Legislative Alerts and Rallies
Post upcoming Legislative Alerts and Rallies in this section. No discussion permitted, other than about the actual events.
173 topics in this forum
-
- 2 replies
- 877 views
-
-
- 9 replies
- 305 views
-
- 6 replies
- 869 views
-
- 3 replies
- 469 views
-
- 4 replies
- 517 views
-
- 3 replies
- 492 views
-
- 3 replies
- 745 views
-
- 0 replies
- 689 views
-
- 17 replies
- 2,129 views
-
- 3 replies
- 1,353 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1,342 views
-
- 54 replies
- 8,970 views
-
- 13 replies
- 2,415 views
-
- 9 replies
- 1,965 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1,765 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1,201 views
-
- 4 replies
- 1,867 views
-
- 3 replies
- 1,655 views
-
- 6 replies
- 1,724 views
-
- 110 replies
- 8,821 views
-
- 9 replies
- 1,804 views
-
- 5 replies
- 2,174 views
-
- 18 replies
- 2,728 views
-
- 1 reply
- 1,566 views
-
- 13 replies
- 2,160 views
_svg.thumb.png.5bf40279cd77b07b84ec154c352c3c80.png)
-
Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items
-
Topics
-
-
-
Supporting Vendors
-
-
Posts
-
By Cheflife15 · Posted
Unfortunately, Lots of things are unconstitutional. With that said, respectfully, I'm happier knowing a guy who can't hit a target more than a couple feet away isn't blasting away next to my wife and kid. Part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing how to handle the gun you carry. There is nothing keeping you from shooting the current gun you have with better profiency. Dry fire, take a class, practice. That should be your focus. -
By Frank Thomas · Posted
Under Bruen, the US Supreme Court ruled any gun law has to be ". . . consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." Being an expert shooter with a tiny handgun or requiring liability insurance or banning carry in your car or at the public park, all may have some benefit, but all have no "historical tradition." So unless the Supreme Court reads " high level of proficiency," in the 2nd Amendment, it's really unconstitutional to require such a test, imho. It's a good idea to shoot accurately. But it's not Constitutional and will be rejected by the US Supreme Court at some point, imho -
By Malice4you · Posted
Seeing how they want you to provide proof your gun is yours for a NJ carry permit, there's one. And I just read about one of the other dumbass states, I believe Illinois or Cali, recently tried to pass some BS requiring proof of ownership (prior to enactment of said BS) within 4 days, or they could sieze and/or destroy the gun(s). I don't recall specifics, but found the link somewhere on this forum. -
Plenty of people think the government shouldn't be requiring it. However, you won't find many arguing against having, and maintaining, a high level of proficiency with the weapon you'll be carrying. -
By Frank Thomas · Posted
In the Army, the distance to qualify with a M16 rifle was about 100 meters vs only 25 or 30m for a 9mm weapon. Why? Because the smaller the gun, the harder it is to hit a target. In any event, I'm going to try qualifying with both weapons and will probably only qualify with the Taurus .38 revolver. I also think this requirement is Unconstitutional and will eventually be ruled as such
-
-
