DirtyDigz

Yep. I just went to the Original List and took a quick visit at all the sites and did the following: - Removed all those that no longer had valid web site - If they did still have a valid site, then viewed their terms & conditions or similar to see if they had any NJ restrictions, and removed any that would not ship ammo at all to NJ (buh bye Palmetto State Armory). So the original list is now updated to remove some that look like they dropped off the web and those that state they won't ship ammo at all to NJ. I did NOT attempt to place orders to NJ to see if the sites would let me so if anyone knows of sites that on the list that don't ship, please let me know. Any sites that should be added please LMK also and I'll add them.

Yes. If you have a valid PTC and are arrested/detained with handguns in your vehicle you must disclose them to the police officer even if you're not carrying them on your body.

You need to read through this Twitter/X "lowlights" thread - There is some outrageous stuff in the Judge's opinion: https://nitter.1d4.us/MorosKostas/status/1755348777446314398#m

Looks NJ-legal to me. I would run that auction by whatever FFL you intend to transfer it through first to make sure the FFL doesn't see any issues.

OP, next time you're in need and there's no one on, try 1-900-HOTGUNTALK ?

Some already have. Not going to name the club, but they're big. I'm in my 2nd year of membership. When I joined in 2023 they had NRA membership as a requirement to join on their web site. I asked if FPC & CNJFO membership would suffice instead and they said yes.

I wouldn't say anything other than something similar to "get away from us" while making as much space as possible between us and him. Back away. Cross the street. Leave the area. The other person continues to close the distance faster than you can make space? Move garments to get access to your holster and get a grip on the firearm, but don't draw. Continue to back away/make space/make efforts to leave. At that point you haven't drawn, you haven't brandished, but it should be obvious to the other person you're armed without you having said so.

Remember, every round "stockpiled" is a potential dead child! (Pay no attention to that abortion clinic...)

Read wikipedia for the case background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Bonta#Legal_proceedings Then, picking up where Wikipedia left off - Yesterday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments from both the Plaintiffs ("The Good Guys who just want to not be infringed") and the Defendants (The State of California) on why the prior court's decision (that California is appealing) is right/wrong. Edit - a little more color - the 9th Circuit is infamously biased anti-gun, and it will be interesting to see what contortions they go through to try to uphold California's AWB in the face of the SCOTUS Bruen decision.

Someone's trying impeaching the Governor of New Mexico due to constitutional oath breaking. Let's see how it goes: https://nitter.1d4.us/RepBlock/status/1747437988580126906#m

9th Circuit Court of Appeals is holding Oral Arguments in California's appeal of the Miller V. Bonta decision TODAY (Wed 1/24), scheduled for 2:00 PM Pacific/5:00 PM Eastern. Should be interesting listening: Invidious Links (youtube proxy without the ads and tracking): https://yewtu.be/watch?v=M3gDBqEXc8I https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=M3gDBqEXc8I Youtube link (if you must): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3gDBqEXc8I

Is there a code for free shipping? I'm seeing a $29 per 2k shipped charge making my total w/ tax $147.55 per 2k

Jordans' actual letter: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-01-17-jdj-to-bishoff-re-ti-request.pdf

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4414581-jordan-seeks-answers-from-former-treasury-official-over-flagged-maga-transactions/ So was there actual transmittal by banks of information of firearms purchases, or just FinCEN suggesting that banks should do so?

Another question - is there an "in between" iron sight height that is taller than stock, but shorter than suppressor height? Stock height irons are too low to use with this setup (maybe by an 1/8 inch), but I suspect suppressor height will be too high.

Thanks - I looked down the extractor plunger channel with a bright light and the channel appears continuous from end to end - I don't believe the mounting screw hole breaches into the channel. Got any recommendations on how to do that? Thin line of nail polish?

Update - after a bunch more research I sent my G26 slide out to Wager Machine Works to get a Holosun 407k/507k cut with blued finishing of the cut area. Nothing against Maple Leaf Firearms, however Wager was almost half the cost. I'm super happy with their machining - A Holosun 507k fits tightly with no appreciable wiggle in the cut before being fastened down.

A recent "The Reload" episode covered this subject with Assistant Prof. of Law at George Mason U. - Robert Leider. It was a great listen, highly recommend it: https://share.fireside.fm/episode/HGsI3XtY+pv_UPIOE They also did a video interview with Robert Leider, it's just a shorter outtake from the podcast: Invidious Link (youtube proxy with no tracking and no ads): https://invidious.slipfox.xyz/watch?v=W44bH7AzjD8 Youtube link, if you must: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W44bH7AzjD8 Article Robert Leider wrote on the same subject: https://standinghisground.com/2023/01/17/should-state-officials-receive-qualified-immunity-for-creatively-resisting-bruen/

There are quite a few active 2A violation lawsuits out there, take a look: https://airtable.com/appI053WksNzoabYa/shrcrC5FsedZqIi3T/tblMclNyymYiklOOg/viwXiKC5UQzKsyE20 (This is a database of 2A related lawsuits maintained by FPC. Be sure to click through all the tabs - Supreme/District/Circuit/State courts)

But .223 would still be ok?

https://nitter.net/NRA/status/1743350880731115584#m For the "Official statement". Good riddance. Now maybe the NRA can rebuild itself once it comes out the other side of the NY lawsuit.

I'm not arguing for what I think is right, I'm arguing what I think you'd need to prove and demonstrate in court. If there was regular, routine prosecution of legislators for passing laws that courts later determined to be unconstitutional, the legislative process definitely would be different. An interesting thought exercise is if legislators could and were regularly individually prosecuted, Hillary had won instead of Trump, and SCOTUS was majority "liberal" instead of conservative. Would you still be happy with legislators being scared to pass laws because SCOTUS might later determine they were unconstitutional?

I don't see how this statute could be used to prosecute an "oath breaker". It just requires them to take an oath of allegiance. It says nothing about the "breaking" of that oath. Ok, this is somewhat better; to prosecute you'll need to prove that they falsely swore their oath of allegiance. Did they actually know that the legislation they sponsored/voted for violated the constitution that they swore to uphold? Can you prove that they knew that, at the time they acted? When X numbers of their colleagues, who also swore the same oath, held the same belief and voted in support? When similar legislation was passed in X other states? Can you demonstrate to the court that the threat posed by an "oath breaker" is substantially worse than the chilling effect on the legislative process that would happen if legislators were able to be individually prosecuted for perjury when a piece of legislation they passed was judged to be unconstitutional X years later?

What specifically is that statute?