Posted: 12/6/2006 6:06:09 AM EDT
| Does anyone have the link to the ruling where the NJ AWB's "substantially identical" part was overrulled? I cant find it, but would like to print a copy or two to put in my range bag in case I ever have to show it to a LEO or Range officer who isnt up on all the firearm laws about the legality of what im shooting. It would be a good thing to have tacked as well. |
These? Substantially Identical Colt Match Target / Springfield M1A |
| That is the only two documents I have ever seen. He may be talking about the court case that Nappen won a few years back where the Judge ruled in favor of his client owning a MAK90 AK clone. After that ruling is when I noticed many clone semi-auto rifles for sale in NJ. |
|
I found this part interesting: IV. Purpose and Effect of these Guidelines In enforcing this law, prosecutors and police should remember that an assault firearms offense requires proof that the defendant knows he or she possesses an assault firearm, e.g., that the defendant knows that the firearm is "substantially identical" to one of the named assault weapons. These guidelines should be followed by all county prosecutors and all law enforcement officers in this State so that the State's assault firearms laws will be uniformly enforced throughout the State. |
What is also interesting is that "substantially identical" only applies to firearms on the list. Everytime a new designed firearm comes out, i.e. FS2000, PS90, etc., it is not considered an "assault weapon". 
|
| I have read (somewhere, but I don't recall off-hand) that NJ DAs have been instructed to interperet the "substantialy identical" clause to be applied to "any firearm which has features that are designed to change the essence of the firearm itself into an assault weapon" then it gives a list, the same as the sunset AWB. By that definition, I would think the NJ DAs would interperet an FS2000, say, as an assault weapon, even though it's not on the list, if it has a flash-hider and other "evil" features. I'm not an expert, but that's what I gather by reading how they were told to "apply" the statute to guns that aren't on the list. |
That would make sense but I think the law was written to keep us guessing. |
Join the club Luger, hell I couldnt eve get a straight answer from the firearms branch on a question, and i was calling as an LEO. Anyway, the law was designed to define what an "Assault Weapon is FIRST..(ie. the evil features), THEN list the "Substatially Identical" firearms, so New firearms ARE covered, if they fall under the definitions of "Assault Weapon". Unfortunately I see the Legislature going to a California-style ban before too long, reducing things to One "Evil Feature" as opposed to two. |
I would have to agree as I see it as only a matter of time. 
|