PDM

Now that's a picture worth posting! My post did come off a bit douchy, I will admit. I guess if guns are tools I don't really get why people get so worked up about looking at pictures of them or feel the need to show them off (or boxes of ammo or knives), particularly if they are exactly like thousands or millions of others. A custom gun or particularly interesting configuration of an AR, or a video of someone tearing up a practical shooting course, or a video of a tactical shooting class-- I get why people would want to see that. I just don't get the excitement of looking at a "posed" picture of a PX4 or Glock 19 next to a box of ammo. Not saying it's wrong, just seems odd to me. But to each his own.

Because people like to post pointless pictures of their guns which are identical to tens of thousands of the exact same mass produced gun, cleverly and alluringly posed next to a box of ammo and often some tactical type knife that they have no real use for. And then other people get to ooh and ah and say how beautiful "she" looks.

Sorry, the five round Senate bill is S2497. I am not arguing that the 15 round limit is well thought out or justifiable. But I think we need to start making arguments based on fundamental fairness/common sense, not just the Constitution (although I fully agree that should be enough). It's all too easy for these numbnuts to spout nonsense about the militia and other irrelevant (and wrong) statements about the 2A. I think it will be harder for them to answer: why 5? how did you come up with that number? do you recognize the widespread harm it will cause to law abiding citizens, in addition to infringing on their 2A rights. Do you have a study, or any shred of empirical data supporting a reduction from 15 rounds -- which hundreds of thousands of people have relied on in this state, in good faith and careful compliance with the law, for 20 years or more? Etc. This may be obvious to us, but many people are stuck on "why do you need moren than X" without considering the consequences of the new law.

I noticed that a recent update from ANJRPC only listed one of the two pending mag capacity bills -- the 5 round capacity bill proposed by Assemblyman Cryan. We should all be clear that there are two sets of bills pending, one 5 round and one 10 round limit, neither of which has a grandfather clause: 5 round: A3664 S24967 10 round: A1329 S2475 I'd hate for the 10 round ban to pass as a result of appearing more "reasonable" than the 5 round ban or as some kind of compromise. When I write letters/faxes on these bills I always point out that no one has provided one shred of evidence of any benefit that would result from either bill and no one seems to be considering the costs:1) economic loss of property; 2) turning law abiding people who have relied on the 15 round limit in place for years into instant felons; 3) de facto gun ban on most semi-autos, and 4) denying the use of firearms necessary for self-defense, in violation of the 2A as explained in Heller. There are issues of fundamental fairness and good governance here (yeah, I do recognize this is NJ, but laws are still in theory supposed to be fair and well thought out) in addition to the constitutional issues.

In my ignorance, I didn't realize that they essentially have an "open mike" for citizen comment. What would be incredibly helpful would be a stick or other post here wil an alert about each upcoming hearing where ordinary citizens can give testimony. If you are following this would it be too much trouble to do that? Your involvement is much appreciated.

We can't lose sight of the fact that for the first time, anywhere, there was at least the beginnings of an intelligent discussion along the lines of "you want to restrict X ... show me why." Not other politician, anywhere has come out with this approach. The idiots on the left just assume that less magazine capacity is better and call you murderous lunatic or worse if you question their wisdom. The NRA and people on our side don't even get into that discussion because they oppose any limits whatsoever. Christie is at least taking an intelligent approach and believe me his unwillingness to swallow a 10 or 5 round mag limitation hook, line and sinker is really going to piss off a lot of people. He actually said that police officials he spoke with oppose such a move!

You are really something else. Are you remotely connected to reality? You do understand this is NJ and not Texas, right? Perhaps you were expecting him to stand up and advocate for doing away with NJ's current AWB and legalizing NFA firearms in the state? He had NO CHOICE but to have a press conference of this type. In light of all the pressure Federally and from other governors, he couldn't say nothing. He basically equated the Brady Center and Gabby Gifford with the NRA when he said he isn't afraid of either of them. How do you think that is going to play in the mainstream media. He also explained why the 7 round mag limit might not make much sense and mentioned that police officers he spoke to are against it! This is the best we could hope for, for now. That said, I think we do need to up the pressure -- in as postitive a way as possible -- and reserve judgment until the final recommendations are out.

Also, I really think gun owners in this state, and the ANJRPC, need to make their views known, but also express thanks to the Governor for at least taking a principled stand.

I can't believe that after this people will still slam Christie. He is fantastic! He gave the first, the very first, sensible comment on the mag limit issue that I've heard from anyone, anywhere. He is a common sense guy. Clearly, he is trying to walk a political tightrope. But net, net he has more to lose in this state than gain by not coming out and screaming for nonsensical gun measures like Cuomo. I was a fan of Christie before. Now I am a huge fan.

"The Second Amendment is designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed. ... However improbable this contingency may seem today, facing it unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Judge A Kozinski, 9th Circuit

YOU DO THE MATH: 1986: concealed carry states: 9 violent crime rate: 620.1 murder rate: 8.6 2011: concealed carry states: 41 violent crime rate: 386.3 murder rate: 4.8

NJ Gun Law Math: 1 set of fingerprints + 2 references + 3 background checks + 4 month wait to buy a gun = STILL NOT ENOUGH GUN LAWS! Arbitrary, capricious and unfair NJ gun laws and you, perfect together.

+100 Ruger9. Seems that every attempt at intelligent discussion of what might be coming down the pike -- including the NY 7 round limit -- was met with derision. Time to take our heads out of our asses and realize that the tide has turned and we run the very real danger of getting steamrolled as happened in NY. I do believe, however, that longer term cooler heads will prevail and there will be a backlash against the overreach of the likes of Governor Cuomo. I also do think that with Christie we may -- emphasis on may -- be in a better position than NY. And by the way, where the f*&^k is the ANJRPC?! If not a public statement, how about at least an email to members. Jeez...

In a word, yes many people are worried. And the current proposal in nj is 5 rounds not 7.

Yes that is what it says. 10 round mags are grandfathered. Larger mags that were previously grandfathered no longer are and must be sold within a year. New mags can only be 7 rounds. Grandfathered 10 round mags can't be loaded with more than 7 rounds. Good luck with SCOTUS. It will take years for a lawsuit to wind its way through the District and Appellate courts, and by then who knows what the composition of the court will be.

Bill provides: "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, 22 drum, feed strip, or similar device" Do you think a revolver falls under that definition? An 8 round speedloader might, but seems to me the cylinder of a revolver doesn't.

Revolvers don't fall under the definition of large capacity ammunition feeding device in the NY bill.

In theory, yes, not one inch. But in practice, sorry, I think we do ourselves a disservice by not focusing on the truly important issues like this magazine ban and nipping that in the bud. It's been clear (at least to me) since Newtown that something is going to get passed. We are in damage control mode, and I think that if people really understood that a 7 round (or 5 round) limit without is a de facto ban on semi-automatic handguns many people in the middle on this issue could be convinced not to support it. And sorry I was a dick in my post above. It's the frustration talking.

5 round mag limit bill jin NJ ust introduced by Codey and Gordon. http://www.politickernj.com/62342/codeygordon-introduce-bill-crack-down-high-capacity-magazines

You know, it really helps to actually read the f*&^ing bill. Text of section re 7 round mag is below. Here is what it means: 10 round magazines purchased before the date of enactment of this law are still legal. What is illegal are 1) a magazine loaded with more than 7 rounds and 2) any magazine with greater than 7 round capacity purchased after the date of the bill. So, they can keep 10 round mags, which are indeed gradfathered, as long as they don't load more than 7 rounds. Idiotic? Clearly. Horrible? Yes. But not quite as bad as I had feared. I saw somewhere lese that possession of a "large capacity" mags is a Class A misdemeanor, not a felony. Also note that language re .22 tubular mags. To me that implies that tubular mags on lever action center fire rifles (which aren't assault rifles, but that is a separate provision) can't be loaded with more than 7 rounds? Totally and completely FUBAR. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, 22 drum, feed strip, or similar device, [manufactured after September thir- 23 teenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four,] that (a) has a capacity of, or 24 that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten 25 rounds of ammunition, or (b) contains more than seven rounds of ammuni- 26 tion, or © is obtained after the effective date of the chapter of the 27 laws of two thousand thirteen which amended this subdivision and has a 28 capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, 29 more than seven rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term 30 does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and 31 capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition or a 32 feeding device that is a curio or relic.

I posted about the proposed 7 round magazine limit last week and got slammed for it with comments like "don't believe everything you read on the internet" and "don't be a defeatist." The problem is that most people on this forum and many gun rights advocates seem to have the intellectual capacity of fifth graders. Based on the inane discussions here ("maybe the gun manufacturers will produce 7 round magazines", as if that matters now) and egregious spelling errors I'd bet that many of the people here barely made it out of high school. I'm sick of it. If you believe that this "can't happen in NJ" because Christie won't sign it you are an idiot. Christie is no Cuomo, but with this legislation passed in NY there will be huge pressure to get something similar done here. At the very least it exponentially increases the likelihood of a 10 round magazine limit with no grandfathering. And again, for those of you who think that lack of grandfathering implicates the prohibition on ex post facto laws, you are wrong. Part of the problem is the "what part of infringe don't you understand" crowd. That is a simplitic and ineffective argument. By opposing everything, by refusing to even discuss the substance of proposed legislation and reflexively falling back on "but the Constitution says..." we lose the opportunity to argue from a standpoint of simple common sense and fairness. As soon as Cuomo announced his proposed gun control package, the focus should have been squarely and solely on the 7 round mag limit because there is no rational basis behind it and it is a thinly disguised gun ban. Agreeing with or at least not contesting part of the package and focusing on the aspect that is far and away the most harmful to our cause would have focused attention on that issue and maybe -- maybe -- given Republican legilstors some cover in opposing it and prehaps reaching a compromise.

Remind them that General McChrystal just went on national TV and said that "weapons of war" - referring to semi-automatic ARs! -- should not be in civilian hands. And then remind them that pump shotguns have been used extensively in war since the trench guns of WWI and that pump shotguns are banned in the UK and Australia. Guess what's next after "black rifles".

Sorry, just saw the other post (although I don't get how this topic is part of a "general firearms discussion.") Feel free to delete this thread.

Look ex-Texan, I don't know if you are a lawyer or not. I am. You don't know what you are talking about. Ex post facto laws are laws that render behavior criminal retroactively. For example, if NJ said "we are going to prosecute anyone who owned 15 round magazines on January 1", that would be an ex post facto law. Making possession of an item illegal GOING FORWARD is not an ex post facto law. The state can and in the past has made possession of magazines of a defined capacity illegal and force people to turn them in or face prosecution. What this might be -- although I think it is an uphill argument -- a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The government can't take property for public use without compensation. There would be a whole host of questions as to whether the banning of magazines for ostensible public safety purposs constitutes a compensible taking. It would be a difficult case to win.

If any of you have not yet seen the clip of Piers Morgan being destroyed by Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro on the gun issue please watch the segment. I never watch Morgan because he makes me physically ill, but this is one you don't want miss. As a bonus, Ben Shapiro is a yarmulke-wearing Orthodox Jew from LA. http://www.examiner....y-hook-children