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.

1/1024th talyor ham +1023/1024 Pork Roll= porkrollhontus

Henry will take car of him because where the failure occurred is a place where lever guns with tube magazines can have a lot of issues. As I stated in a previous explanation, if the barrel got out of spec when being machined, which can happen for a number of reasons, It could have been building up lead there until it effectively turned into a partial obstruction. Could be a QC issue, could be a bad batch of steel. The cost of a barrel replacement will be small vs knowing what kind of problem they have. Even if it is an end user problem.

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?

Phew...for a second there I thought you had flipped sides.

???? Do you mean band together?

Only the hicks from down south call it pork roll! Taylor Ham FTW!

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

Are you really so daft as to not know that neither side wanted these cases brought up until one side was assured it would go their way?

no doubt in my mind actually think about what 2 kids in Boston did to the entire city and eastern MA. think about what 1 cop did to several counties worth of LE in souther cal think about what the dc shooter did and the resources needed now imagine groups of gun owners getting together, coordinating, etc etc. If you think LE will risk their lives to stop that in the face of a growing resistance and more gun owners joining the fray, I've got a bridge to sell you...lol contract, time to retirement is what matters most now. any organized resistance or movement would put such a strain on the gov't that it could cause it's collapse

What article are you reading? At no point does he argue 300 million gun owners. He points out there are about 250 million adults in the us and the at least number for how many guns per capita are in circulation. The biggest number he poses as actual resistance is the veteran population at about 20 million. I'd argue that the scenario is very wrong as a whole, but more on that at the end. The estimates are that the number of gun owners in the US are 100 million. The number that owns semi-automatic rifles is smaller than that. The only ownership stat he gins up is that to get all the semi-autos, you would have to raid 9 million households. This is based on his estimate of number of semi-auto guns out there (which is probably conservative for the reason he states), and his math of netting 3 prohibited guns per raid. Which Is a number that may be high or low. I really can't say. LOTS of people tend to own way more than one semi auto rifle. On the other hand, how good would the data mining be to target things successfully? My guess is that the number of raids would have to be much higher because you would have WAY less than 100% accuracy on semi auto ownership. This is where I think a whole bunch of people stop thinking rationally, and the author's nod to the IRA is apt, and it becomes important to keep in mind that the number of raids is seriously, seriously optimistic. His math is a bit off. Doing some rounding to whole numbers, it's really 869 raids per team, and thus 869 raids per officer to hit that optimistic number. Assuming no attrition, casualties, etc. There's ~100 million gun owners. The question is how many of them do you get? There's also another ~200 million non gun owners. the question is what will they put up with before they see the government as a problem? Because the reality is you are likely going to have to kick down WAY more than 9 million doors to get them all. Even at 9 million, that's basically one in every 13 homes. And that is if they ONLY ban semi auto rifles and things work out beyond optimistically. Realistically, even with high quality data mining, face to face sales, 80% receivers, etc will mean going to a number of households larger than that, AND so far the stupidity seems to want to include semi auto pistols. So... WAY. WAYYYYY more households than that. But lets be kind and say double it. That means kicking in the door of about 1 in 5 households. That will generate opinions amongst the populace. And he already suggested how it would be organized. It'll be the guys you know and trust. You ahve a handful of buddies you have known forever? One of them jsut got capped by a SWAT team last weekend and you are getting together after the funeral for a drink and really pissed off? Maybe you get to talking about how some fuckers need to pay? How many more people when they hear rumors of things that sound like they might be talking about you will give you a ring to let you know something might be happening but without putting any real skin in the game? This is how it happens at the very least. More organized than that? Look at how many gangs we have in the US. They have their own governing documents and rules and such. They are arguably competing forms of government in some locations. As a concept, the havock the IRA caused was with WAY less guns and with a peak of at best about 5000 active trouble makers. A lot more sympathetic ears and people willing to be low commitment on the fringe, but 5000 really problematic ones. I do think he is optimistic about the retribution on the ruling class. I suspect it would look much more like enough cops get killed that the cops collect their pay checks while knowing the cops just don't go into that part of town for anything real. I don't totally disagree with you. I have said before and I will say again that all politicians are scum. they don't care about anything but gathering power and influence and not wanting to work to retain it. If a ban ever did come about, there would be NO intention of enforcing it thoroughly. Just like there has been zero attempt made to really enforce ANY gun control law to date thoroughly outside of already regulated entities. Whenever something happens, nothing effective is suggested to prevent crime. What is suggested is something that would make it harder to mint new gun owners and to stifle the existing social structures of gun owners. Why? Because to the mind of a politician they see it as destroying a voting block that opposes them FOREVER. They will likely remain opposed, but opposed and unorganized and to diffuse into other voting blocks. They don't do anything about the crime because crime creates fear, and fear can be used to gather votes. Enforcement will be arbitrary and periodic so they can keep the former gon owning voting block afraid to stand up on the subject, and keep the anti-gun voting block intact and in fear of the evil criminal gun owners. Because if you actually solved the "problem" of gun owners, the anti-gunners could vote for whoever now. If you actually fixed the criminal problem, your voters who want law and order out of fear could go vote based on other priorities. The only real point of conversations like this are to point out how people are being lied to, and how those who give a crap need to focus on the other strategies and put some effort into them. IMO the real hazard for CW2.0 surrounding guns is that we DO get a half assed ban, and some politician thinks because they said it is so, it is truly so. And decides to do something else incredibly stupid that lets them find out how many guns they didn't actually confiscate.

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? ;-)

afaik, Roberts' opinions have always been originalist, pro 2A.

Yes, you need the o-ring on the extractor. It’s an upgrade to improve extraction reliability. Gas rings require no special tools to remove or install. Just (carefully) use your fingers.

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.

You are correct, I read something about that myself. Although he may be looking for an exit under Trump, I still hope he sticks around for the upcoming cases!!

I don't think that's an issue. To my experience most leading is close to the chamber or forcing cone where pressure is the highest. Thats not a lot of crap at the muzzle. It shows up better on stainless.

I would love to know if the owner used lead ammo and never cleaned the gun.

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

That barrel failure was most likely a bore obstruction of some sort. That's the only way a barrel would fail like that. A manufacturing defect is less likely. Most often I've seen that happen with muzzles that were poked on the mud and then fired. Squibs do happen. How often depends on the quality of the ammuniton. I've fired a lot of factory, commercial reloads, and my own reloads over my time. I've had exactly one squib. That was with a factory load in a M1 Carbine. I figure it had to happen sometime.

Only those who voted for Murphy We forgive you. If you live in Northern NJ AKA Suburbs of NYC then its Tayor ham.

The winch cable on my jeep would reach no problem. But I'll just enjoy watching the bear, I have no plans to hunt one.

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