EdF

The court ruled, basically, that the government can't extend existing law by exploiting previous "ambiguously written" law. In this case, the DOJ tried to extend the ban on machine guns by reclassifying anything with a bump stock as machine gun. I have no interest in bump stocks . . . But, a win is a win.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-against-bump-stock-ban?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Yes . . . EVERYONE has to get signatures on a ballot petition. Incumbents included.

As advised, start the expungement now. Don't wait for the denial. I would recommend having the record expunged even if you are granted the FID or if you weren't even interested in buying guns. There are a hundred other reasons to clear your record.

I didn't say that it would avoid either of those things. The fact that the slide is easier to pull back MAY help with your nails but you have most of the same issues if you get skin between two pieces of moving metal!

Not from anything that I know. I had to pay the six bucks shortly after I applied.

This morning I received notice that my electronic permits are available. I applied online the afternoon of 3/11 and I can buy a gun today, 3/27. Sixteen days here in Cherry Hill . . .

Yep . . . If you don't like the thumb safety, it can be removed but it can't be added to the non-safety version.

It doesn't meet the 10 round portion of your request (but there may be some extended magazines, I'm not sure), I bought a S&W M&P 2.0 Shield EZ 9mm for my girlfriend to shoot. She has two messed up fingers on her left hand and had trouble pulling the slide on other guns. This one works great for her. The two that you mention are great guns even if I am more partial to the Sig.

Pick up a few basic tools if you don't already have them. A set of punches will come in handy for many small jobs. Watch a few videos and do it yourself. Don't expect to do it was quickly. Be careful with springs and such that might pop out and get lost. If you get stuck, come here and ask for help.

I'm sure that you hit it on the head. As noted, I only read the first half last night but they provide a history lesson that they SAY is on British Common Law and they note that, over and over again, kings from 14th century on, issued orders that prevented no-one but the military and royal guards could go about their everyday business while armed. They were talking about swords, armor and long knives primarily. Well of course, the king wanted the commoners unarmed. The king ruled by divine right and could be unseated by arms almost exclusively. The king feared the people. In our country, in theory, the right to rule, to the extent that there is one, is derived from the people. The founders KNEW that the king feared the people because he didn't answer to them. They knew that this wasn't what they wanted in the new country and they made that clear in the Second Amendment. Additionally, the court extends their discussion to the fact that many states continued the prohibition to carrying arms until well AFTER the Constitution was ratified. But, they also point out that, initially, the Constitution was not considered to limit the powers of the states until after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Due Process clause was enacted, Constitutional restrictions extended to the states. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, there were still several states with "state religions". The Establishment Clause was included to ensure that the new federal government would not infringe on the states, already established, religions. If the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition of state religion to the states, it extends the Second Amendment protections in the same way. If it does not extend the limitations of the Second Amendment, it does not extend the limitations of the First. It should also be noted, that this ruling affirms a prior Ninth Circuit ruling. This isn't new law. As you read the decision, it is clear that the court expects this to be decided at some point by the justices sitting in D.C.

That's a lot of writin' . . . I worked through the first 150 pages or so without taking notes. I appears that they make a good argument but actually fall short with a pretty big miss. In analyzing British Common Law they seem to complete miss the fact that the founders, while accepting Common Law in many places, specifically wished to escape the rule of the King, or any other king. The King's edicts about who could do what, when and where, was a large part of British rule that was rebelled against. I'm thinking about printing this and pulling it apart but I'm about as busy as I can get right now.

As many of you know, I'm running for NJ State Assembly. This week I'm rounding out my petition to get on the ballot. This needs to be completed by April 5. I would like to have signatures from all 15 towns in District 6. It's not a requirement but my personal goal. Signatures should be from registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters. If this is you and you live in one of the towns listed below, please reach out and I will find a way to get your signature. Feel free to share this. Thank you all . . . The following towns are in District 6: Berlin Township, Cherry Hill, Collingswood, Gibbsboro, Haddon, Haddonfield, Hi-Nella, Maple Shade, Merchantville, Oaklyn, Pennsauken, Somerdale, Stratford, Tavistock, Voorhees

Did you already have an FID card or did you apply for both at the same time?

No bids . . . And, there are others of this card for as little as $11.00!\ https://www.ebay.com/itm/224354848006?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-222657-2056-0&mkcid=2&itemid=224354848006&targetid=947684745753&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9003834&poi=&campaignid=10963195170&mkgroupid=104448792221&rlsatarget=pla-947684745753&abcId=9300416&merchantid=345817482&gclid=CjwKCAjwgOGCBhAlEiwA7FUXkp_Mi_r3BU741Vuc0RcMKiXjIl1eStgqY3zXhMv3DB_d9TXBAN8GfxoCk3UQAvD_BwE

I don't know where you are located so I can't recommend anywhere specific. But, I can tell you two things . . . The bottom fell out of the card market and the miscut is a big negative as to value. I have an extensive collection from the early 70's but haven't been active in a long time. Most of my contacts are gone.

Yes . . . As I understand it, NICS takes five to about thirty minutes. In NJ, the request first goes to the State Police who, when they get around to it, send it to NICS and then they take their time reviewing the returned information before notifying your FFL that you are approved.

For the first 56 years of my life, I declined invitations to join friends who were going get inked. My response was, "I still haven't found anything that I'm willing to commit to for the rest of my life." Then I got two small ones, one on each upper arm. I have an appointment now for my third. There is zero danger of my wanting to have any removed.

What was he trying to sell you?

Just below the WTS and WTB forums is one called NJGF-List . . . You can list it there.

This is EXACTLY what I said in my first post in this thread . . . The only person who committed a crime in the story was the one who ordered and received the kit.

My point was a little different. I was responding to you comment about police entrapment. I seriously doubt that this was the only purchase. This came to the AG's attention through other means: Advertisements reporting that the kits were "legal" without noting that they are not legal everywhere and, most likely, other sales.

That's irrelevant to the point . . . And, they didn't "ensnare" the company. The company was already advertising and selling the guns to NJ residents. Not really . . . As I understand the PA case, the kits were purchased legally in PA and they are legal to own and build but you can't sell the gun built from the kit because there's no serial number. Also, at least some of those who bought kits were prohibited from owning firearms due to prior 1. Well . . . yes . . . 2. I'm sure but there should have all sorts of assistance in that litigation.

OK . . . I'm note a lawyer but as I understand it, the Constitution grants the federal government and the federal government alone the capability to regulate interstate commerce. Federal law allows for these kits to be manufactured, bought, sold and shipped. NJ law makes them illegal to receive or possess. It seems to me that the only person committing a crime in this scenario was the person who ordered and took possession of the kit. Why is the state's AG hassling out of state businesses who have no presence in the state and have done nothing illegal?

You didn't have to delete it! I was taking the whole thing tongue in cheek . . . I'm not that sensitive or I wouldn't be doing this!