Bob2222
-
Content Count
717 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by Bob2222
-
-
NJ nuclear targets from the NY Times (1985. Reagan-era. Remember how Reagan was going to start WW3? Not defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot. Yeah, right!)
Fort Monmouth hasn't been active for years -- but the blast radius from other targets like Earle overlaps. Other than the extreme northwestern corner of the state, the Pine Barrens and Cape May, the state looks pretty bad.
-
-
19 hours ago, CMJeepster said:Chaos is the goal of the media.
-
1
-
-
I've been trying to determine how this would impact NJ without too much success. That's a question that the inquiring reporter's mind might naturally ask, if there were any reporters with inquiring minds left. But if the goal is to create panic, well, they are doing their jobs.
According to the EIA, Florida, GA and NC and VA and MD have no operating oil refineries.
But Delaware has 1, PA has 3 and New Jersey has 2 - as well as a port.
So maybe not as much of an impact at this end of the pipeline.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PNP_CAP1_DCU_SFL_A.htm
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=NJ
I did top up the gas tanks of of our 2 cars. I remember that there was a toilet paper shortage not too long ago, while there was no shortage of unrefined trees.
-
3 hours ago, Combat Auto said:Forget the SC, they just refused to take 11 or so gun cases including our NJ carry case.
My guess has been that was because the conservative justices think that John Roberts has become an unreliable vote.
By the time Becerra gets to SCOTUS, the makeup of the court is likely to differ from what it is now.
-
I shipped my 15 round rifle magazines to my cousin in Texas. If Duncan v Becerra goes our way (It DID!) and makes its way to the SC (we'll see), I'll buy a bunch of standard-capacity magazines in celebration. In the meantime, my cousin can use the 15 round mags as beater mags at the range. (I think they have essentially no value, otherwise.)
My >10 round pistol magazines reside with my daughter in Pennsylvania. If Duncan v Becerra (etc), or if I buy a house in a free state (increasingly likely), I'll retrieve them. If not, they are in a box addressed to my cousin in Texas.
The problem with paid storage is that it the cost can soon exceed the value of the contents.
Do you have a friend/relative in Pennsylvania?
-
10 hours ago, gleninjersey said:I think I may need to divide and start moving to individual conrainers.
Spent some time after I was able to log off from work pulling weeds and cleaning up the garden. I was also looking at different ideas for building a trellis to grow the cucumbers up instead of sprawling all over my small yard.
In the past, I made vertical frames -- 6' fence posts with steel fencing. I grew cucumbers on them, and even managed to grow vine-ripened cantaloupe (that I suspended the fruit with canvas strips so they wouldn't break loose from their own weight). Unfortunately I'm down to just tomatoes, peppers and zucchinis now because the trees have grown, shadowing the gardens.
A bigger problem than the trees has been the deer recently.
-
1
-
-
On 9/10/2019 at 3:18 PM, this_is_nascar said:What I want to know is why the hell is NJ spending $70m annually on firearms?
Maybe they have a New Jersey version of Holder's "Operation Fast and Furious" and they are supplying firearms to drug gangs in Trenton, Newark and Camden?
-
7 hours ago, pjd832 said:Agreed ....but it will solve the problem they are looking to solve....meaning..are they worried about ms13/insert any of the other 100 major gangs/criminal orgs?
https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/
Gangs are a critical component of the political machine in Chicago.
(Probably most other large cities, too.)
The city politicians are "worried" about gangs, but not in the way that most people would think.
-
2 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:If its already a crime why get tweaked when a law is written like another law that's there?
They r idiots
The Assembly members who passed the most recent law (and the older law) didn't write either law -- or probably even read either law.
Whatever anti-gun group wrote the law told them, "If you want our support and money, pass this law". The group didn't search the NJ code to find that a law was already on the books.
The anti-gun laws in all the blue states are pretty much cut and paste versions of each other.
Requiring trigger locks on a firearm without specifying that it must be unloaded first is dangerous and both the new and old laws do that.
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, Regular Guy said:What I think they were going for with this bill is that they want to be able to charge the owner of a firearm in cases where the firearm is taken by another member of the household like in cases where they are taken to schools by kids or otherwise used in crimes. But then the penalty is a disorderly persons offense.
It does not seem to be enforceable outside of the instances when the gun is discovered (after the fact) to have been left unsecured.
But that is already a crime.
QuoteSection 2C:58-15 - Minor's access to a loaded firearm; penalty, conditions
Universal Citation: NJ Rev Stat § 2C:58-15 (2015)2C:58-15. Minor's access to a loaded firearm; penalty, conditions
1. a. A person who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to a loaded firearm at a premises under the person's control commits a disorderly persons offense if a minor gains access to the firearm, unless the person:
(1) Stores the firearm in a securely locked box or container;
(2) Stores the firearm in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or
(3) Secures the firearm with a trigger lock.
b. This section shall not apply:
(1) To activities authorized by section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179, (C.2C:58-6.1), concerning the lawful use of a firearm by a minor; or
(2) Under circumstances where a minor obtained a firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.
c. As used in this act, "minor" means a person under the age of 16. -
4 hours ago, JackDaWack said:His ridiculous progressive ideas got him elected.
1. Reaction to Orange Man Bad.
2. Republicans in the state are their own worst enemy.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:I would.love to know how they r going to enforce it....they cant.
Not unless a LEO needs to enter a home for some other reason. Domestic disturbances are probably high on the list.
I think "in my home" is "a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure", but the majority of the New Jersey legislature is not reasonable people. (Or smart people.)
-
1
-
1
-
-
Isn't A3696 in conflict with District of Columbia v. Heller? If a firearm is locked up, it's not accessible, is it?
(Requiring a trigger lock on a a firearm without specifying that it must be unloaded first is probably one of the dumbest and most dangerous laws that the NJ Assembly has ever passed.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
QuoteSponsored by:
Assemblywoman JOANN DOWNEY
District 11 (Monmouth)
Assemblyman ERIC HOUGHTALING
District 11 (Monmouth)
Co-Sponsored by:
Assemblyman Benson
SYNOPSIS
Requires safe storage of firearms; establishes penalties for improper firearm storage.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning safe storage of firearms and supplementing Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. a. A legal owner of a firearm shall store or secure a firearm that is not in use at a premises under the owner’s control:
(1) in a securely locked box or container;
(2) in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or
(3) with a trigger lock.
b. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a legal owner from being authorized, pursuant to subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, to lawfully keep or carry about the owner’s place of business, residence, premises, or other land owned or possessed by the owner, any firearm, or from carrying the same, in the manner specified in subsection g. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, from any place of purchase to the owner’s residence or place of business, between the owner’s dwelling and the owner’s place of business, between one place of business or residence and another when moving, or between the owner’s dwelling or place of business and place where the firearms are repaired, for the purpose of repair. For the purposes of this section, a place of business shall be deemed to be a fixed location.
c. This section shall not apply to temporary transfer of a firearm authorized pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1992, c.74 (C.2C:58-3.1).
d. A person who violates subsection a. of this section is guilty of a disorderly persons offense.
2. This act shall take effect immediately.
-
STATE OF N.J. V. JOSEPH PELLETERI
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1996/a339-95-opn.html
The "Jersey Marlin" case.
My guess is that outside of Trenton, Newark and Camden, most "high capacity" magazines will come to the attention of law enforcement because of domestic disturbance calls, not because of trips the range.
My other guess is that's when most will learn about the new law, too.
I don't think that the majority of gun owners in New Jersey (or anywhere else) spend a lot of time at the range.
-
Cody Wilson - Fox News Sunday w/ Chris Wallace
-
Do you think that he actually wrote that?
Or even read it?
-
14 minutes ago, Twospot said:unless that was their point, which is possible. In either case, clear violation of 1A. Building it is a separate issue. This country is really going to hell in a hand basket folks.
I believe that's his point.
Not the whole country is going to Hell in a hand basket.
Just 10 states.
-
-
Second Amendment Injunction Against California Ban on Large-Capacity-Magazines Kept in Place by Ninth Circuit
The panel concludes that the district court didn't abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction -- though the decision is non-binding.
Eugene Volokh|July 17, 2018 7:21 pm
In Duncan v. Becerra, a federal district court had issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of California's ban on magazines that fit more than 10 rounds, pending a full trial on the merits. Today, the Ninth Circuit upheld this, in a 2-1 nonprecedential decision, though one that heavily deferred to the lower court's judgment, and didn't prejudge the final result after a trial is held and the final judgment is issued and appealed.
The majority opinion was written by Judge Randy Smith, joined by visiting District Judge Deborah Batts; the dissent was written by Judge Clifford Wallace. For those who watch such matters, both Judges Smith and Wallace are Republican appointees, as is Judge Roger Benitez, whose decision is being affirmed here; both Judges Smith and Wallace are known as solid conservatives (I can't speak to Judge Benitez). But the deciding vote on the panel, in favor of upholding the lower court's decision protecting Second Amendment rights, was cast by a judge who sits in Manhattan, was appointed by President Clinton, and is said to have been "the nation's first openly LGBT, African-American federal judge."
Here is an excerpt from the majority:
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Second Amendment grounds....
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. First, the district court identified the applicable law, citing[, among other cases,] Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014). Second, it did not exceed its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon "that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the magazine for a weapon, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 967 ("'[T]he right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right' to obtain the bullets necessary to use them." (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2011)))....
Here, in its intermediate scrutiny analysis, the district court correctly applied the two-part test outlined in Jackson. The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a "historical pedigree." Next, the district court concluded ... that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right, but ... that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court concluded that California had identified four "important" interests and reasoned that the proper question was "whether the dispossession and criminalization components of [section] 32310's ban on firearm magazines holding any more than 10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals." ...
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that sections 32310(c) and (d) did not survive intermediate scrutiny. The district court's review of the evidence included numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence, as well as repeated credibility determinations. Ultimately, the district court concluded that section 32310 is "not likely to be a reasonable fit." California articulates no actual error made by the district court, but, rather, multiple instances where it disagrees with the district court's conclusion or analysis regarding certain pieces of evidence. This is insufficient to establish that the district court's findings of fact and its application of the legal standard to those facts were "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record." United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). In reviewing the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, we cannot "re-weigh the evidence and overturn the district court's evidentiary determinations—in effect, to substitute our discretion for that of the district court." ...
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Takings Clause grounds. First, the district court ... outlined the correct legal principles. Second, the district court did not exceed its discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d) (surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally "deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights"; and (2) that California could not use the pol ce power to avoid compensation.
And here's one from Judge Wallace's dissent:
The majority concludes the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding California's large-capacity magazine (LCM) possession ban did not survive intermediate scrutiny on the ground that the district court's conclusion was based on "numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence." The problem, however, is that the district court's "judgment calls" presupposed a much too high evidentiary burden for the state. Under intermediate scrutiny, the question is not whether the state's evidence satisfies the district court's subjective standard of empiricism, but rather whether the state relies on evidence "reasonably believed to be relevant" to substantiate its important interests. So long as the state's evidence "fairly supports" its conclusion that a ban on possession of LCMs would reduce the lethality of gun violence and promote public safety, the ban survives intermediate scrutiny....
The district court is correct that a physical appropriation of personal property gives rise to a per se taking. But here, LCM owners can comply with § 32310 without the state physically appropriating their magazines. Under § 32310(d)(1), an LCM owner may "[r]emove the large-capacity magazine from the state," retaining ownership of the LCM, as well as rights to possess and use the magazines out of state. The district court hypothesized that LCM owners may find removal to be more costly than it is worth, but such speculation, while theoretically relevant to the regulatory takings inquiry, does not turn the compulsory removal of LCMs from the state into a "physical appropriation" by the state....
There's a lot more—the opinion is fairly long for a nonprecedential decision—and you can read it all here. Thanks to Charles Nichols for the news about the decision coming down.
-
2
-
4 minutes ago, Bklynracer said:Did anybody see Hannity last night with Ed Henry where Ed commented that Barret is next and they feel that Trump will have at least 1 maybe 2 before he's done. Do they know / hear something or wishful thinking.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85, and Steven Breyer will be 80 in August. If Trump is reelected in 2020, Ginsburg will be 91 in January 2025 and Breyer will be 86. Sotomayor, age 64, is an insulin-dependent diabetic.
Nobody is getting out of this place alive (you and I and everyone we know or have ever known included).
-
50 minutes ago, siderman said:I too wanted Hardiman but it's not like he was going to wave a magic wand and put a full auto in everyone's hands. That seat is just one vote and can only vote on what makes Its way there. I feel confident K would vote the same as H on any 2A cases. When the Court actually takes in a 2A case we will know there is a comfort zone to move forward on restoring our rights. That will be the defining moment.....As long as the opposition is pissed and the pro gun groups are happy with him I think we will be ok. time to move on and remember how awful it could've been.
Imagine that Hillary would be making her second, maybe third SC appointment right now.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, Peter Goldwing said:m like your lawyer, I have cars registered in both places. The interstate gun purchasing law applies both, where you buy it and where you receive it.
Your lawyer can buy a gun in FL but cannot take possession of it in NJ. He cannot purchase a hand gun in NJ and take possession of it in there
Taxes are paid where you earn the money or in the state with higher taxes.. FL has no state income tax therefore NJ charges me on I what earn in there. If FL would have a higher state tax than NJ they will tax me the difference between NJ tax and FL tax.
That's why I said "not necessarily".
Taxes and cost of living are much more significant issues, but the New Jersey firearms laws are not inconsequential. The saner Florida firearms laws are icing on the cake, so to speak.
Since it's a gazillion times more difficult for a New Jersey resident to (legally) buy a handgun in New Jersey than it is for a Florida resident to (legally) buy a handgun in Florida, why would anyone want to, given the choice?
When we did our taxes (including NJ) this year, our lawyer was physically in Florida. We teleconferenced and Fedexed. Since he's no longer building his practice, he doesn't need a fixed place of business in New Jersey.
Since my own business is located on my laptop, it would be fairly easy to move my business (and my residency) to some other state.
I haven't (yet) only because I don't have a physical residence in a low tax state (yet).
-
Our lawyer has a FL driver's license, is registered to vote in FL and has cars he uses in FL registered in FL and cars he uses in NJ registered in NJ.
As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer, but I did have to stay in Holiday Inns more than once), if one is not actually present in New Jersey for 183 days of the year, one need not be a New Jersey resident, and not subject to New Jersey income taxes and death taxes. As an added benefit, one is not necessarily subject to New Jersey's firearms purchasing laws.
I've wondered if all of the liberal New Jersey entertainers who spend much time on tour declare New Jersey as their legal place of residence.
Or have made a low tax state their legal place of residence.
Prep for Russia Ukraine backlash
in NJ Prepared
Posted
"The FDA recommends that young adults (between the ages of 18 and 40 years) internally contaminated with (or likely to be internally contaminated with) radioactive iodine take the recommended dose of KI (potassium iodide). Young adults are less sensitive to the effects of radioactive iodine than are children."
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm