||

    I suspect that a confidential poll would reveal that there have been many tragic boating accidents recently in NJ where, inadvertently, LCMs fell overboard although it's probably still unclear what particular wave or wind pattern is causing this phenomena. These accidents are, however, truly tragic.

  • flyfishnevada||

    My dog ate my LCM...

  • Rorschach||

    It's inexplicable!

    Tragic: Every Single Bump Stock In Nation Suddenly Lost In Boating Accident

    In a rash of tragedies all across the United States, every single bump stock in the nation was tragically lost in various boating accidents earlier this week.
  • ||

    The main difference between a LCM and a magazine with a 10 round capacity but the same outer dimensions is how thick the follower is. And it takes less than 30 seconds to change them back and forth. A follower that is not attached to a magazine is not a regulated item.

  • perlchpr||

    Even if the law didn't require the modification be permanent (presumably by altering the mag body in some way), there's always "constructive possession".

    If you don't also already own a pistol legal AR-15 lower, do not acquire a pistol AR-15 upper if you own a full size AR-15, because possession of the short barrel upper and the rifle lower will count as "constructive possession" of a short barrel rifle without the proper tax stamp. Even if you never assemble them into that configuration, the fact that you could assemble them into a short barrel rifle will let the ATF fuck you.

  • flyfishnevada||

    "According to Crump's state police sources, "the plan that has been discussed among officers is only to file charges against people who are guilty of other crimes.""

    I'd be willing to assert that this was the plan all along. I'm not so naive to believe that some NJ politicians believed they could ban LCM's and actually make them disappear but this seems like something many knew would not come to pass. Instead, it's another charge...and one easy to prove...that could help prosecutors put malcontents in prison that are suspected of offenses that are less easy to prove in court. If those troublemakers also happen to vote a certain way, all the better.

  • Lawn Darts||

    Exactly. A system of arbitrary laws = tyranny. That's the goal.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's a standard technique for avoiding review when you know that you're enacting an unconstitutional law: Just never enforce it where you might create a good test case.

    That way they can keep it on the books until, they hope, Heller gets overturned, and then enforce it against everyone.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's a standard technique for avoiding review when you know that you're enacting an unconstitutional law: Just never enforce it where you might create a good test case.

    That way they can keep it on the books until, they hope, Heller gets overturned, and then enforce it against everyone.

  • jagjr||

    this is exactly how and why prosecutors stack charges, and why nonsense laws like this and 'lying to a federal official' exist.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Lying to the FBI is a felony.

    The FBI who tried to pressure Martin Luther King into suicide.

    The FBI who ran Rob Williams out of the country because he was more popular than MLK in some circles.

    The FBI who orchestrated the summary execution of Fred Hampton by Chicago PD.

    The FBI who had an informant riding with the KKK to the Greensboro Massacre.

    The FBI behind the sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    Lying to the FBI is a felony.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Laws enforced with a "wink and a nudge" undermine respect for law and order and do the dignity of the law no good.

    That is why one should always retain a local attorney familiar with the way local police, prosecutors, judges, and juries view the law, because law as enforced on the streets and in the courts, is seldom how the law is writ in black ink on white paper.

    The longer these "wink and nudge" laws stay on the books, some idiot is going to take them literally. A lot of the 19th century weapons laws fall into this category (selective, discretionary, arbitrary), and it was frustrating to read both the majority opinions and the dissenting opinions in Heller and McDonald treating them as literal.

  • SDN||

    "while others may not be aware that the products they legally purchased and have legally owned for years are now evidence of a felony."

    Forget the Second Amendment; this is a classic example of an ex post facto law. Unconstitutional on it's face.

  • Alan@.4||

    I do not live or reside in N.J., this being simply a point of information. That said, I wonder as to exactly how the governing apparatus of N.J. proposes or expects to actually enforce there newly enacted dictat. A brief history lesson might be appropriate at this point. Prohibition didn't work especially well, and while it might have been well meant, an assumption I'm unwilling to grant, the fact that it didin't work very well remains.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Malum prohibitum laws directed at things to not affect bad people who do bad acts that are malum in se.

    They do criminalize people who possess and use the prohibited things for harmless or benign purposes.

    And they promote black markets that may have active popular support.

    It's voodoo criminology. With lotsa unintended consequences.

  • MarkJ-||

    Traffic stop, burglary or fire at your home, many instances where this contraband might be discovered.

    As for the crying by police,, by definition no criminal will be following the law, that is no excuse. If LE needs that magazine capacity, then so do citizens.

  • Freebirds||

    So my wife, sons, and daughter are more important to me than a law passed by these anti American socialist pushing commies. If someone tries attacking anyone of my loved ones and my loved ones have a firearm, the last thing I want them to have to worry about is running out of ammo. The larger capacity the magazine the better. My family and friends reign higher than any law these anti gun thugs can pass. This confirms to me that these law makers care more about their agenda then they care for the innocent victims of those out doing the crimes.

  • BarkingSpider||

    Not only should people not go to NJ with their LCM's they should just choose not to go to that corrupt, Anti-American, liberal cesspool at all!

  • ||

    Now there's a golden opportunity... Don't like your neighbor? Drive to Pennsylvania, acquire a LCM legally, toss it into his yard. Call the cops. Hilarity ensues. Not so much for your neighbor though.

  • ||

    I said it before and will say it again: I would be in favor of the wall if part of it could be built around New Jersey.

  • ||

    The only "rights" liberals care about involve killing babies and busting inside another man's rear end.

  • ||

    It always amuses me how we make psuedo-cloaked inuendo about the cops, the judges, the law, the congress, etc, etc ,etc.

    Lets make it real clear.

    Government wants to be armed to whatever extent they wish, and the civilian populace disarmed and dependent.

    Your all saying that, just using more colorful language.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Is Bernard Kerik out of prison yet?

    I sense Fox News must have some sort of work-release program for right-wing felons.

  • IMissLiberty||

    This is another reason I hope libertarians are serving on juries every chance they get. We need to defend each others' rights.

    Just be aware that if you are on a three-strikes case (in California), the judge will hide that information from you, and a magazine could be the third strike with a minimum mandatory 25 year? Life? Sentence. How many people think having a magazine should result in life in prison? Ownership of something is non-violent. Manslaughter has a shorter sentence. Even if you don't think they should be legal, do you really think it's wise, fair, or economical to house someone in prison for the rest of their life because they own one?

  • IMissLiberty||

    I was excused from the jury pool for a case where nobody died. The charges were attempted murder and "being a felon in possession of a handgun." (The alleged victim was also armed.) What if the charges were "being a felon in possession of a handgun and a magazine" -- no "attempted murder" at all?

    It seemed like the evidence was sufficient, so I was wondering why the case made it to court instead of being negotiated, and then it hit me: it was a California three- strikes case, and the Man knew they didn't need to negotiate. The defendant was rolling the dice (exercising his right to a jury trial).

    I'm sorry they thanked and excused me (for saying "ignorance of the law is an excellent excuse, because nobody knows them all, and many of them don't make any sense"), now. It would have been interesting to see what the full circumstances were. I wish I had had a chance to ask the judge if it was a three strikes case -- and I would have been watching the defense attorney's face for the answer, because I'm pretty sure the judge would not have answered it. They like to keep jurors in the dark.

    Three strikes, itself, is unconstitutional: double-jeopardy and ex post facto. Prosecutors said (anonymously) when it passed that they were glad of the chance to punish people again for previous crimes, and for things they did in the past that now have harsher sentences.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The original theory behind "ignorance of the law is no excuse", was that the legislature was only outlawing things that anybody with a functioning conscience would know they shouldn't do anyway, (Murder, rape, assault, theft...) so you didn't have to know about the law to know you shouldn't be doing what violated it.

    But that was back when the legal system pretended to care about the difference between "malum in se", (Wrong in itself) and "malum prohibitum". (Wrong only because prohibited.)

  • IMissLiberty||

    My position as a juror would be that when the "law" passed, the State confiscated ownership of the now-illegal magazine, and that the possession of the item by the original owner was taken prior to the "law's" passage and can't be illegal retroactively (assuming it was a previously purchased magazine). Possession is 9/10ths of the law, so we know the State owns at least 10%, but since they control the legality of it 100%, I'd have no problem justifying a vote of "not guilty," on the original owner's part.

    The Feds are responsible for making commerce "regular" (i.e., frequent, common) between the states. I'm not sure how they would react to citizens of one state being forced to sell such things across state lines. If I were an Attorney General of a nearby state, I might sue New York for dumping. Such a mess. I'm sure there's a comedy here, somewhere.

  • ||

    So, unless a person is literally caught holding the magazine, how does the state know they own the magazine? Suppose I'm pulled over and the police see a 15 round magazine on the floor of the backseat of my car. Do I own it because it's in my car? How do they know it's not my wife's for example, Or a homeless through it in the window?

    What constitutes proof that I own the now illegal magazine, especially when one can be acquired for a trivial amount of cash completely anonymously?

  • Naaman Brown||

    I hear a lot of these police states have a presumptive possession of anything in a vehicle by everyone in the vehicle. And sometimes, I hear, even if one person claims the contraband (open beer, pot, whatever) they still press charges against everyone in the vehicle.

    My son and I target practice on family property on the mountain in Tennessee. I suspect there are empty .22 cases in odd corners of our vehicles. I find them in my vehicles when I do a thorough clean after doing thorough cleans. When my son planned a vacation that involved going to Canada thru New York, I urged that he lease a rental vehicle for the trip. Empty cartridge casings are treated as a criminal violation in NY.

  • jagjr||

    please stop playing into their doublespeak by using their terms. feel free to comment that the state of NJ refers to magazines capable of holding more than their arbitrary limit as "large capacity magazines". after that, you should refer to such magazines as 'standard magazines' if they are, in fact, the standard magazine for a given firearm. words matter, as Mr. Orwell pointed out so effectively - please use them correctly, and don't use doublespeak just because authoritarian regimes try to redefine terms to suit their agendas.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Worth rereading at least once a year: "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.
    New Years Eve seems appropriate.

  • Alan@.4||

    While I normally try to be law abiding, for the most part I accomplish my stated ends, in this case I do believe I would make an exceptation. As the Greeks were wont to offer Molon Labe. You want them, come get them, which might well be a loose translation. This law, even by the loose standards of New Jersey, is absolutely idiotic, and should be and I suspect will be largely ignored.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Anyone else reminded of the New York State law that you could have a 10 round magazine and load it with 10 rounds for use at a firing range, but if you kept it at home for self defense and loaded more than 7 rounds you were in criminal violation?

    These politicians are out of contact with reality and should be put under institutional care. I doubt tho' that even decades of therapy would be effective.

  • waypasthadenough||

    How much longer?

    Where are the genuine peoples' militias we need in every county to deal with this evil?

    All gun control is an act of war.

    Until we are prepared for the worst case scenario we are still losing.

    Don't be found in a pile of brass. Be found with your brass strung out behind you along an avenue of approach. That's how wars are won.

    My answer to 'Molon Labe': http://www.freekentucky.com/my.....olon-labe/
    Feel free to share, if you have the courage.

  • GryFalcon||

    In Dallas, we are prosecuting an off duty police officer Amber Guyger who walked into her neighbor's apartment and shot him dead. Perhaps if off duty police officers weren't wandering around with loaded guns, Botham Shem Jean might still be alive. The gun ban would not have helped him. Perhaps that's intentional.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online