njJoniGuy

It's the ZipGun of the CNC-age. And for less than $30 !!!

They don't tend to glide very well.

Rest in Peace, Lt. Daniels (The Wire) and Agent Broyles (Fringe).

It's 3 cases in one. And the steps in the schedule really don't look oppressive. So let's cut Judge Goodman some slack and hope that Lois is as much on the side of Liberty as Renee seems to be ... so far. Hey, this is STILL the Glorious PRNJ, isn't it ??

I wonder if there's anything 'useful' that can be made from this organic matter. @10X, any thoughts?

If you haven't seen this episode of Four Boxes Diner, give it a look. I think this may have huge effect (in our favor) in the cases before Judge Bumb.

It doesn't take a 3-digit IQ to be a hotel desk clerk. Enuf said.

Not too awfully bad that it took you 3 months to sell this ammo, I imagine not too many takers here in the PRNJ, where the primary eater of this caliber is banned by name. Congrats on selling it and satisfying SOMEONE's need!

Doesn't the star on the hat of your avatar mean that YOU'RE THE SHERIFF ??

https://youtu.be/7SvJ--JVU9w

Reading the latest doc filed in theJudge Bumb case(s), interesting point made by Dan Schmutter on page 61 referring to "carry" as used in Bruen, about 'pocket (or non-holster) carry' : (my bold and underline) C. Section 7(b) – The ban on carrying in vehicles violates the Second Amendment. In Bruen, the state of New York allowed Mr. “Koch to ‘carry to and from work’” only, and the Supreme Court held that was not enough to satisfy the Second Amendment. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2125. New Jersey’s law not only prohibits carriage both on private and public property (thus reinventing the offending act from Bruen as the sum of its parts, instead of the whole), it places even more severe restrictions on carriage in a vehicle than were present in that case. Defendants are as wrong on this front as it is on all others. 1. To begin, Defendants conflate the concepts of “carry,” “transport” and “storage.” State Br. at 62–63. In so doing, Defendants argue that they are just regulating the manner of carry, i.e., how one carries a firearm in a vehicle. Not so. The Second Amendment preserved the right to “public carry for self-defense,” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2156, to “wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (cleaned up). It is a core aspect of Heller that a law requiring a citizen to “render [her firearm] inoperable” does not satisfy the Second Amendment’s protections. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. Since section 7(b), as Defendants admit, requires citizens to carry their firearms in their vehicles “unloaded” and in a “securely fastened case” or “in the trunk,” see Op. 62, it plainly violates Heller and Bruen. Defendants’ attempt to defend this law as a “manner restriction” falls woefully short. A manner restriction refers to how the person may or may not carry the firearm, Case 1:22-cv-07464-RMB-AMD Document 97 Filed 02/24/23 Page 61 of 85 PageID: 3257 50 i.e., “in a manner likely to terrorize others,” or whether the arm is carried openly or concealed, Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2150 (“States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.”). That is not what Defendants are doing here—rather, it is imposing an “inoperab[ility]” requirement foreclosed by Heller. I'm an 'aging' (as many of us are!) non-attorney, but I don't remember seeing the holster requirement of the carry-kill law being challenged in any of the case already brought. "Bueller?? Bueller??"

He's been gone for a couple of years now.

My doc is going to fall over laughing at this pic!!!!!!

Reminds me of a girl who was very popular when I was at Lehigh Univ. during the mid-70's Horizontal Holly was her name!!