New Jersey Bill to Limit Magazines to 5 rounds or less.

Roaming East said:
does a cyclinder count as a magazine? how about tubulars like on lever actions?
Click to expand...
In Canada, only semi-auto rifles are limited to 5 rounds, handguns can hold up to 10 rounds. Non-restricted rifles and shotguns aren't limited by legislation unless they're specifically named in an Order in Council; in which case, they likely aren't non-restricted anyways. That said, most bolt, pump and lever actions are generally capacity limited by design anyways.
 
Five rounds or less? Is this a fucking joke?
 
The worst part of living in New Jersey is that you can only kill yourself once.
 
Trotsky said:
You don't know what you're talking about.
There is no jurisprudence that suggests that the simple "right to keep and bear arms" keeps the state from setting any limitations on the scope of arms owned.

That's why automatic weapons, grenades, and bazookas were constitutionally banned by states from private ownership, genius.

Also, I've written legal articles defending the right to own firearm against arbitrary and capricious restrictions, which of course afflict black citizens, but the gun community could give fuck all about the people that gun laws were originally designed to disarm. It goes to show how reactionary, obtuse, and non-ideological the 2nd amendment folks really are, that they don't care and altogether support the disarming of nonviolent felons.

But I don't often talk about it, because people will then reflexively lump me in with reductive absolutist dolts like you and your kin. Also, your unqualified condescension makes you look like an idiot, no matter how typical it is for you.
Click to expand...


Holy shit. Pretend much? See any post below for proof.
 
I guess this is why this topic isn't debated on here very much on here. @Trotsky wasn't really saying much against the 2A, but wow he got beat up in here.
 
Good. 5 is plenty. If you're so paranoid about intruders, just keep two guns ready at all times.
 
Exception said:
Holy shit. The Supreme Court has ruled on exactly that subject, multiple times. Quit pretending to pass the bar and be real.

You are of the least educated (forget attornies) posters on this site. You once claimed that eye witness testimony was equivalent to forensic evidence.

In short: you're an idiot. Quit pretending you're educated, we know you're not.
Click to expand...

You have not actually disagreed with anything I have said.

@Greoric, if this is what you tag me in getting "beat up," then you're every bit as rational as the above poster.
 
oleDirtyBast4rd said:
So the very first cartridge firing handgun produced in our great country would have a larger ammo capacity then a legal AR15? Progressive?
Click to expand...

Both invented well after the second amendment if I am not wrong.
 
Trotsky said:
You have not actually disagreed with anything I have said.

@Greoric, if this is what you tag me in getting "beat up," then you're every bit as rational as the above poster.
Click to expand...

I wasn't using "beat up" as in you were necessarily losing any "argument". Although, yeah, you have some significant rebuttals to deal with.
 
Greoric said:
I wasn't using "beat up" as in you were necessarily losing any "argument". Although, yeah, you have some significant rebuttals to deal with.
Click to expand...

What do I need to rebut?

Do you disagree that federal laws exist to limit access to automatic weapons and that states have passed more stringent regulatory frameworks to monitor and prevent their circulation?

As passive as I may be on the subject, even per @Exception, us "attornies" have to know the basics.

Also, firearm regulations supersedes even contraceptive rights when it comes to low-information posters flailing about wildly and angrily, as evidenced by Exception's ad hom rant. I merely say that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute in language of "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which it factually isn't, and this man child flies off the handle.
 
Trotsky said:
What do I need to rebut?

Do you disagree that federal laws exist to limit access to automatic weapons and that states have passed more stringent regulatory frameworks to monitor and prevent their circulation?

As passive as I may be on the subject, even per @Exception, us "attornies" have to know the basics.

Also, firearm regulations supersedes even contraceptive rights when it comes to low-information posters flailing about wildly and angrily, as evidenced by Exception's ad hom rant. I merely say that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute in language of "keep and bear arms," which it factually isn't, and this man child flies off the handle.
Click to expand...

There isn't doubt that they exist. There is doubt that they are constitutional, however. To the extent that a bunch of politically appointed people in black robe dress up say otherwise is meaningless when you consider that the 2A is potentially counter to their seats of power.
 
HIMBOB said:
What's the reason for different rulings on rim Fire vs centre fire?
Click to expand...
Because we don't have "bikies" shooting up the country with chopped 22s.

Don't worry, we managed to elect an ex-ski instructor as the Prime Minister, I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before we join you on the short bus.
 
Jersey should change their law so we can have many more deaths by gun which is really just allowing our citizens more Freedomz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,843
Messages
55,520,644
Members
174,808
Latest member
luciusaugustus

Share this page

Back
Top