Jump to content

samiam

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About samiam

  • Rank
    NJGF Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. JackDaWhack wrote: "I would predict that lawsuits won't happen. NJ will drag its feet, but they won't risk multimillion dollar civil suits to charge someone that will 100% win on appeal." You're seriously predicting that NJ will react from motivations of fiscal prudence? ROFLMAO! I do think that one of your implications is correct, however. Assuming the eventual SCOTUS ruling is favorable (highly probable) and broad enough to impact NJ law in our favor (I won't give you much better than 60/40 odds for that), I think that at least one person is going to need to get him or herself arrested for carrying in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling, but in violation of NJ law, then spend a ton of money on appeals in hopes of overturning the conviction. That must be done with OPM (firearms rights organizations) since that person is taking the risk of incarceration. No, I'm not volunteering, I'll leave first. That actually is my current plan, with the lack of 2A acknowledgement one of the main reasons. Should a favorable ruling actually result in reasonable carry rights being recognized in NJ, and a few other things change that are highly unlikely to do so, I might stay. I love the area (been here pretty much my entire septuagenarian life) , but I despise all of the politicians and an increasing majority of the residents.
  2. Unfortunately, the despicable a-holes weren't done yet: SCR69 Firearms ammunition, interstate transportation-Congress & President enact leg. https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/SCR69/2022 A2657 Firearm-police officer inquire during mental health check https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A2657/2022 A2433 Pretrial detention, charged w/firearm offense-establish rebuttable presumption https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A2433/2022 ACR106 Assault weapons ban-urge President and Congress to enact https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/ACR106/2022 SR53 States for Gun Safety Summit-support Govenor's call to reconvene https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/SR53/2022 Caveat: there were a smattering of pro-2A measures inttroduced by Republicans that I did not cite, but we all know those aren't going anywhere...
  3. It's b-a-a-a-a-c-k!!! All of the unconstitutional, gun-grabbing BS that died in the last legislative session has been introduced in the NJ Senate, including: -S1403 Assault weapons ban, State's-strengthens https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1403/2022 -S1416 Destructive device-revises definition include weapons of 50 caliber or greater https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1416/2022 -S1434 Gun free and weapon free zones-establish around school and public properties https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1434/2022 -S1462 Semi-automatic handguns-req. newly manufactured be micro-stamped; estab datebase https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1462/2022 -S1407 Pension & annuity funds-prohibit, companies selling assault firearms https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1407/2022 -S1432 Pretrial detention, charged w/firearm offense-establish rebuttable presumption https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1432/2022 -S1421 Rifle and shotgun ammunition sales-establishes a regulatory program https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1421/2022
  4. I have an account at legiscan.com set up to monitor for changes to A1280 & S103, and also to email me an alert re any NJ legislative activity that contains the term "firearms". I've seen nothing like what you mention. I just went directly to the site and did a search for "destructive device" which also came up empty. So there doesn't appear to be any new official actvity on 50 cal. Of course that doesn't mean the a-holes aren't discussing it. 50 cal owners are a very easy target - there aren't very many of us, and, unfortunately, there seem to be quite a few gun owners who are OK with the jerks nibbling around the edges of 2A, as long as their own particular personal ox doesn't get gored...
  5. I'm not sure part of my point hasn't been lost in discussion of bcc mechanics. That point was that I wouldn't expect a legislator to pay a great deal of attention to something that was an obvious form letter that took little effort to produce and send. Why should that rep think the sender would put any more effort into denying that rep office for a vote the sender opposes. I intend to send something very close to the following: Senator Michael L. Testa, Jr. Assemblyman Antwan R. McClellan Assemblyman Erik K. Simonsen As a resident of NJ District 1, I am one of your constituents. I would like you to know that I unequivocally support a plain reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; it means exactly what it says. I am very concerned with the recent gun control legislation proposed by Governor Phil Murphy. I believe that every item in that package clearly violates a plain reading of the Second Amendment. I urge you to oppose this initiative at every opportunity. I will be monitoring your efforts in this regard. I would never vote for anyone to represent me who does not fully support the Right to Keep and Bear Firearms. Thank you for your time. Specific legislators for the various NJ Districts may be easily identified at this site: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/legsearch.asp
  6. Assuming you had a handgun with a microstamped pin, and the stamping wore out, why would you voluntarily fix the "problem" by any means? If there has been some suggestion that NJSP are going to go around inspecting handguns to ensure that the stamp remains clear on the fired casing. If they seriously envision that working, they are even crazier than I thought.
  7. Frankly, I think it might be better if that list showed districts, so a NJ 2A supporter could identify him or herself as a constituent who might vote against the incumbent next time around. If I was a politician (I'd rather be dead) I'm pretty sure I would pay more attention to that than the "shotgun" approach apparently advocated by ANJRPC. I might even be inclined to dismiss an email addressed to all assemblymen and senators as obviously resulting from a boilerplate campaign that the sender was probably not all that committed to. At the very least, I suggest putting those addresses in the "bcc" rather than the "cc" field to make it less obvious. YMMV...
  8. The "come to the door" was an attention-getting device. They could fuck with me in other ways that don't require a search warrant. Just off the top of my head, since part of the package requires a transition to a digital, renewable NJ FID, and since there will probably be a fairly short time limit to get the new one, they could write the law so as to prevent renewal until all banned firearms on record are turned in (and if you think that any privacy restrictions on what they can and cannnot look at in regard to previous firearms sales will be honored, I've got a major bridge listed on CL I'd like you to buy). Hell, they potentially could suspend an owner's DL for noncompliance. I have a great deal of confidence in the sleazy, nefarious nature of politicians, I'm sure there are a number of other possibilities. Finally, how certain are you that they couldn't shop around for a 2A-hostile judge (that doesn't seem to be a scarce commodity here) and get that warrant?
  9. I think expanding the list of so-called "destructive devices" is at least as important. When is the last time that list was expanded? If this becomes standard practice, why wouldn't these ass-clowns just keep expanding it? The ammo paperwork burden is pretty damned important, too. Regarding the microstamping, maybe a manufacturer could add the stamp to existing handguns that are shipped back to them. Yeah, that would suck big-time, and is a flagrant 2A violation (not that these assholes give shit one about that) and wouldn't work if the manufacturer was no longer in business, but it could make the difference between being "allowed" to keep your handgun, or not. The "over-50" redefinition of "destructive device" is an outright ban on certain firearms, including one I happen to own.
  10. That festering fuckstick Masshole carpetbagger doesn't represent me in any way, shape, or form. Never has, never will, no matter what fecal lies he spews. Now I need to plan what my options will be for my Noreen ULR in 50 cal if this comes to pass. I have property in VA where I could take and leave it, but then what happens if NJ audits transaction records and comes to my door looking for it? The other option is to transfer it to a friend in a location where it remains legal and record that transaction in some official manner.
  11. He lost election primarily as a result of votes from the same constituency that supports 2A. How do you think the vindictive a-hole will react? NTM that he is, and has always been, nothing but a water-boy for the Norcrosses, and I seriously doubt there is any 2A support from that quarter.
  12. Looks like Grassley blocked it by declining to waive procedure to bring it to the floor. That type of waiver was once part of a protocol known as "senatorial courtesy", but I think that the current cultural wars have reached a stage where any such deference to the "other side" is misplaced.
  13. I had seen that stated elsewhere as the only requirement, I guess I didn't believe that anything involving firearms in PRNJ could involve so little paperwork. Probably only true because it has't yet come to the attention of the grabbers... Anyway, thanks to all who responded!
  14. I just received this notification via my Virginia Citizens Defense League subscription. I was unable to confirm a scheduled vote on the congress.gov site. Of course, if the objective is to sneak it through, that would make sense. The VCDL alert advises contacting VA senators to oppose, but here in PRNJ there is really no point to that. In fact, Chris Smith, and alleged Republican, is one of the House sponsors of this atrocity. Virginia Citizens Defense League Defending Your Right to Defend Yourself Urgent Action Item There is a push to pass Universal Background Checks without a recorded vote using something called “Unanimous Consent” in the U.S. Senate TODAY! Call both of our Senators and tell their aides you want the Senator to OPPOSE unanimous consent on H.R. 8. Press option #2 on both calls and leave the message with a staff member. Phone numbers: Mark Warner: 202-224-2023 (option 2) Tim Kaine: 202-224-4024 (option 2)
×
×
  • Create New...