Spartiati

Why are you putting words in my mouth. It is not an us versus them mentality. It is a fair an uniform application of the law mentality. I have nothing against police officers. I have many many friends who are cops. I have a problem with the government creating a separate set of rules for a certain group. We don't have to agree on this, if your fine with that it is your right to be. I am not.

You can face palm me all you want but my point is the other side makes stuff up calling it common sense and then we says things like retired cops are more likely to be attacked which makes them more at risk than the general public so they should get to carry without any data to support the assertion other than it makes sense... If we have a law that says you need justifiable need why do retired cops get a pass? If they truly are in danger they can explain it to a judge just like us. I'm not saying we should have justifiable need just that it should be applied consistently which is not. Unknowingly killing my own cause? Really? What cause is that? My argument has always been we should be allowed to bear arms because it is an enumerated right. This whole nonsense of justifying it based on levels of danger is what creates special classes of citizens that we have here in NJ.

Not very often though that we hear of a retired cop being attacked once retired. We need to have a clear argument for justified need which basically equates to almost having been killed and even then it's low probability of getting it. So it should be for them as well. I have yet to see any data proving that retired cops are so much more likely to have acts of retribution taken on them that they would be justified in carrying. Right now they are just super citizens, plain and simple.

Do you have recirculation on? Think I remember mine doing that but once I turned recirculation off it was fine.

This

In his opening statement, Beam told jurors that "if you find that my client was unable to know, because he passed out on the lawn, what was going on, then your obligation is to find him not guilty." So the jury fell for the old Jedi mind trick...

I agree. No reason to hear it again to arrive at the same outcome. It will be reversed. I am sure the opinion is already written.

Simply unreal, but not at all surprised. The defendent in the case didn't even want to appeal and yet the ninth circuit pulls this crap. I agree with others no chance here en banc, and very little chance for cert given Drake unless there is something about this case that better defined than Drake. Guess we'll have to wait another 2 years for a close on this one.

Nice vocabulary I am impressed. I am sure if someone quoted you to make a point and then then used the phrase "get it?" in the way you did you would have been fine with that. I actually am thankful you cleared it up, doesn't mean I have to like the manner in which you did it. I would have prefered you just cleared it up. I do agree with you thought that I should probably lower my standards. This thread has already consumed way to much of my time so I will spend time on this thread no more.

Trust me buddy, I certainly am not “intellectually challenged” as you imply. No one attacked your intelligence quotient so no need to attack mine. You already stated you were using taptalk and thus the reason for your poorly written accounts. Glad you are doing this, there are also several other threads going where members are planning to do something similar.

First off my name isn't Guy. Secondly I am quite aware of the case law you reference, that is my point. We don't need you to point us to youtube videos and case law. What does any of that have to do with what you are doing? Again we are all aware that it is impossible to get a carry permit in NJ. If you would have simply articulated "I am doing this to help further our cause by contributing to the statistics of people who are denied to help demostrate, contrary to NJ's argument that there is a 90% approval rate, that they almost always deny." We wouldn't need this discourse. Instead a bunch of random posts that most could not follow. Your very first post was just a random thought which was just begging for questions.

If he would have said what you just said perhaps it would have been much more clear get it? The posts were not clear and many times the English was difficult to understand. It really pisses me off that people like you come on here and everytime someone asks a question you feel it necessary to be a smart ass i.e. "Get it?". The fact is this thread was not clear and several other have pointed that out. I was not at all suggesting he was a trail blazer. I posted my question because several others asked if he could provide details and he told us to go view youtube videos and read NJ gun laws.

Most of us are "fairly" well read on the subject of NJ gun laws. Folks aren't asking you for resources on NJ gun laws. What I'd like to better understand is the argument you are making in front of the court in your appeal. Not clear from your posts.

I'd be interested, but the number 1 question in my mind is where are we going with this. We had Drake and SCOTUS didn't grant cert. By doing this will it position us any differently for eventualy cert with SCOTUS? We know NJ courts will never grant anything so it will need to be heard by SCOTUS.

I thought this at first as well but if distance between shell plate and die doesn't change with a full pull of the lever then regardless of case length the OAL should be the same. Only thing that would change is seating depth. I haven't fully analysed this, one of these days I want to check OAL immediately after seating i.e. before crimping to see if the change in OAL is present between the two cases. Perhaps crimping is doing something when the case length changes.

I too have experienced this as well. I use a few different case manufactures for 45acp and when I switch between them using the same bullets my seating die needs to be adjusted in order to maintain OAL. This has puzzled me for some time as the distance from contact point of bullet in seating die to the shell plate doesn't change so you would think you'd get the same OAL with different cases but I don't. If some one could explain this would be great. I use a Dillon xl650. Other things I have noticed that will effect OAL is a shell plate that is not properly torque down, not having a full shell plate when a bullet is being seated I.e. Not having a case in all stations, and a tool head that moves. I have fixed the latter by threading the tool head and screwing it to the machine.

Looks like the site was updated?

Same problem with me. I shoot with Decot glasses. They have been great. Also lenses are interchangable so can chage color and make changes if prescription changes and not have to replace the frame too. http://www.sportglasses.com/

Was there couple years ago. Lodging was ok, food was ok, people were very nice. Caged hunt so don't expect a challenge. I killed mine with a bow which I think is the way to go. Rifle is shooting fish in a barrel.

10mm uses the same case feed tube parts as 45acp which are red. Adjustment screw will solve this problem with alignment.

My thought exactly. Should have never removed the loaded gun in the store. Not necessary. I love how the program charaterized it as an issue with Glock design. This can happen with vitually and striker fire gun or any gun for that matter, manual safety or not. Need to make sure the holster is clear...

He's never had any requirements like that in his shop to my knowledge. Have purchsed there a number of times and haven't had to deal with that.

There's tnt reloading near easton PA. http://www.tntreloading.com/ Not North Jersey but not too far either.

There is a small adjustment screw on the case feedbody which allows you to adjust alignment of it with the tube. If you can find let me know will take a picture on mine.

True that can still make it out, but being Greek it stands out to me. Thought I'd mention should you reprint