PDM

Unfortunately very, very few en banc petitions are granted. It is a rarity. Keeping my fingers crossed though. Perhaps the strong dissent will help.

I'm getting a queasy feeling that there won't be a veto of any of them. Christie signed the ones that were relatively non-controversial and will simply do nothing with respect to these three in a feeble attempt to continue to ride the fence and avoid the whole gun issue to the extent possible and hope this all just goes away.

If you really are in the mood to be outraged, watch this video clip of Michael Wildes, former Englewood Mayor, from 1 year ago speaking about the Trayvon Martin case and why concealed carry laws should be curtailed and how horrible stand your ground laws are. He has a NJ carry permit and has acknowledged that in a public letter to the editor supporting Weinberg's smart gun efforts. THIS is what needs to be addressed. This shameless hypocrisy is almost beyond belief. He is special. He can be trusted. He gets rights that the ordinary unwashed masses shouldn't be allowed to have. And it's not about background checks or training or any other "sensible" measure because, as we know, us "ordinary" folks can't enjoy the same "privilege" (his term) he has no matter how many background checks we go through or how much training we have. If he ever runs for public office he needs to be publicly confronted about his hypocrisy. Actually, I hope the NJ2AS or other organization puts together a media campaign to expose people like Wildes -- I would gladly contribute to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXV30-WkYv0

So has anyone seen any update from NJ2AS on this? If people are going to apply it will have a much bigger impact if it's 1000+ people statewide.

I would give 100:1 odds that he signs the .50 cal ban, and 10:1 that he vetoes the Sweeney bill. The .50 cal ban is already part of his recommendations. How can he possibly veto it? On the other hand, the Sweeney bill 1) will be quite expensive and complicated to implement, 2) runs counter to Christie's repeated position that we have enough gun laws in NJ and 3) is being proposed by someone Christie doesn't particularly like. He has enough cover to veto the Sweeney bill based on fiscal and practical issues. I'm guessing he saved these three for last to add some drama and look like he is actually deliberating the merits of the bills.

Just got an ANJRPC alert that Christie signed 10 of the gun bills. He DID NOT sign (yet) the Sweeney bill, the .50 cal ban, or the bill mandating public disclosure of ATF trace data.

And let's not forget the connected politicians who are granted carry permits. Check out this link http://www.michaelwildes.org/OnFirearms.htm in which Michael Wildes, the former mayor of Enlgewood cites his possession of a carry permit to provide his "bona fide" credentials as a "gun guy" who supports Loretta Weinberg's inane and dangerous smart gun legislation. Wildes states that he got his ccw because as a lawyer prior to 9/11 he "engaged in international cases involving the federal government and with persons who posed a threat to our nation and, later, more directly, to myself." Really. So an FBI employee who is involved in anti-terrorism work, a business owner who carries cash, a person who was kidnapped by a biker gang -- all are denied permits (at least, in the case of Mueller, until the pressure gets to much for NJ and he is given his permit to shut him up) and told to find some other way to protect themselves because the don't meet the "justifiable need" standard". But Wildes gets his because he is a Democrat insider and buddies with Loretta Weinberg. THIS is the point that needs to be publicized and shouted from the roof tops. Even for someone who isn't in favor of concealed carry. this stinks to high heaven. Cronyism, elitism, "do as I say not as I do" -- all these intractable problems of NJ politics are at play in the States unfair and nonsensical gun laws.

I've gone for diversity in my collection -- in terms of action type, size (ranging from full size, to compact, to pocket carry), use (home defense, plinking and carry) and caliber. Not a Glock among them: Revolvers: S&W Model 60 Pro (.357) Ruger LCR (.38 spl) Single Action (.45 ACP): S&W 1911 Compact ES Sig Sauer 1911 Tac Ops Striker Fired: Kahr PM9 (9mm, suitable for pocket carry) Walther PPQ (9mm) DA/SA Sig Sauer P226 (9mm) H&K P2000 v3 (.40sw) CZ P01 (9mm - great gun!) .22lr: Browning Buckmark Camper Rifles: AR: S&W M&P -15 Sport (.223) S&W M&P-22 (pro model) Mini-14 Tactical (.223) Mosin Nagant Henry lever action .22 (octagonal barrel) CZ 452 (.22, bolt action) Kel-Tec Sub-2000 Shotgun: Remington 870 (with a 28" barrel for trap and an 18" barrel for HD) I feel like I'm "missing" a full size .357 and a nice over-under, but think I'm pretty much done buying guns.

Could be -- I hope you are right. Or, since there are only two states that are impacted, they may decide not to take the case.

I just finished reading the entire opinion, and all I can say is "wow." What this decision and the dissent make crystal clear is the difference between judges who take the Constitution seriously and those that feel free to bend or break Constitutional and legal principles to fit their world view. Judge Hardiman says as much at the end of his dissent where he not so subtly castigates his colleagues by noting "Federal Judges must apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court regardless of what each judge might believe as a matter of policy or principle." The majority opinion is poorly reasoned. I hope that the Heller majority will be sufficiently offended by this judicial activism so as to compel them to grant cert and overturn this garbage decision.

Unfortunately granting cert is not just up to Scalia. You need 5 judges -- the same five who were the majority in Heller and McDonald. I worry that one or more of them -- Kennedy in particular -- might feel that they've done enough on the 2A. After all, the Court took 60 years (following the Miller decision) to address the 2A at all, and then issued 2 major decisions in the span of two years. Also, when you look at the big picture, with "technical" concealed carry now allowed in all 50 sates there might be less of a sense of urgency. The reality is that, unlike the much broader question of whether the 2A is an individual or collective right and applicability to the states covered in Heller/McDonald, the outcome of a ccw case will only immediately impact NJ, CA, MD, NY, Ct, MA and a few other states and at least on the surface there is some form of carry even in those states. And my understanding is that other may issue states like NY, MD and CT and maybe even MA are significantly less restrictive in granting ccw permits than NJ. I think the justices will consider that. I am not all that hopeful of them granting cert, although I really hope to be proven wrong.

The number of genuinely stupid people in the world never ceases to amaze me.

There was a report on Opposing Views on this that stated that NJ2AS withdrew the gun from the contest. Is that true?? If so, why? There is a NJ compliant version.

This story was reposted at http://njtoday.net/2013/07/25/gun-group-offers-illegal-gun-as-prize-to-lobby-governor/. A commenter noted the lie, and CMD media stated that the gun being sold is the Sig M400 ENhanced, which has a 30 round mag, and the M400 Hunter is the 10 round model. They even posted a link to the Sig Sauer product description. What the idiots neglected to mention is that the very link to the Enhanced model they posted clearly states under "Specifications" that a NJ compliant model is available. I've tried to post a correction, but I don't think they are letting me do that. Perhaps others should post there to challenge them. I hope they get sued for defamation.

Just a guess: The NJ Supreme Court has not revisited justifiable need since the Heller decision came down. They want to reaffirm their prior holdings, which were rendered when there was no US Supreme Court case clearly holding that the 2A grants an individual right. The NJ Supreme Court wants to make clear that Heller doesn't change anything in NJ and we are still all screwed.

Whoever makes the decision to kick in a door without a knock should have his ass on the line. The police need to be held accountable to their masters -- the public.

It depends. If you have a gun safe next to your bed and your kids are in the next bedroom and your door is kicked in I have no doubt that the people with 40 or 50 or more hours of tactical training - and many of us do - you just might get to your firearm and react. And that would be a tragedy all around. If you read the article you'd see that many swat teams do no knock entries even though they may be illegal.

Here's the thing. I have no problem with swat teams, but we need personal accountability. A team kicks in the wrong door without a knock and clear identification, every single member of the team is personally liable, criminally and civilly, for any personal injury or property damage. Oh, and if the innocent homeowner takes out a few of the cops because he thinks his home is being invaded he should have immunity from prosecution. How would anyone on this board react if his front door is kicked in In the middle of the night with no knock or police identifying themselves? That's what I thought.

Go to a town council meeting. Every town should have public meetings at which minutes are taken. In my town the meetings are shown on a local cable station. There is usually a time set aside for good and welfare in which members of the public can comment on anything -- they give you 5 minutes in my town. Complain to the council, in public and on the record at the meeting, about how long it's taking. Mention that the law provides for 30 days. You'd be surprised how town council members and the mayor might respond, even if they aren't pro-2A. If you are reasonable and explain that you object to the abuse of process and arbitrary delays, they may feel compelled to do something.

I've seen this 2 or 3 times and it still cracks me up. Kudos to the NTSB intern who had the cojones to pull this off (and best of luck to that person in his or her search for a new internship).

Yes, same here. Started out 5 years ago with a CZ P01, S&W model 60 and a Remington 870. Never expected to buy another gun. Then I wanted a .22 rifle, then it became 3 (bolt, lever and M&P-22), then a centerfire rifle (Mini-14, then of course I needed an AR and picked up a Mosin because it was cheap), wanted a1911 (which soon became 2), a .22 pistol (Buckmark), guns for pocket carry (Kahr PM9 and Ruger LCR), full size handgun (Sig P226), an HK P2000 (wanted to try something in .40cal), and finally at least one mid-sized striker fired gun (Walther PPQ). Oh yeah, and a Kel Tec Sub 2000. Whew. I only have time to go to the range about once per month. If getting pistol permits was easier I'd probably do a few trade-ins, but frankly I just can't muster the energy to go through the application process. So, I actually do think I am done.

One other thought -- especially for those husbands/ boyfriends who already have some training and/or fighting experience. If you don't have the time or cash for a formal MA school (and sometimes it's hard to find one that's worthwhile) get a standing heavy bag (the kind with a base you fill with water or sand), a muay thai heavy pad (or other type of heavy large pad that can be held and take knee strikes and side/back kicks) and a few light hand-held sparring pads. Teach your wife/girlfriend how to throw a basic punch, elbow strike, basic front snap kick and a low side kick. Nothing fancy. Have her yell and scream and work at the bag and the pads in 30 second or one minute drills (or do a tabata type workout) at max intensity. Encourage aggression, yelling, etc. Teach some very basic, simple movements -- eg how to counter bear hug from behind, get in a low crouch for stability, then stamp the foot, and/or quick and hard elbow strikes around to the grabbing person's head (most untrained people don't know to rest their head on the person's back when grabbing from behind and leave themselves wide open) twist around after the grip is loosened and then follow with kick to groin, knee strike etc). The woman in the video could have used this simple technique. You get the idea. I really think if a couple works at this regularly for a while it will definitely impart some self confidence and skills. Of course, this assumes you don't mind your wife beating you up.

Jauslong -- all valid points. Training is key. I think 1 year of dedicated Krav training is enough to give even a relatively slight woman more than a fighting chance. Remember, we are talking about a situation where there are no good options -- not a bar fight or street fight where two guys square off to prove who's got the bigger package. And not every attacker is your size or has your experience. While martial arts like Tae Kwan Do and Karate can be great fun and a good workout, I think you'd need to practice for many years to make them effective in a real self-defense situation. Other martial arts -- krav maga (not technically a "martial art") among others -- are much more to the point. Throat and groin strikes, elbow strikes, eye gouges, low side or front kicks to the knee. The kind of "dirty" fighting that actually works. I think one of the biggest advantages to training is learning how to be aggressive and get out of your comfort zone; most people never have the opportunity to do or practice that and can't just "turn on" that response when actually faced with a deadly threat, so they freeze. And to "win" here, all you need to do is make it more attractive for the attacker to run out the door rather than stay and fight. At the very least, it gives options.

I think your assumption that she did everything right is faulty. Yes, in this particular case, she came out of it ok. But the reality is, if this animal had different inclinations or reacted differently, it could have turned out much, much worse. It is logical to assume that someone who would do what he did would also take it much further -- murder and/or rape this woman and possibly kill the kid as well to eliminate any witnesses. It very easily could have gone down that way (remember that poor mother and her daughters in Connecticut who were raped and killed -- the mom actually drove to a bank before going back home where she met her horrible fate). So, the question boils down to this: are you willing to leave the most precious thing you possess -- your child's life and your life -- in the hands of an animal like this. Are you willing to let someone else decide if you live or die. In my opinion, the answer should be "no." That means: 1) if you are in a situation to avoid trouble, to escape, to de-escalate, it is your duty (and common sense to do it). Put aside pride, avoid road rage, etc. and get out of the situation if at all possible; 2) if option 1 is not possible, do everything possible -- bite, scratch, kick, scream -- to stop the attack. We talk a lot about guns, but I think basic self-defense training -- krav maga for example -- is a very, very good idea. That said, I agree that none of us really know how we will react when in this situation. It's easy to be a chariborne Ranger. But I do think that self defense training -- where you get used to hitting someone, yelling, being aggressive, getting outside your comfort zone, AND being hit, is very, very useful, whether or not you are armed.

I only carried at home during Sandy. Gonna rethink that. Takes an extra minute to open the safe and grab the Ruger LCR in a pocket holster. After all, you never need a gun ... until you do.