Turbofire

done

Information bubbles are comforting. What part of their methodolgy did you disagree with?

Thanks for the link! I already used this. It's going to be hard for an anti to claim Harvard is a right wing biased source. One thing, the paper actually cautions against taking the findings a step too far and saying gun control is not only unproductive but counter-productive. They basicly claim guns are a marginal variable and that other socioeconomic factors play a much larger role in murder/crime rates.

This doesn't seem to be all that unusual, there was 601 in 2003. Seems about average with a slight dip to about 450 in the mid-late 2000's.

Sorry guys, I realize my mistake with terminology, I'm new to shooting anything but paper. I guess it it will be just an informal hunt on private land, actually is in NY. Thanks for the suggestions.

What am I looking for in 12 ga. 3" for a turkey shoot or is just anything with a turkey on the box ok?

Forgive my ignorance, I understand not supporting any new legislation on principle, but what would be the reason for not reporting a stolen firearm?

D.C. and Chicago both still have awb's and mag cap restrictions along various inconveniences toward gun ownership. In those cases the Justices purposefully made their decisions narrow in scope leaving leeway for goverment to regulate certain aspects of gun ownership. These new capacity limits seem like a (diabolically) clever workaround since an all out ban of semi-automatic function or handguns would be unconstitutional. Much like NJ carry law next to impossible is not considered the same as impossible.

I'm more of a liberatarian but I find all most conservatives hear is "liberal talk" when it comes to discussing social issues. I find it actually suprises democrats in a good way to meet someone they can identify with on other issues who owns a gun, they seem more comfortable asking questions. Don't want to go on too much of a tangent but I think it is a hurdle for the advancement of 2a rights that progressive gun owners are basicly forced in the closet in pro-gun organizations/forums. More people might be open minded towards the single issue of gun rights if they weren't force fed the entire GOP gospel at the same time. unclenunzie: very well put. There is more than one amendment. (* this forum is pretty laid back, I'm speaking in general)

That is exactly what was screaming in my head watching the video. He let a retail employee disarm him and handle his loaded firearm! I certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of some guy AD/NDing my gun. Unload at the car or something.

One thing I'd like to add now that you people got me reading a bunch of stories/ watching videos on pafoa . In some cases guys are getting stopped and detained by the same officer more than once. That means they already sat on the side of the road doing the back and forth with the station song and dance and were educated on the law. The next time isn't ignorance, it's harrassment because they disagree with the law, and that is a criminal act. A second encounter should go a little more like this: "Hey Jerry, we got a call about a guy carrying a gun, was that you at the diner just now? Ok well I know your on the up and up but as long as you choose to do that people are going to call and we have to follow up, Have a good one." END I wouldn't be surprised if the philly cop "forgets" the law with the next OCer. Just to balance things out here's one of the good guys:

The one thing that really annoys me about the OCer is not getting on his knees when told to do so if it wasn't for that I think the officer would of been in a more reasonable mood or at least he would have the high ground. On the other hand I always find it unfair that in any altercation we forgive the officers actions as part of a stress filled adrenaline dump but the civilian with the gun in his face is supposed to be as cool as a cucumber and react with slow yet instantanious precision. At the end the officer mentions they have the right to stop him and check his permit, I'm pretty sure the standard permit check doesn't include guns drawn and a face plant on the sidewalk. Hmmm an unwritten ban, sounds alot like NJ. "Sure you have the right but you will be hassled so is it really worth it?" " Since you have acknowledged that you will be hassled if you do it now your just looking to make trouble." I have watched a bunch of these open carry videos and at first like others it seemed to me like just trouble makers, but I've grown to really understand the points they try to make. Forgetting 2a its amazing what a joke 4a has become and how simply invoking it is "being a wiseass", yet another right with "consequences". There's a series of video's about Keene, NH (freekeene.org) and the residents have made some real headway in educating the populace and police. Having said all that I'd rather ccw, personally.

I've been lusting after the 1895SBL and hoping Marlin would make a .357 version, this year they are. Marlin 2011 catalog. It says it only holds 7 rounds though, the 1894CP holds 8 as does the .44 mag version and 16" model 92's. Anyone know why, I know the mag on winchesters is flush with the barrel?

I completely agree there is a "telephone game" at work with our laws, thats what I meant by grey area... the law is only clear to those who take the time to read it. My only personal experience with police and firearms the initial officer and his backup both thought my FID card was the end all. I wouldn't of wanted to argue 2C:39- with them on the side of the road. This is good though everyone needs all the information and then they can decide individually how far to go. BTW, Thanks for the advice I am now removing all my firing pins.

Is safe practice and not required confusing? In the trunk is locked up... so WTF I know the actual law, I was just trying to give a new guy simple on the safe side guidelines imparted to me by knowledgable people. I guess thats a big no no.

The accepted safe practice is the make sure you have your FID card and a copy of your purchase permit (not required) with you and have the gun locked up and unloaded separate from the ammo. Take a direct route to and from the range. Of course as with all NJ law theres a lot of gray area.

Here's Nappen's idea of changes related to Brian's case: "Brian's Law" Authored by: Evan Nappen, Esq. 1) Upon request of the Defendant the NJS 2C:39-6 exemptions shall be read and charged to the Jury. Comments; This is to guarantee that no one ever again suffers the injustice suffered by Brian at the hands of another "Judge Morley." Let the jury decide. 2) Amend NJS 2C:39-5 b. and f. back to a Third Degree offense and remove the "Graves Act" requirement from all of NJS 2C:39-5. Comments: The Graves Act requirement currently in the law requires a minimum mandatory incarceration of 3-5 years with no chance of parole, even for first offenders with no prior offenses. At a the current Second Degree level for a violation of NJS 2C:39-5 b. and f. there is a "presumptive" sentence of 7 Years in State Prison (Max of 10 years) plus the minimum mandatory time with no chance of parole. This unfairly jeopardizes otherwise law abiding gun owners with draconian penalties for an honest mistake. 3) Any person charged under NJS 2C:39-5, NJS 2C:39-3, or NJS 2C:39-9 may apply for PTI regardless of the degree of offense. Comments: Currently those charged under NJS 2C:39-5 b. and f. are not even allowed to APPLY for PTI because they are Second Degree offenses. PTI should always be an option for honest gun owners to get out of the system. 4) The type of firearm shall not be a factor in a PTI determination. Comments: Current case law says those who possess an "Assault Firearm" are virtually "per se" disqualified from PTI. This is a very bad decision and many so-called 'Assault firearms" are commonly possessed guns that no one would believe are prohibited. For example the Marlin Model 60 .22 and the Remington Model 552 .22.

To defend some reporters (plenty of biased ones) it's very difficult to explain this case accurately without a NJ gun law-101 course as a prerequisite. I think some of the misinformation is a result of trying to condense all the info into a short summary for laymen. Maybe we should go along with the misquote, won't this qualify as demonstrable need for a carry permit? I have the same morbid fascination with Miller as I do with Kim Jong Il in that his unwavering faith to his chosen ideology, beyond all human emotion, is astounding.

"Some parents confessed that they bought guns just a couple of days before the event so their children could get a gift or watch the Bash-O-Matic do its work." Amazing, now the local toy store will up the reorder since there selling so well. As for the mother of six, she acts like the kid gets the toy guns on the streets. If you don't want him to have them then don't buy them, don't let him take them to school. I used to get punished for even pointing my toy guns at people.

Merry Christmas to the Aitkens. So glad this guy doesn't have to be locked up with monsters anymore. Got to hand it to those politicians, what a graceful dance... status quo ante bellum. The funny thing about the trentonian article is that besides the usual anti cliches, they can't even get the facts of the case right, " Aitken and his lawyer said he should have been told there’s a exception to the gun possession law for transporting weapons from one home to a new one."

Well thats a kick in the nuts, my sundays free guess I'll go to the range. Did you guys catch that in case I need you to testify at my trial... I WILL BE LEGALLY TRANSPORTING TO AND FROM THE RANGE ON SUNDAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2C:39-6e/g. There, that ought to cover it, I hope.

He had lived at his parents house and kept stuff there during the process of moving to the apartment in Hoboken, all while selling his place in Colorado. In an interview the judge stated the length of time and number of trips in this process was not within the "moving window" (though none is stated in the law). The only other "damning" evidence I've seen is a statement that wasn't clearly attributed (something like an officer's report on an interview with his roomate) was that Brian already had the guns at the apartment but took them back to his parents house when they had a big party as he didn't want the guns around drunk people. So the defense had evidence and the prosecution had evidence, the judge decided not the jury. Trying to think of any more details for you...

vf915, I don't completely disagree with you... but you really seem to be missing the main point of whats wrong in Brian's case, besides the jail time. You and your attorney may be very well versed in NJ firearms law but you have to assume the jury knows nothing and it's quite an uphill battle when the prosecution is literally rewriting the law on the spot. Look how many news articles on this story misquoted NJ law, thats your jury right there. Ex: One of the prosecutions statements to the press stated that Brian did not have the required pistol purchase permits for each pistol when we know that if you move to NJ with preowned handguns there is a VOLUNTARY registration form. I posted this in the other thread, please at least listen from 7:30 on: You can't say, "that would never happen", because it just did.

Evan Nappen reading trial transcripts, , starting at 7:30... prepare for rage.

The 911 call was a hangup. He was not pulled over. He was headed to hoboken and the police called and asked him to return to his parents house. "What we know for sure is that he had magazines that exceed the legal capacity. " What model was the gun(s)? how many rounds did the magazine hold? I agree with BRN169, but given your statement about minimal facts ( which I agree with to a degree) how could you possibly be sure of this? I've met some LEOs who thought the limit was still 10rd.