Bob B

Thank you. I'm having trouble processing that. Anyone have a link to the court docs?

I'm totally confused. How did this case go from being funded by SAF, which is as good as someone could possibly hope for, to being dropped and given to new attorneys to be challenged in Federal Court? What in the world happened? Anyone have a link to the court docs?

By "we" I mean supposedly pro-gun conservative elected officials. There is always a wave of anti-gun legislation and executive orders in the works. They have think tanks that come up with new imaginative ways of restricting the right to keep and bear arms. I don't see that from the pro-gun elected officials. There are plenty of ideas from pro-gun individuals and groups, but those ideas don't seam to get the same type of attention that ideas on the other side get. My point was that there are many things that Christie could do and the suggestion that he should somehow pace himself or that we should only work on one idea at a time is silly. Our representatives should be more aggressive with using the authority that they have. They should push the limits of that authority and force the anti's to challenge those actions in court. Let them waste their time and spend their money for a change. Christie is doing the bare minimum that he thinks will get him support in NH. He is counting on them being uninformed.

It's not complicated at all. Christie has a lot to make up for if he wants to win the NH Primary. Let him justify to the people of NH why he didn't do it. He could delete flash hiders from the list. He could state that .22's are not substantially identical. He could define "folding/telescoping" to exclude adjustable stocks that still meet the minimum length requirements at the shortest setting. He could increase or eliminate the maximum weight limit for handguns. He could eliminate the threaded barrel as an evil feature. These are simple, dare I say, common sense changes that could be done administratively - with a mere AG letter and/or a change to the Administrative Code. Another thing he could do is eliminate the requirement for a NICS check at the point of sale for those that had a permit issued within the last 5 years. There is no NJ statute that requires the NICS check and the Brady Law allows for that type of exemption. There are many things that Christie could do to improve things administratively. We just don't put the same kind of thought into it as the anti's do.

Another thing he could do is redefine "substantially identical." Substantially identical is not defined in the law, it is defined in an AG letter. He could, for example, have the AG update the opinion letter stating that there are no .22 rimfire firearms on the banned list, so no .22 rimfire firearms will be considered substantially identical. Or, he could delete the flash hider as an evil feature, etc.

http://www.selfrelianceoutfitters.com/bush-knife-by-jeff-white/

I like the JP compensators. http://jprifles.com/1.4.3_tre.php

I would rather have Chief Kessler, an armed civilian population and stand your ground law then a large militarized police force, a disarmed civilian population and duty to retreat. I bet there is very little crime in his town and no incentive for criminals to ever set up shop there.

Andy Griffith + armed society + stand your ground = peace. Large militarized police force + disarmed society + duty to retreat = chaos.

Could you see if you can get a copy of the letter? If it has innacurate information, we will have our attorney contact the AG's office and ask them to issue a correction.

Ace Hardware

When he, and the other officer faked the K9 hit and searched the vehicle, they were committing a federal offense. Title 18, Section 241 and 242 - Conspiracy Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. These are criminal statutes. Regardless of whether or not the driver was behaving like an a$$, aren't we missing the point that the only people in the video that were breaking the law were the police officers? And, more importantly, that the other officers on site did nothing to stop them? ...which suggests that this sort of thing is pervasive, accepted and/or tolerated. If that is the case, what else other than a peaceful assertion of one's rights would lead to the discovery, publication and subsequent end of such illegal practices? ...or should we allow them to persist? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

One interesting thing brought up by this video is that the officer refuses to answer the question "am I being detained?" I have noticed that in most of these types of videos, the LEO refuses to answer that question. An officer can "engage" you indefinitely if you do not exercise your right to simply leave. Refusing to answer the question is a technique that LEO's use to prolong the encounter to try and discover something. If an officer gives you an instruction like, "pull your car over there" you have the right to ask if you are being detained. This determines whether or not the instruction is optional - an attempt to merely prolong the encounter - hoping that you will voluntarily comply and participate. I think there is a legal argument to be made that if the LEO refuses to answer that question, you have the right to simply walk or drive away. I think the officer would have a hard time defending his refusal to answer the question as it would have prevented any misunderstanding.

At 5:19 the officer at the window says "it wasn't a very good alert."

Somewhere on the application, there is likely to be a statute or administrative code provision listed. See if you can locate it - possibly where they ask for your SSN. Once you have that, you can look up the statutes and regulation governing the application process. No guarantees, but perhaps there will be something helpful there.

There are plenty of pro-2A LEO's right here in NJ. If they testified en mass at public hearings and town halls the way that this guy did, it would be a game changer.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zW84FKd50&feature=player_embedded" Copy and paste link without quotes if you can't see the video in the post.

Powerful testimony from an Iraq war Vet and Law Enforcement Officer at a public hearing on repealing the Safe Act in Dutchess County, NY.

You might consider getting an attorney to assist you before your application is denied. Once it is denied, the process gets a lot harder. Jeff Henninger is a 2A supporter and specializes in this sort of stuff. If you use him, please let us know about your experience. http://njgunpermitattorney.com/

I spray my backyard with Cutter yard spray around the perimeter - the kind where you connect the bottle to a hose. It does a good job keeping them away for several weeks or until there is a heavy rain. The OFF belt mounted repellant fans work well for the kids. I wear two of them when I'm in the garden so I don't have to spray insect repellant all over my clothes. They work.

Nice work.

That is the way I read it also, but the FFLs' licenses are on the line, so they are going by the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide which says proceed, denied or delayed. No response does not seem to be covered, that I can find. So it needs to be clarified by the ATF, or FBI so that FFL's aren't worried about breaking the law or the regulations. ...if I'm understanding everything correctly.

I think the source of this is the Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, page 218. 218 A NICS DELAY... I believe that NJ NICS are not providing any response (FFL's please confirm). I further believe that NJ NICS are not submitting the NICS check to the FBI until they do a series of other database checks that are normally done during the permitting process, but not mandated for the NICS process (Promis Gavel, Domestic Violence Registry, ATS/ACS, DMV database, Juvenile Records, etc.). I think that NJ NICS has become another full fledged permit style background check, when there is no statute and no Administrative Code requirement to do that. Essentially, NJ NICS has exceeded their authority and they are keeping legal transfers from taking place by providing the FFL's with no response, rather than a "delayed" response.

Tony, what is the source for this. I would like to look at it. Thanks.

There are two bills that would be good for us. I won't say they are "pro-gun," but they attempt to solve two problems that we often complain about. S2721 would clarify that you're not a felon if you stop to feed the kids on the way home from the range. S2735 Needs work but it attempts to fix the .22 Marlin Model 60 problem.