raz-0

Like three years now. Can't moot it if you attach monetary damages. Have you ever taken a day off to go pick up a gun during business hours and had NICS screw you? Sounds like monetary damages to me.

How'd you get glocks in 1978 when they were introduced in 1982. And that's if you were working with the austrian army. As for OP's problem, I'd look at cartrtidge overall length vs. mag length/depth. My guess is the tip of the cartridge is dragging, and this is not a problem with FMJ, but is with the polymer filled tip. Normally I'd be with you that it's a mag problem, but given the current state of the ammo industry, QC issues are much more likely, so I wouldn't rule out ammo issues as well.

It's likely a shitty comp, but a comp. Advertised as a comp, and uses vertical jetting of gasses when the bullet obturates the bore. IT also has no real features that would reduce muzzle flash. That doesn't mean some schmuck with a badge won't go by the pinky test. Probably a bigger issue is if that is for a rifle, make sure it is steel, because pin and weld and silver solder will potentially be problematic with aluminum.

Hmm that is the most believable denial ever!! /s

That is incorrect. FOPA protects someone passing through a state. At the origin and destination state, you are bound by state laws. But if you are moving, you are in theory traveling from one residence to another residence. Which is exempted in NJ. Alternately, if you don't like that, pick a range near the new place and if you do manage to get pulled over in NJ, that's where you are going.

I remember being able to get a 1200 round case of S&B for $99 shipped. But that was like 1999.

The answer is going to be specific to the particular ammo, and require more info on what you are talking about about "flaking". Seldom is the jacket of an actually jacketed round pure copper, but rather an alloy. For some ammo, the jacket is actually brass. Typically a brass alloy identical to the case material. For those that specify, they usually refer to this as gilding metal jackets. If the manufacturer can manufacture both cases and jackets from the base stock (usually metal ribbon where they punch planchets out of it), it reduces cost due to economies of scale (i.e. they can negotiate better prices when they buy more). These will not flake. Montana gold bullets are a good example of this. Also sometimes RMR bullets uses gilding metal. Then you have plated lead bullets. These will look like copper because they are copper. The chemical plating process requires copper. In general these won't flake, but can under certain circumstances. Then you have plated steel jackets. This is a soft mild steel plated with something that resembles gilding metal. S&B has skus like this. I haven't used them and have no idea if they flake. But all the examples I know of are cheaper eastern european ammo, so ZSR would be a candidate for them. They often tend to use steel cases that have been plated to look like brass. Which brings us back to the flaking. Do you have pics? Because it is not uncommon for there to be brass dust in the fouling on a gun with any brass cased ammo. It comes from the action of feeding a round and the minor scraping that occurs on the cartridge. But it tends to look like someone took a file to brass, not flakes, with the naked eye. I'd take a magnet to the cartridge, both projectile and case, and pick up some of the casings after use to see if the plating is scraped off.

I figured that's what you were trying to do. Maybe ask the modern materiel guys. They started off as FFLs doing firearm finishes as a side project from automotive coatings. The shop was in Keyport though, not up north. If they can't hook you up directly, they probably know what your options are.

Ask any of the places in NJ that do firearm finishing? Media blasting is usually part of the prep.

Both. I think it will be edited down to try and paint the gop in as negative a light as possible while ignoring the dnc people involved.

It's not your finger, it's foreign objects that are largely the concern. Like this thing on my jacket.

Yeah if you want to see the potential hazard you'd need to see it from behind. It varies with light/gun combo and how each holster is made. They don't expose the triger visually, but effectively leave a tunnel on each side that things can get in. The gap is pretty significant with some holsters for some gun/light combos.

The big concern that is showing up broadly these days are holsters meant for guns with lights installed. Mostly because they leave a significant gap around the trigger guard to clear the lights, but things can get in those gaps. The toggles on coat cinches are trying to kill you.

You focus too much on the breathalyzer because it is well known. Alcohol isn't thee only drug, and DUIs have been handed out for those other drugs. The roadside tests DO hold more clout than you think they do in court. Mainly because their primary measure is impairment. The mechanisms used to measure impairment tend to be impacted across many types of drugs. https://nida.nih.gov/international/abstracts/validity-standardized-field-sobriety-test-in-detecting-drug-impairment Typically when not dealing with alcohol, step two after the roadside test is to call in a trained officer to do an assessment for what substance they are impaired with. The issue with weed and driving in NJ is mostly a problem created by the state in that they forbid officers from investigating further based on the most likely cues that the driver or passengers may be impaired from marijuana.

On optics. 1) Louu likes sfp, but his statement isn't true that nobody uses FFP. There are people rocking FFP in the top half. I can't fathom where he's getting the notion that one is faster or slower than the other. As typically with either, you are picking your maginification for the stage and either sticking with it, or smacking it to full power at some point. Or the opposite, picking your power and then smacking it to 1x for the up close stuff. I mean I KNOW there are people who finish real high up there nationally and were rocking S&B short dots, and those are FFP. But that bein said, FFP and SFP are really like 3rd or 4th in priority. A reticle you can aim with in bright daylight, and a forgiving eye box are king here. Which is why the vortex razor gen 2 HD is still so dominant. It has a daylight visible dot and a probably the best combo of glass and eyebox and power out there for under $3000. It being good is probably why you don't see FFP taking more of the top slots. Related, almost everyone I have seen get the vortex 1-10 has sold it on. It's too much magnification for the game really, and brings other negatives with it to get it. IMO, there's really only two consistent optics to get. The vortex mentioned above, or the trijicon 1-8x credo. The trijicon is FFP, a bit more magnification, a decent eye box, and probably most significantly goes on some sick sales. Like $900. 2) Shotgun. Shotgun is a reloading game right up until you get faster at reloads. spend your money on shell holders and learn to load quads. Once you can load quads you'll definitely need a semi auto. But at most matches, your slow reloads will outweigh the delta between having a pump and a semi. When you go semi, the inertia guns rule, and it's for a reason. I don't miss gas gun problems one bit. 3) ditching the m9. You can shoot anything, especially if you are slow. However, there is small advantage to a striker fired gun with no external safety when it comes to not screwing yourself when putting your pistol in a dump bucket. Slide mounted external safeties are the worst on that spectrum. It is not a huge thing though. Like generally half a second on a stage unless that one more thing toe remember is just too much for you brain. The 320 has more options to make it just right for you with a good trigger. I will add to louu's suggestion to shoot what you got. I'd check out shotshell caddies at your first match and buy once cry once. Like I have about $850 in a stoeger m3k, and about $500 in caddies. About $900 in caddies if you include my attempts to be cheap about it.

Oh they bring in outside counsel a lot, the question is if they cna while invoking these methods of intervention. IF they can, I will bet that this is a move by the consortium of gun grabber lawyers.

Do they have the right to hire counsel? Or is this basically self representation? Because if it's the latter, this ought to be funny.

The problem with that is NY is the one who does the asking. Both historically and from NY's perspective of the national power dynamic. Fundamentally they believe it is all about the whims of CA and NY, period. NY being worse from a political and judicial perspective. That's why they are always trying to make an end run around FTC and SEC behavior. CA pushes media influence and EPA/FDA end runs.

Assuming it is just reusing the last one, it's CA style for rifles. NJ assualt pistol definition but add threaded muzzle as a forbidden feature. An assault shotgun that is not logically parseable, but is an attempt tpo take the NJ version and add in any detachable magazine is a nono. Add in bumpstocks as their own forbidden assault weapon.

Maybe, but outside of Thomas, I don't know that there's the will to review every gun related statute out there. I wouldn't be so sure of that. At least for TROs and PIs, there's nothing to lose and fill up the docket and make angry noises about the shadow docket to gin up pretense for threatening them with court packing and such. For actual litigation though, they risk getting Bruen++ at worst, and nationwide binding precedent at a minimum. Which SOP is to ask the circuit states to fall on their sword and take one for the team.

NY did it at SCOTUS.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think this is going to be good news in the 2nd circuit. When you are willing to abuse the legal system to get away with as much as you can, you don't accept "you're screwed" and give up. You drag it out. You bundle things up like this to try something novel and shitty to see how much you can get away with before being told you can't do that again. I suspect they are also hoping that some of it wills tick because SCOTUS will make good on not wanting to review every single case of the lower courts. But I could be wrong.

My read is the state is pretty taking it that they will come out on the losing end in the PI, and are trying to break it up into separate hearing for separate parts to drag it out. Unless they are stupid, they do not expect the 3rd circuit to be as accommodating as the second, and the second just got warned really hard. I suspect (and I would be shocked if they didn't as well), that SCOTUS won't differentiate between the 2nd circuit ignoring their warning and the third circuit ignoring their warning. So even if the 3rd carries water for them, they will run right into Alito looking to fuck them up bad like. So yeah, it's clearly a delaying tactic to some degree. If they get it it buys them time, and possibly a small victory they can attribute to their strategy if any of the bill remains intact. But I'm not buying the goal being to maximize their ability to say "we did what we could". I wouldn't put big money on it, but I think we are in for the newest grabber tactic that can only be done in places like NJ where it is essentially a one party system with no way out in the near future. I suspect the next dirty trick we will see is a constant flow of new legislation to moot existing cases hoping to leverage bias in district and circuit courts to avoid being penalized for it and dragging that out as long as possible.

OK, if we are getting pedantic, neither district courts nor circuit courts, nor scotus make decisions on state laws. They make decision on federal law and state laws in so much as they violate federal regulations, the constitution, etc. Case in point, their eminent domain decision that said clearly that as long as there is due process and compensation compliant with the taking clause, it's a state law issue. If it is GENUINELY state law, then the STATE supreme courts are the last word. District, Circuit, and SCOTUS are all just arbiters of that. SCOTUS being the ultimate arbiter of that. So "gatekeeping" isn't well defined. You may be using it differently than I am. But what is a matter of state law is ultimately decided by the plaintiff giving up, or SCOTUS. That's it. That is how I am using the term gatekeeping. They ultimately decide what passes through that barrier of being a federal matter or a state matter. The district and circuit are there to weed out the obvious shit, and when they do that properly, SCOTUS effectively just rubber stamps it and tells the plaintiff to pound sand.