Leaderboard

If SCOTUS decides to hear the case I honestly believe NJ's "justifiable need" will go down in flames. There is no way the court can cite this kind of restriction based on constitutional law. Its a pure fabrication and should be ruled as such. We shall see...

Well, well, well. The Supremes Just woke up NJ -High Court Considers Taking ANJRPC Appeal February 19, 2019. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court required the State of New Jersey to file a brief in response to ANJRPC's petition asking the High Court to hear its challenge to NJ's carry laws. Under the Supreme Court’s order, the State of New Jersey is required to file papers by March 21, arguing why the High Court should not agree to hear ANJRPC's appeal. NJ had previously ignored the appeal. https://www.anjrpc.org/page/SupremeCtRequiresNJFileResponseinCarryAppeal

NJ may be in for a surprise, they have been so restrictive with their scheme to limit carry that it just may backfire on them.

Personally I don't think Supreme Court Justices give two craps what politicians think of their rulings. I believe the only reason a carry case hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet is because of Kennedy. They just took the NY case on travel restrictions, this could be the time to settle the nonsense happening in lower courts in terms of the level of scrutiny that courts can apply and whether the assertion that some of the lower courts have made around the 2nd amendment only being applicable in the home, thus carry restrictions that outright ban carry in any form do not infringe on the core right. Which is an abomination of reading Heller. Fingers crossed.

for starters it’s their job. If they want to be activist let them get jobs in the murphy administration, the pay is good and no heavy lifting

That is true, but it seems the longer these fucks sit on those benches the dumber they get.

sometimes this place feels like farcebook. the fact is that most of us here love dogs. there's no argument there. we all know now that this guy wasn't the innocent he painted himself to be originally. it appears as if his dogs have in the past had issues with attacking people and animals. there is a pattern there. the neighbor shot this dog apparently to protect his livestock. shot it what? 4 or 5 times? few shots in the legs? some of you seem to feel that he did the leg shots deliberate. yet...... we all keep talking how ridiculous it is to expect a cop to shoot a perp in the leg 'cause small fast moving target. and some of you think that he aimed for the dogs legs. i'd venture that the guy just wasn't a good shot. no one wants to see a dog shot. the neighbor did what he felt was necessary. if the shitty owner hadn't been shitty, this poor dog would still be alive. that's pretty much what it comes down to.

That's not necessarily playing politics. It's making a pragmatic decision, which is often the exact opposite of playing politics. What is with you always thinking some random comment "proves" your point? Since I know you are going to ask, I will provide an example of "playing" politics. Chuckie Schumer's complete reversal on border security now that Trump is in power is a most blatant example.

It is Pork Roll (note the capitalization). If you prefer Case or Trenton over the Taylor brand, do you still call it Taylor Ham? Do you then call it Trenton Ham or Case Ham? I think not, that would be silly. Ham, a delicious product in and of itself, is an existing cut of meat, codified as to it’s source by regulations. Pork Roll most certainly does not meet that definition. If I ordered a ham sandwich and received Pork Roll, I would be quite put out - well, at least until I tasted it and discovered the deliciousness that is Pork Roll. But, that is neither here nor there. What is important is the following: It is Pork Roll. Taylor’s Pork Roll is acceptable. Taylor Ham is not. That is all.

That's probably exactly the way it went down. Whatever happened was not a massive event. It was just enough to crack the barrel at it's weakest point, but not enough to cause a big blowout. i.e. a marginal event. I do agree, that it's a little weird he didn't notice until he went to clean the gun.

This gun likely wasn’t shot for years, and from cleaning, I’d say it had quite a few .22 Shorts through it. Amount of lead I pulled out was unreal. My father didn’t remember the gun from his childhood (one of four boys), but likely one uncle picked it up, and then was taken by another uncle after his death. Probably at least from 1997 until around 2002, this was underneath a bed... until my father found it when cleaning out my uncle’s bedroom after he died (second one who died). Was 14 at the time, so when we got it home, I cleaned the barrel, wiped it down, and it went in my father’s safe for 17 years. Had a shotgun I was looking to get rid of, so got that and another gun in trade from my father. The rifle was not something I’d want to shoot in the state I got it. I though the magazine tube was welded to the barrel... due to grime in the gap. Fought me most of the way, but once I got the magazine rings off the barrel... I knew I was good to go. While it isn’t that great looking, definitely a lot better than it was... It is a Winchester 62 in .22 Short... but little oddity with how it is setup. Serial number puts the receiver as a Model 1906, which was the second model off the original 1890 Browning design. Winchester did put together a few of these as “cleanup guns” prior to World War II, but the serial number is a little low for that time. Works out to being produced in June of 1931. Yet, Model 62s weren’t started until spring of 1932. Barrel does not look to be a replacement from the proof marks. It also has a 62A bolt, as the firing pin stop is held in by pins... earlier design used screws for that. But unlike most Gallery Guns, this one matches both halves with the serial number. Can’t wait to take it to the range, as the barrel looks great. I’m thinking an almost 88 year old gun would be a nice addition to my collection. But with the family ties to it, I really just want to keep it around to teach my children (when I have some) on it... as well as pass it down to them.

That's because it has been a 5-4 spilt and Kennedy a huge concern. Many have argued that the reason Heller didn't go further was because that was the only way to get Kennedy on board. This is why they didn't take any cases. They just granted cert in the case you quote because the there is a lot more certainty that they will have 5.

Lets all ban together and hope and pray the Supremes take it, then we fight later. I will host the event and participate! Ant

I do as well. He is a slam dunk I believe if this type of case reaches the bench. He wrote a dissent when the supreme court didn't grant certiorari in Silvester v Becerra. Dissent is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf Albeit this wasn't a carry case it does show where his mind is on the 2nd amendment.

I think TheTeZ Is a man

We’ll have to see. if they do their job all NJ 2A cases should be a slam dunk for reversal but if Roberts goes the way of an Obama appointee & activist then that could be a problem. But again, if they do their jobs its a good case and 2A should prevail. Either way I’m thankful for the efforts of ANJRPC and Mr C from GFH to come this far.

The o-rings can be had at Home Depot and Lowes for pennies. Got to the plumbing dept and buy a pack of #60 o-rings

Whether a Squib or bad workmanship the hardest part of this story is he noticed it when he got home. It's a HENRY RIFLE meaning it does not have a side loading gate, meaning it has to be loaded where the damage is just seems odd after the alleged last shot it was put away and taken home. Sorry just an observation not an argument starer.

You'd really have to shoot a lot of crappy lead bullets to get high pressure issues with conventional rifling. Polygonal rifling doesn't take that much. There's not much lead 357 ammo out there. Most of it is pretty mild. If he was shooting lead 38s they wouldn't be fast enough to create leading issues. My money is still on a squib or other bore obstruction. No other reason for a barrel to fail by the muzzle.

Watch out for Zeke, hes not quite right in the head.

The court had not asked for a response until today. Respondents are not in contempt as they filed a waiver indicating they would not respond unless requested to do so. State is looking to extend this out as long as they can though I don’t really think they bought any time here because even if the court would have granted cert this Thursday in conference the case wouldn’t have been heard until the fall anyway. Can see the docket history here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html

Road trip

This one started life as a Colt Match Target 6400. The rifle resides on the ranch in Texas, and has now been ‘de-banned’, with a real collapsible stock. ALG ACT trigger. The upper was worked over by Ken Ellison at SAW as the Colt/SAW 6944-SE and has his 14.5-16 package on it. OAL barrel length with the flash suppressor is 16.045”. It also has his reliability package on the upper and BCG. Optic is a TA-31RCO M4 ACOG on a Larue Mount. Magpul sling. http://www.specializedarmament.com/14-five-16-barrel I sighted it in today, it’s lovely!

I will delightfully swim in the tidal wave of irony if the most anti-gun governor and attorney general in NJ’s recent history are forced to recognize the right to carry.

Got this email today. https://www.anjrpc.org/page/SupremeCtRequiresNJFileResponseinCarryAppeal?fbclid=IwAR16fMMtsRjfwwZbrkfI47FK5IQkHHonpu63NUCrMCyDFqqgERJ-OA6r4qc

So you think there is no political divide and they can't be considered "republican or democrat jurists"? That their political leaning has no affect on their rulings? ..."Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach. These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate. “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html So, there's no chance her political beliefs have any bearing on her decisions? More from that link: ...." It was a credit to the eight-member court that it deadlocked only four times, she said, given the ideological divide between its liberal and conservative wings, both with four members. " That sounds a little bit different than "philosophical". It certainly sounds that way, doesn't it?

Jurist Constitutional philosophy difers greatly from “ they scared”.

Not in the sense that Sniper was referring to. There is a divide that sits within SCOTUS not on "politics" as the media likes to say i.e. republican jurists and democratic jurists but rather a philosophical difference. That difference is whether you strictly interpret the constitution as the founders understood it when it was written i.e. "textualism" or whether you can interpret it however you want based on what ever you think the American people want but clearly didn't vote on. If you want to call that politics within the court I'll give you that. Sniper was implying that jurists might not weigh in on an issue because they won't like Congress' reaction and I disagree with that. I believe they with held granting cert because of stare decisis in contrary to their philosophical beliefs and unfortunately there were not enough firm "textualists" to get it through.

Ugh. Fat fingers yes BAND.

???? Do you mean band together?

I'm Warning you guys, don't mess with my girl!

As am American i understand that while not all laws are just but they are laws... To change the laws you must push our elected officials to right those wrongs. Its ok that you want to continue to live a lie..... Elizabeth warren spent her entire life thinking she was an Indian.... She turned out just fine

Ignore the naysayers... the critics... the unwashed knuckle-dragging heathens who mindlessly cling to their generic, pale, lumpish and misnamed "pork roll" (they know who they are...). You, young man, are clearly intelligent and discerning. You're obviously a proud and rebellious truth-teller who boldly marches to the beat of your own drummer... no doubt, while dining on a delicious Taylor Ham, Egg & Cheese sandwich. I salute you, Sir!

Well that's no way to treat a new member, that's some pretty mean stuff right there. But I understand, when you realize your wrong, you gotta just pass the blame, and discredit the other side. It's all your side has. I mean, does anyone ACTUALLY think its pork roll? ;-)

Yes, I always pay the Use Tax, and send in another check with a big extra contribution to make sure I'm paying 'my fair share'.

Well if we are going to wargame - his numbers - well they are lopsided IMO- but I do not 100% disagree. His war game is akin to the stories that Kurt Schlicter poses and that is when the US Military becomes involved. He assumes, incorrectly that we can field 300 Million gun owners to resist, that is fools math. Best case scenario (and these are not hard numbers) I see 100Million gun owners in this nation that own the VAST majority of the firearms (I read this stat somewhere) Now lets say that we take the number of a quarter that are willing to fight and die preserving their freedoms, ok 25 Million. How many are trained and not just cannon fodder - ok another 25% - 6.25million Are they organized? Where are they located? Can they form up? What happens when the media labels them domestic terrorists? What happen when the rank and file population that has no stomach for CW2.0 turns on them? etc etc etc. For this to be successful - there has to be those that are willing to lay down their lives and fight in such large numbers that storming the state house in Trenton is not out of the realm of possibility or any of the state houses across the nation etc. War gaming is interesting and great for fiction that Rawles likes to write - not so out of the realm of possibility - but fiction nonetheless. There was a guy out hear that said some of what I am about to post - I saw his old posts - he was right: " What they cannot do Federally they will do and achieve at the state level " " This is a generational war that is being fought for the hearts and minds of the children " " The battles we are losing today are the lack of planning 30 years ago " " The battle being fought against the 2A is like the war against big tobacco " He is right - They death of the 2A will not come in confiscations, door kickers etc. it will come by the death of generational warfare that the others are winning and soon the youth will have nothing more to do with guns AND freedom.

ALL of nj's laws should go down in flames if this or any case from here is heard...…..

That's not "an" example. That's ELELEVEN examples!

Im thinking the dovetail interference fit was too tight causing the barrel to crack, stainless steel is brittle so this could happen very easy.

There are "gun owners" and "gun people."

regardless of the reason .. I still can't get past how something like this happens and the gun gets put away with it being being noticed. Seems to stick out like a sore thumb to me.

My ballot arrived in the mail today. Bullet voted for Anthony(#2 on my ballot) and Tom King. Will be mailed back first thing in the morning.

My complex is close but it's a senior assisted living complex. If I get you in they may not let you out!

Pretty sure I'm going to work from home - If you need a place to crash overnight, Rosey, Let me know. I'm so close to the venue

For those who dont know what a Squib is... Here's an example I'm boxing it and shipping it... That's my job since i sold it to him.. If it were a transfer then he would be doing this

I like this guy already.

Thanks to Shane for my “in” to the world of KAC. also, my LWRC.