PDM

No one can explain that because it makes no sense. One word might help -- politics. Even if there was no 2A in the Constitution, the "right to privacy" the Court found to exist in Roe v Wade would itself include the right to keep and bear arms. In Griswold v Connecticut, (overturning a Connecticut ban on contraception) the Court first found a "right to privacy" to exist based on the "penumbra" of rights created by all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Essentially, read together, the Bill of Rights implies and demands a right to be left alone by the government, subject to various limitations. in Poe v Ullman, an earlier Supreme Court case in which the Court allowed a Connecticut ban on contraception to stand, Justice Harlan wrote a dissent in which the right to privacy was first addressed. Guess what he included in his laundry list of things the government should butt out off (to put it simplistically)? The right to keep and bear arms. If there is a right to abortion or contraception or gay marriage -- all falling under the "right to privacy" read into the Consitution by the Court -- then there has to also be a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending one's life. In other words, as long as I'm not harming or threatening to harm anyone, its none of the government's business how I choose to defend myself or what tools I keep to do so. But of course, we do have an explicit 2A in addition and it is quite amazing that the same people who happily go along with a seek to protect a made-up "right to privacy" claim the explicit and quite plain language of the 2A is meaningless. Like I said, there is no logical explanation other than that law is often means oriented, driven by political agendas.

Basically, in lawyers terms, the State is saying, this is an important constitutional issue and we don't have our shit together so please give us 30 more days. It is very unusual and bad form for the other side not to agree to a one month extension for briefing and judges don't look kindly on it. The ANJRPC has to agree to the extension essentially. It doesn't change a thing. Not sure what exactly happens if we win and court strikes down justifable need. I don't think there would need to be a remand here -- the statute would essentially be modified to delete the justifiable need requirement and everything else would remain.

I am somewhat surprised that the request for a response hasn't been reported anywhere. I guess it may be too subtle a point. But I think it makes it much more likely that cert will be granted. They can't grant cert without a response, but could have easily denied cert. I have been quite pessimistic about our chances for help at the Supreme Court, but I have a good feeling about this one.

Wow there is a lot of wasted energy and time spent on this new 10 round limit. We have precedent -- the 15 round limit that was imposed over 25 years ago. Why does anyone think this will work any different? Did the state conduct house to house searches for 20 round mags? No. Were there many prosecutions based on "high cap" magazines? I'm not sure, but my sense is no. Seems that most people that got charged with hi cap magazines were already involved in criminal activity with a very few random cases of completely innocent people that got ensnared by this. Do you really think the state wants to prosecute a bunch of john q publics -- have doctors, lawyers, business owners, carpenters, etc with spotless records plastered in the papers facing 7 years in prison for owning a 14 round magazine that they owned for 20 years? People should really calm down, stop talking about this, and do whatever one thinks appropriate. It is highly, highly unlikely that this law becomes a problem for most people unless you do something stupid.

This is partly a legal issue, partly a gear question. A 2015 law, "Santiago's law" requires all SORA armed guards to use a Level III retention holster. Does not matter whether uniformed or plain clothes. This is of course absurd, idiotic, etc., but this being NJ not surprising. Questions, if anyone knows: 1) of course Level III is not defined in NJ law. Standard definition is that a Level III holster needs to pass three retention tests after each of three successive retention devices is deactivated, so for example a snap/hood, a button release lever, and finally the passive retention provided by the holster itself. Is that corrrect? 2) Based on my research, Safariland makes some of if not the best duty/retention holsters out there. All are of course bulkier than anyone would want for concealed/plainclothes carry. They make a few models with both the "ALS" and "SLS" retention devices that are classified I think as Level III and are also described as concealment holsters. One being model 7367 7TS ALS/SLS, one of their newer models. Bulky but seems like it would work under a jacket. Does anyone have any familiarity with this holster and its Level III compliance or have any other recommendations for a less bulky Level III holster that is theoretically somewhat concealable? Thanks.

Time to mix the epoxy...

I posted on the other thread that I won’t be able to modify my current 15 round pmags NOT because that would be illegal but because I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that modified pmags were epoxied shut and couldnt be further modified. The way I read the statute is that if you have a mag permanently modified to only hold ten it doesn’t matter if it was originally 20, 30 or 100 round mag, as long as it can only hold 10. To my question, can a 15 round pmag be opened and repinned to 10?

You aren't missing anything. The fixed mag language in the bill is confusing people. "Large Capacity Magazines", now ten rounds, will be illegal in 180 days from enactment and there are only three ways to deal with them: 1) Modify to 10 rounds; 2) transfer to someone who can possess them (ie, LEO or retired LEO in state) or 3) surrender. That's it. No firearm is made illegal, other than a firearm with a fixed mag capacity of more than 10, which can be modified, sold, surrendered or registered.

I would guess that this means that a full ban on semi-automatic rifles is not on the table right now. It's the same section of the code that would be modified. And for those who think a lawsuit is going to help with a 10 round magazine limit, dream on. I'm actually a bit surprised at how cautious they are being and would have thought that with Murphy in control and complete contro in the legislature they would have been more aggressive.

20 or 30 round AR Mags that have already been modified to only hold 15 rounds cannot, I believe, be further modified. So those would become contraband/garbage under this law as I read it.

I am a realist when it comes to the courts or Federal government stepping in to strike down or pre-empt gun laws. As others have mentioned, at best its a long process. That said, there are two bills mentioned above that I don't think we need to worry about: 1) no loaded gun in the home -- that is a direct violation of the holding in Heller and I don't think they will try it and it would certainly be struck down even by the most liberal of judges; 2) Weinberg's smart gun mandate -- she has gotten a lot of flack including in the liberal media bc that bill chilled the marketing and sale of smart guns nation wide. I don't think she will re-introduce it. What I expect, with certainty, in short order: 10 rd mag limit (possibly less, but probably 10 bc that is what already proposed and allows Weinberg et al to appera reasonable) with no grandfathering passing in the next year is a 100% certainty in my book; training requirement for gun purchases; terror watch list and domestic violence related gun bill; .50 cal ban; no private sales, including long guns without NICS check; roll-back of Christie minor expansion of permit to possess (carry) standard; Very possibly coming down the pike in the next few years, maybe sooner: further limitations under state AWB; prohibition on internet ammo sales; gun and ammo tax Just my .02

Between Murphy's likely election (yeah, yeah, I know, don't be defeatist, but just sayin...) and Trump's new tax plan (which would increase my tax rate to roughly 60% because of the loss of the deduction for state income tax and cap on deduction of mortgage interest), I have truly had it. I just can't stay in NJ anymore. The whole gun issue is just one of many factors that increasingly make NJ unlivable -- and it's only going to get worse as the state hurdles towards a public pension crisis, becoming a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants, etc. I also simply can't stomach what a bunch of utterly clueless, head in the sand, idiots most of my neighbors are. Just. Can't. Anymore. I'm not ready to retire for at least 10 years, but I can't stay in NJ. BUT, I have a job in NYC that I can't replace -- both because I like it and it is lucrative. I hit upon Yardley PA as a possibility. Roughly an hour train commute each way on Amtrak from Trenton to Penn Station, which is better in both time and quality than my daily bus commute or drive from Bergen County. (A monthly ticket on Amtrak is $1200, but even with that I will be way, way ahead of the game financially -- can essentially replace my house for 1/2 the price and 1/3 the property taxes, and PA's income tax rate is 3%, less than 1/2 of NJ). So, two questions for those familiar with PA. What is the Yardley area like? And do people have the sense that the state is relatively safe from the disease of NJ gun laws. I'm guessing even if additional laws are passed, it will take decades for it to get anywhere near as bad as NJ. Thanks.

One thing should be abundantly clear by now: The Supreme Court doesn't "have to" hear anything. A split in the circuits certainly is a very significant factor in cert decisions but just because there is a circuit split doesn't mean a case will be heard. It is clear after Drake, Peruta, Mascsndarjo and I believe one or two other carry cases that were denied cert that the court as currently comprised will not hear this issue. We know gorsuch and Thomas want it heard based on their dissent in the denial of cert in Peruta. Perhaps Alito is on board as well. But they don't have 4 votes for cert so Roberts and Kennedy likely are not on board. We need at least a replacement for Kennedy and, hopefully Ginsberg in order for this issue to get hears and decided our way. There is a good chance of that but there is also a chance we don't get 2 new justices before Trump is impeached or loses in 2020. In that case it's very unlikely we ever get a supreme court ruling on right to carry.

DC announced they aren't appealing so there won't be a Supreme Court decision on this and it won't help us directly.

Thanks. Like I said, I am looking for information, not to attack anyone. I was disgusted by the hatefest I saw on FB.

I'm surprised that no one has posted regarding the Ramsey range proponents withdrawing their application. There has been a lot of bashing of the NRA, ANJRPC and Scott Bach specifically by NJ2AS on facebook (they didn't do anything, don't care, are conflicted, yadda, yadda). I am really, really (really) not looking to get into any bashing of anyone or assigning blame, but I am curious as to what happened. I heard it may have been discussed at NJ Safecon. Does anyone know?

To be clear, no criticism intended if someone chooses to spend the $$ on an Aimpoint. That would be ridiculous. Of course everyone has their own cost/benefit analysis when it comes to these things and their is no right or wrong here. Was just making the observation that, at least for me, it does seem that the current "cheap" red dots -- the Sig Romeo 5 being the best that I was able to find, at least based on reviews (to be confirmed after I've used it for a while) -- appear to be sufficient for ordinary civilian use including the remote possibility of defensive situations. I could be wrong and as they say YMMV. If you want to pay for the best -- and I have no doubt that a $500 Aimpoint is built to a higher standard than a $120 Sig Romeo 5 -- by all means have at it.

I just can't see spending 500+ on an aimpoint fora gun that will see range use and may, in some remote, dark fantasy scenario, possibly, maybe be used for defensive purposes. It appears, from everything I've read and seen, that the $100-200 red dots are now perfectly reliable for ordinary use by civilians, and probably for LEOs as well.

Bought the Sig Romeo 5. There are a bunch of superlative reviews on Youtube and elsewhere. $120, so I gave it a shot. First impression is that it is more substantial, more refined and an all around higher quality product than the primary arms red dot I have (which is 5 years old, so can't speak to current PA). The glass is surprisingly clear and the two mounts it comes with are surprisingly solid. I hope to zero it in and shoot it soon.

Yes, but there is zero chance I will be living in nj when i hit 75.

Or maybe the Republicans will want one legislative win on an important issue, and this is one that has much wider support than the healthcare bill.

I'll take that trade. Let me carry now and I'll surrender the permit at 75.

I've got a Kel Tec sub2k that has been a pos since day one that I haven't shot in 5 years. I would happily sell it for 200. Even if I could sell it I wouldn't feel right sticking someone with it. I may just give it a try. Any way to confirm beforehand what they are paying per gun?

Thanks for all of the feedback. My primary arms sight is probably six years old. Not going to bother sending it back -- will probably put it back on my M&P 15-22 which is just a plinker. Ordered a Sig Sauer Romeo5 for $120. I see they have gotten multiple stellar reviews so hopefully it will hold up better than the PA. If not back to the Eotech.

This must have been asked and answered, but I couldn't find anything after doing a search, so here goes. I've had an Eotech 512 on my AR and a primary arms red dot on my MP-15 22 for years, and both have performed perfectly through thousands of rounds, including several carbine classes with my AR/Eotech. Downside of the Eotech 512 is it is big and heavy, so for the hell of it I put the Primary Arms on my AR and took it to the range and sighted in yesterday. Worked quite well and I was able to shoot very tight groups at 50 yards. However, when I got home I saw that the sight now has significant hazy red "ghosting" along the side, although the dot itself is still working fine. I suspect that the recoil my have been too much. So, I may just put the 512 back on the gun -- I want it available as a defensive gun with a completely reliable sight. It would be great to have a smaller micro red dot on the gun instead of the Eotech, but anything from Aimpoint or Trijicon will cost more than the gun itself. So, anyone have experience with a micro red dot in the 200-300 range that one would feel 100% comfortable with on a defensive rifle from a reliability standpoint? Only brand I'm aware of is Vortex, but even that may not be good enough.