Jump to content

samiam

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by samiam

  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)
  15. I'm sure this question has been asked and answered here before, but I had no luck searching for it. I own a Mossberg 12 ga pump that has never been fired, that I want to give to my grown son for Christmas. He does not live in the same household, but does have a NJ FID card. What paperwork do we need to complete to make him the legal owner of the gun under NJ law? Do we need to involve a FFL dealer? I did find some information about transfer of handguns in NJ on a nj.gov site, but nothing on long guns. Thanks. SAM
  16. As an ex IBM midrange computer pro, I'm compelled to reply that you may have picked a bad example there IBM Systems 36 and 38 were, and are, intrinsically more secure than any lowest-bidder machine designed to run software from Microsoft, Apple or Google. Just the fact that the machine character set is EBCDIC rather than ASCII poses a challenge for a prospective hacker. Unfortunately, I'm certain that NJ has compromised that by tying those back-end systems to a huge net of Windows and Android cloud clients that haven't a shred of real security protection, so the security and control advantages of the hardware/firmware architecture will have been totally wasted.
  17. Again, that would depend very much on the breadth and scope of the ruling. As I understand the case, it isn't merely about NY State's "justifiable need" statutary requirement, but about the fact that the requirement is deliberately interpreted (or misinterpreted) so as to deny the right to carry to pretty much everyone. A ruling could be tailored to only the way NYS interprets and applies the regulation. It could entirely overturn the regulation itself. It could go even further, and broadly affirm the right of every citizen to what has been called "Consitutional Carry" by some: the presumed right of every citizen to carry concealed (or even openly) without first going through the formality of obtaining *any* permission from the state (restrictions on felons and mentally ill probably pemitted). That last option is what *should* happen - it is the only one that comports with a plain reading of the Second Amendment, but I'm not overly optimistic that the Court will be so ambititious as to rip out that large a chunk out of current state practices in a single bite. All of those variiables bear on what the response of NJ, or any other state that wishes to continue to restrict firearms rights, might be.
  18. Sounds like NJ is administratively and procedurally AFU. What a huge surprise! Unfortunately, there is very little chance that the resolution of this clusterf, er, apparent conflict, will be to your benefit, or ours...
  19. To my mind, there is little question that the court majority will hold with NY Rifle & Pistol Association and against NY State. The question to me is of how narrowly or broadly the decision will be tailored. The scope could range from something that overturns only some relatively small detail of the NY law as enforced (so that it affects only NYS, and in a way that is easily remedied by NYS without permitting any effective expansion of carry rights), to a wide open affirmation of the plain reading of the Second Amendment that would throw over all manner of infringing firearms regulations, including those not specific to concealed carry, everwhere in the US. I'm a bit skeptical that the latter hope will be fulfilled, as much as I would like to see it (i'm pretty certain that Roberts, at least, would dissent from such an opinion), but I'm reasonably optimistic that the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a handgun under most circumstances, without first shouldering a huge burden of paperwork or qualification, will be affirmed. I'd settle for that. Certainly, some states will attempt to buy time after such a decision by waiting to be sued themselves, and/or trying legistative end-arounds, but a favorable SCOTUS decision of wider than the narrowest possible scope will ultimately doom those efforts. I think that a lot of people fail to understand what the job of the courts entails. It is not (except in certain limited kinds of civil damage suits) to decide "right and wrong"; but to determine if certain specific behavior violates the law, as intended and written. In the case of appeals courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) the job is twofold: to determine whether a decision was rendered correctly according to the law cited in a case, and, if that is true, to determine whether that particular law, or regulation, or application of legalistic authority, conflicts with another law that takes precedence; the US Constitution occupying the highest rung on that ladder. As far as the commenter whot expressed "hope" that we wouldn't be "sorry for what we got", I'm not sure what that means. Even in what I view as the very unlikely event that a SCOTUS majority would hold that the NY State's broad denials are constitutional, I don't see that, in practical terms, things would be any worse for most of us. Maybe if a red state changed to blue in 2022 and the new legistators decided to take advantage of such a ruling for cover in trashing existing carry rights in that state, a case could be made that the ruling paved the way and produced negative results, but in NJ, NY, MD, DC (etcetera) there would be little or no practical change. If that poster is so mistrutful of others (and of his or her own self-defense capabilities) as to be afraid of a decision allowing broad-based carry rights, I don't know why he or she would be on this board in the first place.
  20. Just FWIW, the domain of the page linked to from one post in the "thefiringline.com" thread, "reloadbench.com", is identified by my browser security tools (ublock origin/Easylist) as a possible malware host. Possibly that site went belly-up sometime in the years since that page was published and the domain was secured after that by one or another nefarious squatter. Unfortunately that is not uncommon. Could be a false positive, but I don't choose to find out the hard way YMMV
  21. Good stuff. About to read the thread linked in the first reply, but an obvious follow-up question does occur to me - if it's covered there feel free to critcize :) Does anyone use silica gel packets or any similar moisture absorbent in their powder or primer storage containers? Any reason not to do so? What about the "golden rod" type heating elements? My (not fireproof) gun cabinet came with one of those installed and it seems to do a pretty good job.
  22. Can anyone point me to a resource that discusses safe powder and primer storage, as well as safe reloading, in terms of temperature and humidity conditions? I want to look into getting started, but I live in an old Victorian house with no A/C, and I'm somewhat concerned about excessive temps in Summer, and low humidity electrostatic discharge in Winter. I know that reloading long predates the prevalence of A/C, but I'm wondering if modern materials and practices assume stable climate control. Thanks. SAM
  23. voyager9 wrote: "...While they are right, that the Supremacy Clause means states cannot nullify federal law..." That is only correct wrt Federal law that does not itself contravene the Constitution. Article VI, clause 2 states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." I bolded what I believe is the key qualification in this case. The Constitution includes ratified Amendments, including the Second. Even if Missouri is contravening Federal law in this instance, it is unclear and highly debatable whether the Federal law in question was made "in Pursuance thereof".
  24. I feel a huge sense of gratitude to Mitch McConnell for preventing that festering f***stick Garland from getting Supreme Court confirmation. While Garland can and will manage to screw some things up for gun owners as AG for four years, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the damage he would have inflicted from a lifetime perch on the SCOTUS bench...
×
×
  • Create New...