Despite Dem’s Attempted Murphy Mag Fix, Law Still Bans Cops from Standard Gun Mags

By Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law

Governor Phil Murphy
NJ Governor Phil Murphy ~ “stupid is as stupid does”

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- New Jersey Cops were surprised to discover that under the Governor Murphy Mag Ban they too could not possess any magazine over ten rounds while off-duty. Usually, anti-gun Democrats exempt police from such laws meant to control the peasants. How did this happen?

It happened because of the legacy of the law created by New Jersey’s original 1990 Florio Mag Ban. Even though the Murphy Administration rushed to pass legislation to correct their political mistake and allow off-duty officers to possess magazines up to 17 rounds, this latest “fix” is still a legal fail.

Here is the timeline:

  1. May 1990 – The Florio Mag Ban is passed which prohibits “large capacity ammunition magazines” (15 round limit).
    1. Possession is banned under N.J.S. 2C:39-3 and
    2. Transport is banned under N.J.S. 2C:39-9.
    3. The “off-duty” issue/problem/flaw exists for both sections under Florio Mag Ban but is generally ignored because most handguns do not have magazines over 15 rounds.
  2. June 2018 – The Murphy Mag Ban was passed lowering the limit to 10 rounds.
    1. Possession is still banned under N.J.S. 2C:39-3 and
    2. Transport is still banned under N.J.S. 2C:39-9.
    3. The same “off-duty” issue/problem/flaw exists for both sections under the Murphy Mag Ban, but now the issue/problem/flaw can NOT be ignored because an overwhelming number of handguns have magazines over ten rounds.
  3. December 2018 – A “fix” was passed to allow off-duty cops to possess Murphy Mags up to 17 rounds while off-duty, BUT ONLY SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTING N.J.S. 2C:39-3j. The law fails to fix the legacy problem of transporting Murphy Mags under N.J.S. 2C:39-9.

Here are the current laws:

N.J.S. 2C:39-1 y. Definition.
“Large capacity ammunition magazine” means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm. (Author Note: This is the Murphy Mag Ban which simply changed the Florio Mag Ban legacy from 15 to 10.)

N.J.S. 2C:39-3 j. Possession Offense.
Any person who knowingly has in his possession a large capacity ammunition magazine is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree unless the person has registered an assault firearm pursuant to section 11 of P.L.1990, c.32 (C.2C:58-12) and the magazine is maintained and used in connection with participation in competitive shooting matches sanctioned by the Director of Civilian Marksmanship of the United States Department of the Army. (Author Note: This is the unchanged Florio Mag Ban legacy.)

N.J.S. 2C:39-3 g. Exceptions.
(1) (a) Nothing in subsection a., b., c., d., e., f., j. or k. of this section shall apply to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, or except as otherwise provided, to any law enforcement officer while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty, provided that his possession of the prohibited weapon or device has been duly authorized under the applicable laws, regulations or military or law enforcement orders. (Emphasis added) (Author Note: This is the unchanged Florio Mag Ban legacy exception.)

(b) Nothing in subsection j. of this section shall apply to a law enforcement officer who possesses and carries while off-duty a large capacity ammunition magazine capable of holding not more than 17 rounds of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic firearm. (Emphasis added) (Author Note: This is part one of the Murphy Mag Ban fix for only N.J.S. 39-3j.)

(c) Notwithstanding subparagraph (b) of this paragraph, subsection j. of this section shall not apply to a law enforcement officer who possesses and carries while off-duty a large capacity ammunition magazine capable of holding more than 17 rounds of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic firearm provided the large capacity ammunition magazine is used with a service firearm issued to the officer by the officer’s employer for use in the officer’s official duties. (Emphasis added) (Author Note: This is the part two of Murphy Mag Ban fix for only N.J.S. 39-3j. .)

N.J.S. 2C:39-9 h. Transportation Offense.
Large capacity ammunition magazines. Any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, transports, ships, sells or disposes of a large capacity ammunition magazine which is intended to be used for any purpose other than for authorized military or law enforcement purposes by duly authorized military or law enforcement personnel is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. (Emphasis added) (Author Note: This is the Florio Mag Ban legacy prohibition and exception for N.J.S. 39-9h.)

SUMMARY

The N.J.S. 2C:39-9 h. Florio Mag Ban still requires that law enforcement who transport Murphy Mags be “duly authorized” AND have them for “duly authorized” law enforcement purposes. The Murphy Mag Ban “fix” fails to fix this.

Additionally, off-duty cops possessing Murphy Mags must be “duly authorized” AND have Murphy Mags only for “duly authorized” law enforcement purposes to lawfully transport them. Without such authorization, cops cannot lawfully transport their Murphy Mags without being in violation of N.J.S. 2C:39-9 h.

P.S. The N.J.S. 2C:39-9 h. legacy Florio Mag Ban also applies to “retired” cops as they, too, were only exempted for N.J.S. 2C:39-3j. and not for N.J.S. 2C:39-9h. under the Murphy Mag Ban.

 


Evan Nappen
Evan Nappen

About Evan Nappen:

Evan Nappen (www.EvanNappen.com) is a criminal defense attorney who has focused on New Jersey firearms and weapons law for over 23 years. He is the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Visit his website at www.EvanNappen.com

28
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
19 Comment threads
9 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
25 Comment authors
TheHolyCrowJames RutterMack The KnifeMrockNoMoreMarxistsInDC Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

@Kelly… It’s the stress from the job that does it to them. When you have armed gangs always gunning for you, it will eventually affect you. Everyday they are on the job is like being in a war zone. Those are the same armed gangs that the gungrabbers want the law abiding people to be subservient to. The gangs will not limit their mags to 10 rounds, will not turn in their bump stocks, will not get background checks, and are constantly on the lookout for full auto weapons to buy. These gun grabbers are putting all cops and citizens… Read more »

Mrock
Guest
Mrock

Just stay out of the co.mie gun co trol states, NY, NJ. ILLINOIS, MARYLAND. COMMIEFORNIA…

NoMoreMarxistsInDC
Guest
NoMoreMarxistsInDC

I thought the Second Amendment applied to the States under McDonald v. Chicago. If that’s the case, how is it that the NJ State legislature is allowed to incrementally infringe on the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?????? Any infringement on the ammunition and number of rounds per magazine is an INFRINGEMENT on the Second Amendment.

Arnold wright
Guest
Arnold wright

If Chicago were to send police officers there for some emergency, they would not be able to carry any firearms at all. The Chicago police department does not issue firearms to their officers. They have to purchase them from a dealer outside of the city. There are no store selling firearms in the city.

KUETSA
Guest
KUETSA

So why is a retired cop any less expendable than any other law abiding citizen. I’m very sick of the new progressive version of the Second Amendment being about THE RIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, ACTIVE AND RETIRED, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I could live in Red China for that scenario – and it is THE EXACT SCENARIO THEY ARE BRINGING US TO INCREMENTALLY. A ten round limit would put the life of a retired law enforcement official IN DANGER!!! But it’s OK for me to die attempting to defend my family in a home… Read more »

Mack The Knife
Guest
Mack The Knife

Right on! Your the second person other than my self that sees the big picture. I was yelling at the TV when Bernie Kerik was whining about police rights while stomping on citizens rights. What a dufis! Call it the “Police Carve Out.” In the first place, police, a position of government, carry firearms as a privilege of the job authorized and regulated by said government. Their position has nothing to do with the 2A and their fight is with their union and state lawmakers that determine police gun handling policy. Being a cop has absolutely nothing what so ever… Read more »

TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

I thought good old Bernie, the one who told Juliano at the press conference, that there were no bombs in the 2 Towers, had been convicted of a felony. If that is true, then he shouldn’t be able to own or carry any guns under the present law. BTW, as of April 2018, there has been a SPECIAL FEDERAL GRAND JURY investigating the bombs in Towers 1 and 2, and also Bldg. Seven, which came straight down at 5:20pm that day. The Grand Jury was convened subsequent to a 50+ page complaint submitted to the Third District Court of NY… Read more »

James Rutter
Guest
James Rutter

No carve outs for any govt employees at all. Police, congress, state legislatures, etc

Tim
Guest
Tim

Many police agencies have regulations requiring their officers to he armed when off duty.

Charles
Guest
Charles

That’s why there are places I don’t go to in this country.

circle8
Guest
circle8

Nobody ever said a NJ politician had brains but most if not all are corrupt.

Douglas G
Guest
Douglas G

Umm, and just how many off duty cops are going to be affected/arrested for violation of any of these sections?
Exactly Zero!
So, the point of this article has no basis in the real world, it’s only academic. Thanks for pointing it out.

Klh
Guest
Klh

You would be incorrect. Before Bush passed the national carry law for law enforcement, New York City would lock up off duty New Jersey officers for CCW all the time.

Douglas Gerber
Guest
Douglas Gerber

Umm, and just how many off duty cops are going to be affected/arrested for violation of any of these sections?
Exactly Zero!
So, the point of this article has no basis in the real world, it’s only academic. Thanks for pointing it out.

McTaylor
Guest
McTaylor

Honestly, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn’t that “cops aren’t properly excepted”; the problem is that there’s a limit and ban in the first place, for ANYONE. If cops are to be excepted, on duty or off, then EVERYONE should. I’m sick of one set of laws for them, and another for us. I’m also sick of fascist politicians abridging my human and civil rights as it pleases them.

Herb T
Guest
Herb T

In many places on-duty cops do not give off-duty cops speeding tickets – by simply ignoring the law. Ta Daaa! Murphy mag problem fixed.

Chris Mallory
Guest
Chris Mallory

Doesn’t go far enough. All cops should be disarmed. Citizens should have firearms, not government employees.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@CM, I don’t know, brother, there are an awful lot of gang members out there. And, I suppose, there are many city, state, and federal politicians that have turned police into their private armed gangs. Hey, maybe corrupt Rights robbing politicians equate to criminal gangs? We need another George Washington, who is willing and able to kill big, return to the Constitution, and do a reset of elitist judicial decisions.

John
Guest
John

There are police agencies which allow their officers to carry concealed while off duty – it would seem these officers would then be “duly authorized” (if ever subject to these same style draconian laws) to be in possession of and transport the larger capacity magazines – maybe a simple fix for NJ agencies, allow (authorize) their officers to carry off duty.

Tim
Guest
Tim

Some Regulations require them to be armed.

Rusty Shackelford
Guest
Rusty Shackelford

Good. Why should police be exempt if the proms have to comply? Maybe more officers will start standing by their oaths when they realize they aren’t exempt from these draconian anti-civilian laws. I don’t see an issue. In fact, if NJ thinks mags over 10 rounds are such an issue, on duty officers should have to comply and carry neutered mags as well. Maybe we as the gun community need to get vocal about this aspect and tell the politicians that they cannot create exemptions if they want to pass ridiculous laws like these. Cops, security guards, politicians nobody is… Read more »

Joseph P Martin
Guest
Joseph P Martin

LOL! They’ll likely change or amend the law when they can sneak it in late at night when they can avoid the obvious embarrassment from this fiasco.

Missouri Born
Guest
Missouri Born

What’s next, limiting the amount of loaded magazines one can have on their person when in possession of a firearm?

Adam
Guest
Adam

In a word YES

Gerry
Guest
Gerry

I think they fully realize what they did here. Politicians most certainly do NOT trust the police any more than they trust anyone else. They merely tolerate the cops,only because they need them to carry out their dirty work. I spent over 3 decades in law enforcement – ask me how I know this!

Walter A Ripoll
Guest
Walter A Ripoll

Gerry, how do you know?

Dfetd
Guest
Dfetd

I have no problem with this. If people, not in law enforcement, are barred from having magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds then LEO’s not on the job or retired should be subject to the same laws. In CA, LEO’s should only be allowed to use guns on the approved list. Their shouldn’t be exceptions involving people’s rights.

Kelly Rasset
Guest
Kelly Rasset

Best response there!
LEO and retired are no better and often worse than a respectable man with a firearm. Many LEO have control and temper issues. We have three locals that have been canned/ reprimanded due to domestic assaults lately.