Jump to content

raz-0

Members
  • Content Count

    4,959
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6
  • Feedback

    100%

Posts posted by raz-0


  1. On 2/24/2023 at 11:30 AM, Scorpio64 said:

    I believe you would be protected by FOPA when transporting interstate where the final destination is outside NJ.

    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. 

     

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1

  2. 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. 

     

    • Like 1

  3. 2 minutes ago, dman2112 said:

    Thats not what I need.  I called them and they only do sand blasting because they are all duracoat shops.  As I mentioned I need GLASS beading a stainless frame to a satin finish.  No top coat will be applied.  I am DLC coating the slide, but that I can ship without hassle.  I want to keep the frame local.  I doubt anyone in NJ had that in the firarms space but maybe in the classic car space?  I just need someone to glass bead a frame

    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. 


  4. 3 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

    My Kydex holsters for G19 and light do not have clearance for your finger to get into the trigger guard. 
    Re-holstering would be a concern, but that’s a concern with any holster really…

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

    image.png.49d61a63b1aa4f48aa62d46c46b07fcc.png

    • Agree 1

  5. 6 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

    I don't carry with a light on my pistol, but I took a look online and most of the kydex holsters seemed to cover the trigger pretty well.  It's not totally flush like the non-light ones, but I'm not sure what could get in there.  Like this:

    1796977834_2-7-202311-15-10AM.png.d8ab563cc14c95b4b95e9cff878b88fd.png

     

    Is that the gap you're talking about, or is it a different type of holster?

    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. 

    • Like 1

  6. On 1/3/2023 at 2:21 PM, Mr.Stu said:

    It depends on the gun and the holster.

    Putting the gun into the holster has far more potential for a mishap because if the trigger is obstructed for any reason (coat toggle, fold of shirt, collapsed holster, incorrectly placed finger, etc.) the motion of the gun will cause the trigger to move towards the backstrap and the gun will fire. This is why you should always 'look' the gun into the holster - to make sure there are no obstructions before you start.

    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. 

     


  7. 15 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

    Sorry, but that's not what I'm seeing... I'm seeing that, yes, Col. has a "bodily limit" above which you can be "charged" with DUI (though I'm seeing 5 nanograms btw?), but it remains controversial because THC is metabolized much, much differently than alcohol, and there doesn't seem to be much direct relationship at all between THC levels in the blood and actual impairment. To complicate things more, for frequent users, much higher levels of THC than that bodily limit can last (yes, even in the blood) for DAYS even if they haven't done the drug in that time. So, although the blood test is one more piece of info a prosecutor can use, it's not the same kind of slam-dunk that an alcohol blood test is. So, apparently, they are still relying MORE on field sobriety tests in court... and researchers continue to search for a better test that would be as accurate as the alcohol blood tests.

    The entire situation makes these cases VERY difficult to prosecute apparently. If I were a defense attorney and my client was charged with DUI, I'd have a FIELD DAY with this situation! 

    If you have better info, pls send links... I have ZERO medical/legal expertise, so I'm merely relaying what I'm reading. I am always happy to learn something new!

    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. 


  8. 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. 

     

     


  9. 6 minutes ago, dilbert1967 said:

    Wow!  If they have the right to hire counsel "contractors", we might as well abolish the Attorney General's Office.  There  are dozens of Deputy Attorney Generals, in salary grades 1 through 4, that do everything from preparing for cases (grade 1) to fetching coffee for the grade 1 (salary grade 4).

    We could save a lot of money........

    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. 


  10. 11 hours ago, Spartiati said:

    Couldn’t agree more.  There’s only so much people can take.  The AG office knows this is not defendable and are tired of looking like morons in court.  So instead the state will take unlimited tax payer money hire outside counsel who are trained to say anything for money.

    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. 


  11. 40 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

    I think NY will wind up falling upon its sword so that SCOTUS doesn’t give Bruen+++

    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. 

     

     

    • Agree 1

  12. 5 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

    Anyone have a link to this new bill? Is their definition of 'assault weapon' any different?

    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. 

    • Thanks 1

  13. 10 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

    Maybe. Maybe not. I think Thomas and Alito would love for this to come to them. Based on Bruen, they would shred this, and add kill bullshit laws like this nationwide. 
     

    Maybe, but outside of Thomas, I don't know that there's the will to review every gun related statute out there. 

     

    8 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

    I'm thinking that none of the "Anti" states are going to want to appeal to SCOTUS if things don't go their way in the circuits.  So if we get "Pro-2A" decisions in the circuit courts, that will likely be the end of the line for the anti states.

    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. 

     


  14. 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. 


  15. 31 minutes ago, DAHL said:

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506033/gov.uscourts.njd.506033.46.0.pdf

    I don't know what this all means but can guess that it presents a request by the state for a long drawn out delay process. It seems to have to do with a preliminary injunction.. The way I read it the state wants to keep things going until they get in front of an activist left wing judge.  Any legal minds reading this?

    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. 

     


  16. 38 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

    The entire point of district courts is to serve at the state level. SCOTUS serves to rule over the entire country. So to speak that makes districts courts the gatekeepers of state law. 

    It takes two really bad decisions to make it to SCOTUS. Many times(way more often then not), SCOTUS or even circuits decline to hear appeals ruled on by districts over state law. With regard, SCOTUS decides on less than 3% of laws challenged at the state level. 

    Your points are all valid and I agree with them. I dont see how they planned on getting emergency relief with arguments that would require to set precedent and did not rely upon it.

    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. 

     


  17. 20 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

    The same reason they did it last time. 

    Alito looks at this as "skipping the line". SCOTUS is NOT the gate keeper of state laws, District courts and Circuit Courts should both have formal rulings prior to SCOTUS spending time on the issue.

    The only time I see SCOTUS taking on these kinds of requests if it's a federal law in question. 

    SCOTUS is 100% the gatekeeper of state laws when they violate civil rights. They are also the gatekeeper of errors of law at lower courts. That is in fact their job. But that does not mean they decide how the courts work in terms of process, and it does not mean that being denied a a TRO or injunction is a misapplication of the judicial process. 

    This particular suit has a lot of issues. At least from the bits I've read, and temper my opinion with the fact that I haven't been watching the wrangling on this one, so I may be missing a lot of stuff. 

    So first up is the question of standing. Standing, unfortunately, requires harm. In the case of civil rights stuff, the fact the law is clearly harmful often isn't sufficient, you have to actually step up and be harmed in most cases. TROs and injunctions do tend to deal more with unavoidable harm, but you still have to demonstrate that you will be harmed, not that you might be. 

    So first up, like half the arguments are that you can't regulate us like this because 2A. I doubt the court is going to see that the state does not have great leeway in regulating the operation of a business. If regulations are going to get canned over the 2nd, it's going be because they infringe the rights of an individual in the end. 

    An example of a shit claim in the case: NYS can't require a POC implementation of NICS. NICS is a federal law and very clearly allows for a POC implementation. That would be a totally different suit and I'm not sure why it is even here. 

    A more ambiguous claim in the case: They are creating a registry and the 2A and 4A says you can't. Well, is there actual case law on this. There are opinions, and legislation around said opinions, but not case law. It's a valid challenge, but do the FFLs have standing? Have they been harmed? More importantly is that harm irreparable? A registry can be destroyed, and if actually destroyed, the harm it does is gone.  You are not likely to win a case with the argument that the people running the registry are scumbags and can't be trusted to work that way. 

    A different ambiguous claim: That the laws will put them out of business due to cost. While one can argue that unlike the other amendments, the 2nd really does kind of require commerce, so things that effectively forbid a commerce in arms can be infringing. The suit claims that compliance will cost $200,000-$1,000,000 to comply with, and I have yet to see where they get that number. From what I've read, it sounds unlikely to be accurate. So they may have standing potentially, but have they demonstrated inevitable harm? A lot of things on the list likely ARE 2a violations, but the winnable case is going to come from the customer side of things, not the business side of things. 

    It does not strike me as a particularly strong case in general, and specifically I don't think what merits it does have lend themselves particularly well to winning TROs or injunctions. 

    I mean really, are security systems expensive to the degree that it is an existential threat to anyone being able to operate a business? Is there something special about that requirement with regards to this law that makes it move from something private households and small bodegas can afford, but not FFLs? 

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1

  18. Just now, ESB said:

    The 2 years is supposed to start the day its approved, not the day you submitted it.  Those who have their sent to NJSP where the hold onto it for a few months before passing it on will lose significant time off their 2 years.  

    Yes. Now put on your thinking hat and ask how renewals will work. You wait until it is expired and it takes??? Or you start the process how many days before it expires ot avoid the state dragging their feet? How many days will that be? 

     

    • Agree 1

  19. 15 hours ago, ESB said:

    If they cashed your Money Order, it has a docket number.  That means its before the courts.  Good news is that before this legislation, only the PD had a 60 day timeframe or it was automatically approved.  This did not apply to the courts.  Once to the courts they could sit on it indefinitely.  Now the courts also have a 60 day timeframe (probably from when they receive it)...  

    I mean that's still bullshit. The thing expires every two years? It can take 120 days to approve (We'll see if they actually manage to abide by their own laws). 14% of the rime you have no right to carry. Sounds legit. 

     

×
×
  • Create New...