Jump to content

Turbofire

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    40

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Turbofire

  3. Posted

    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.

  5. Posted

    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.

  8. Posted

    I am at a loss why there is not more discussion on how mag restrictions might violate 2A, and similarly an AWB might, now that heller and macdonald are scotus case law.

     

    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.

  9. Posted · Edited by Turbofire

    This takes guts. To come out on a gun forum and openly admit this. Not so easy.

     

    But I have to ask, do you get more grief from gun owners, or progressive democrats when you admit your political leanings AND being a gun owner?

     

    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)

  10. Posted

    You should never unholster your weapon for any reason while carrying. Trying on different holsters? Thats really dumb, even if the store allows you and does it for you.

     

    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.

  11. Posted

    One thing I'd like to add now that you people got me reading a bunch of stories/ watching videos on pafoa :icon_e_wink:. 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:

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    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.

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    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?

  14. Posted

    I think that the issue is this.. (with all due respect).. the laws in NJ are super restrictive and annoying enough without adding more laws over top of them... follow the letter of the law which is clear, and there is no reason to go above and beyond that... you tell him the "accepted safe practice" is removing the firing pin or something crazy (NOT what you did just giving an example).. and now he tells someone else you gotta remove the firing pin when transporting... and then they tell someone.. next thing you know 100 people think you have to remove the firing pin to transport.... again.. JUST saying.. stick to the rules and guidelines.. they are pretty clear.. :icon_e_biggrin:

     

    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. :icon_e_biggrin:

  17. Posted

    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.

  18. Posted

    Did anyone read the article in the link? What the f*ck is with these reporters? Is it total ignorance, stupidity or intentional lying to the public? Twice in the article:

     

    Aitken, 27, became a cause celebre for gun advocates when he was arrested last year in Mount Laurel for possession of three handguns he legally purchased in Colorado but didn’t have a carry permit for in New Jersey.

     

    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? :icon_e_wink:

     

     

    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.

  19. Posted

    "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. :icon_e_biggrin:

     

    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.

  20. Posted

    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." :icon_rolleyes:

  22. Posted · Edited by Turbofire

    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...

  23. Posted

    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.

  25. Posted

    Two issues with this. One of them is "Based on what we know". What we know is pretty minimal considering the circumstances of a criminal court case. We have NO details to exactly what happened when his mom called the police, when he was pulled over, where he was headed when he was pulled over.....or any details on the case itself. Secondly, he DID break the law. What we know for sure is that he had magazines that exceed the legal capacity. No matter how unconstitutional the laws are, he broke that law. This does not help his image regarding the other charges. I feel for the guy. It sucks. Firearms laws should be uniform federally for SEVERAL reasons, this being one. But what Vlad said is correct. He broke the law, even if his sentence is too long.

     

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...