kman

Get it, get the Hogue grip, and eventually get a trigger job done. Fantastic little tank.

Technically if you are selling a handgun, and the buyer comes to your home and does the paperwork, his possession of the purchased handgun from your house back to his house is covered under the "exemption" of taking it from point of purchase back to his home. However, I've wondered about the situation where the seller brings a handgun to the buyer's house to do paperwork. What exemption covers THAT trip? What if the seller gets pulled over and searched on the way to the buyer's house? The same for taking a handgun to a dealer to sell. If the dealer is also a gunsmith, then you are covered since you can bring a gun to and from a gunsmith. But if the dealer isn't a gunsmith, what covers that trip? That's the problem with banning something outright and then coming up with a list of exemptions. It ought to be the other way - the default ought to be legality. Rifles and shotguns don't pose the same difficulties, because with a FPID card you can possess them unloaded most places.

Semi-autos work great, but if you really want to enjoy shooting, get yourself a nice revolver and enjoy it. There is no substitute.

Remember, overcapacity magazines are a felony in New Jersey. So more realistic photographs would be these.

Work on a loading gate, and Henry will OWN the lever market.

NJ doesn't have a state pre-emption law regarding firearms, so this would be upheld. See p. 7-8 http://handgunlaw.us/states/newjersey.pdf

The police can likely justify it by saying they have to verify citizenship or green card status in order to avoid giving NJ FOID cards to illegal aliens in violation of federal law. Remember, one of Murphy's campaign promises was NJ Driver licenses for the "undocumented".

Want to get a cool revolver that's different, check out the Mateba Autorevolver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mateba_Autorevolver And the best over-the-top movie showcasing it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258137/

Weaver V3 https://www.amazon.com/Weaver-V-3-1-3X20-Riflescope-Matte/dp/B0000V2EBM Surprisingly excellent.

What do you do to bring out the engraving marks so prominently? Is there a white paste or something?

You might want to try bullets that, if you find they work good, you can buy in bulk. Hornady sells some of its bullets in packs of around 2000 bullets. That is a lot of them. Check the Hornady website.

The pistol range in the back of Ray's was like $12 or maybe even less for an hour of shooting...no forms to fill out either...and there was never a wait, even on the weekends. Nice old fashioned range. That place was great.

Colorado grandfathered the ownership of over 15 round magazines that were possessed prior to the bill. So people in Colorado keeping theirs were not breaking any law. In New York, an over-10 round magazine is a misdemeanor, and there are provisions that get you out of trouble under certain circumstances if you can convince them you didn't know the law changed. In New Jersey, an overcapacity magazine is a full blown felony, period. If you are going to be keeping the ones you have, the smart advice is to not post it on a public forum.

What I did is just shoot both right handed and left handed every time i went to the range. Eventually it became more and more clear which side I was most comfortable and effective with, and I ended up shooting with the other hand less and less. So though I started shooting lefty because left eye dominant and thought that was the best way, i eventually figured out right hand was better. It depends on the relative strength and dominance of each eye and each hand, so if you are nearly ambidextrous but your eye is strongly cross dominant, you probably should just train your weak side hand. If your eyes are nearly equal, then it might make sense to just go with your dominant hand and train your eyes. The only way to figure out which way works is to try both for an extended period and see which way feels best for you.

In a gun-free zone such as a school campus, where everyone is helpless, an AR-15 is not necessary - a madman armed with something as archaic as a lever action Winchester rifle from 1866 and a bag full of shells to reload from could shoot just as many people. https://www.uberti-usa.com/1866-yellowboy-rifle Pretty much anybody with pretty much any gun capable of being reloaded by hand can shoot up and scatter a mass of people who have nothing to defend themselves with, which is pretty much every school in the country since we are too cheap to provide armed guards, the willingness of police and guards to run toward the sound of gunfire cannot be taken for granted (they usually, but not always, take cover until the shooting stops), and teachers who would be willing to carry concealed to defend themselves and the students under them are not allowed to. So getting rid of the AR-15 or so-called "assault weapons" wouldn't do a thing to make anyone safer. Handguns and hunting rifles work just as well when nobody is shooting back. How about getting rid of all guns then? That doesn't work either, as we saw in France in recent times, where for all practical purposes they have a complete ban on arms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting 12 Killed, 11 Injured https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks 130 Killed, 413 Injured Somehow people hell-bent on killing find a way to get one gun, and one is all they need. If someone tries hard enough, no matter where they are, they will be able to acquire one, legal or not. There will always be professional purveyors of contraband that you can't get rid of, who deal in drugs and guns and, where banned, alcohol, and pretty much anything else in demand that legitimate merchants are barred from selling. We banned drugs, we banned alcohol, the stated aim was to rid society of these substances, all failures. People who want contraband to do bad things will find it. And if all guns were magically disappeared, which has never happened anywhere in the world, a madman with a gallon of gasoline could kill and maim just as many people. "Happy Land Fire" in New York City - 1 Madman, 1 jug of gasoline, 87 people killed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire And if gasoline were banned, a madman could kill and maim just as many people using something else. Truck attack in Nice, France - 86 Dead, 458 Injured https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack Truck attack in Berlin - 12 Dead, 56 Injured https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_attack Note that insane people going on killing sprees happens just about everywhere in the world, for all sorts of awful reasons, using all sorts of things besides guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers Fundamentally, you can't make the world safe by banning things. The world is always going to be a dangerous place. You can try to make the world safer by making changes, but you have to watch that you don't make things worse with unintended consequences when you seek to change things. Historically, governments have been, by far, the largest killers of human beings. This is why people who advocate for private ownership of arms do so not because they are mean, but because they do care very much about the well being of everyone. People in Venezuela have no arms, and are literally being starved to death while their government destroys their economy to the point that they cannot even buy FOOD. They sure could use AR-15s to rid themselves of their corrupt government. But the country had "common sense gun control" in place to protect the government from the people, so the government, being of course well armed, has nothing to worry about, and the helpless people can starve. It can happen anywhere at any time, if the people have no way to prevent it. Kim Jong-Un is also a big proponent of "common sense gun control" (his government having guns and the people having none) because if the starving population of his country had AR-15s he and his corrupt, evil government would not last a day. Generally, when you compare the two, the people in any given place are nicer, more tolerant, and more moral than their government. On the other hand, the higher the government position, the more immoral and corrupt the person occupying the office gets. And if you happen to create a government staffed by saints, it could disappear in a second and be replaced by devils, as so many populations found in Europe, 1939-1945 as Germany and the Soviet Union just rolled over country after country, replacing their governments and running roughshod over the citizens. And historically, this has happened so many times you cannot even count. One day, you have a nice government, the next day, it has been invaded and the head of your government is replaced by a foreign power. So I would by default trust the people to be armed, and hold whatever government they find themselves underneath in check. That is they only way for decent people to be safe and secure. The thing that is sad is gun owners are being portrayed as mean, heartless people. In fact, gun owners care just as much as those who are screaming for a gun ban. NRA members care very much about safety and security of the people. It is just that they know that fundamental security means that the good and decent people in the population must be allowed to be armed and be knowledgeable about arms, and pass that knowledge and skill down to the next generation. When it is only the scoundrels, criminals and corrupt officials that are armed, and the good and decent people are defenseless, you have no security whatsoever. This describes the situation in much of the world, and we do not want to live there. It is extremely easy to get on the gun control bandwagon because it is popular and everyone is doing it. It takes courage to refuse to get on this bandwagon and stand for what is right because it is right and because you truly do care about keeping people safe.

Trump is the most skilled negotiator that gun owners have ever had elected to the Presidency in modern times. So if he can get a good deal for real expansion of rights (permit reciprocity and NFA reform, for instance) in exchange for banning ridiculous loophole trick novelties such as "bump stocks" and raising the age for semi-automatic rifles to 21, it would not be all bad. And if he can't get a good deal, it will be no deal. Remember, Ronald Reagan ended up signing a bill in 1986 gaining for gun owners, among other things, full legalization of interstate transport of firearms, legalization of buying long arms outside of your state of residence, removal of federal logging of ammunition sales, and reduction in the power of the ATF, in exchange for a ban on new machine gun registrations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act So there are things to be gained by doing deals. There are also benefits to engaging in negotiation even if you think a deal is unlikely. Remember, George W. Bush said explicitly he would sign a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban when it was expiring in 2004 - the only reason he didn't do it is because congress didn't pass a renewal. What legal reform was he willing to negotiate for gun owners in exchange for his signature on an extension of that ban? Absolutely nothing. George H.W. Bush banned the importation of most semi-automatic rifles by executive action. Ever wonder why you have to go through the ridiculousness of figuring out parts counts for US made compliant parts to get an imported rifle 922r compliant? That's George W. Bush's regulation. What did he negotiate for us in exchange for that ridiculous law that has people counting and replacing perfectly good parts to make their guns "compliant"? Absolutely nothing! Gerald Ford wanted to ban "saturday night specials" but fortunately no bills doing such made it to his desk to sign, and he was not President for too long in any event. Richard Nixon was in favor of making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles, but again fortunately congress never sent him a bill to sign on these items. Those are the Republican presidents we have had since the Gun Control Act of 1968. Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good.

Where can we find out more about this? Can you re-post the links? I can't find them.

Laws found to be unconstitutional are rarely actually repealed - they many times stay on the books but are not enforced because the Court won't enforce it, or the Court has an injunction in place forbidding enforcement. An example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1465 Yes, that is still on the books. That being said, I would really like to know if prosecutors in NJ have given up on banning stun guns, or are they trying to come up with some sort of argument that they can prosecute possession of them some other way. Has anyone been arrested for possession of one since late October of last year?

To answer the original poster's question, I recommend just getting new ones designed to hold no more than 10, rather than butchering your existing ones. The new Mec Gar ones I bought are designed to limit to 10 rounds but still disassemble as per usual so they can be cleaned. Whoever designed them really did a good job. There is no way more than 10 can go in, there's no way it can be modified to fit more, and it can be fully disassembled for cleaning. It is bad enough the limit will be further restricted to 10, but in my opinion worse yet if you have to look at the botch job you did to make your magazines legal every time afterward. I sure don't want to be reminded of Trenton by having to look at crappy rivets and epoxy on my magazines every time I go to the range. Considering how much ammunition costs, just get new ones that work properly and look sharp.

In the back of the ANJRPC newsletter there is an advertisement for a psychologist who specializes in "Psychological Firearm Evaluations for Initial Applicants & Reinstatements" If you want to get ahead of this issue, probably best to call him ASAP and find out if he is willing to speak with your existing doctor, review your file, examine you, and give you a clean bill of health so your doctor doesn't have to go against company policy. It seems like your doctor's hands are tied, he cannot help you in any formal or official matter, which you will probably need if you check yes. If you are intending to fight a denial, probably also good idea to line up an attorney. There are advertisements for those also in the newsletter.

It appears Maryland bans sale of over 10 rounders in state but does not ban people bringing them in from out of state. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Shipping rifles and shotguns to yourself is not hard. You can mail them no problem. Just buy a rifle case from Amazon, it will arrive in a cardboard box. Open the cardboard box, take the rifle case out, put your rifles/shotguns in, put the case back in the box, re-seal it, mail it to yourself. Shipping handguns is difficult to say the least. They are not mailable items. Private couriers such as Fedex and UPS are legally able to ship handguns from yourself/to yourself, but in actuality they refuse to ship handguns anywhere but to a FFL. Theoretically you could act like a criminal and not declare the package as having a firearm. That invites yourself being treated as a criminal if something happens to the package. As an honest person, you don't need that kind of stress. You could ship the handguns via Fedex or UPS to a federal firearms dealer in Florida and have him hold it for you there, and you would just get a Florida drivers license and then do the NICS check down there to claim them. No permits to wait for down there. The only issue is bringing handguns to Fedex or UPS in New Jersey to ship them. Are you violating NJ law on possessing a handgun outside of an exemption when you are bringing them to the Fedex or UPS retail location? Will you be arrested if a police officer walks by? Will the employees recoil in horror? You don't need that kind of stress. Better option is to bring your handguns to a NJ FFL and have that FFL ship them to a Florida FFL, where you can then pay the NICS fee, fill out a ATF form 4473, pass the check, pay the dealer his fee, and claim them. In actuality, driving down to Florida with them unloaded and locked in a case is really the best option by far because they will never leave your possession and control. Whenever you have a situation where you are checking baggage, or shipping packages, or going through a dealer, there are numerous potential problems that can arise. Involving other potentially squeamish, error-prone, potentially ill-advised people who don't know the law, with your guns, is best avoided. Driving to Florida is pretty well covered legally. You are covered in NJ because you are moving. Once you get past the NJ border, you are fine everywhere else under 18 USC 926A. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926A Ditch your hollow point rounds. They aren't covered by the moving exemption in NJ, as Brian Aitken found out in his trial. Bring them to a range in NJ and shoot them all off. Buy new ones in Florida. Enjoy your Florida permit and play the Miami Vice theme song when you get there.

Who the hell has time to do something they don't want to do? If you enjoy the process of reloading, do it because you enjoy it. Don't do it to save a few bucks. That sounds like work.

They did it during and after Katrina. https://www.amazon.com/Great-New-Orleans-Gun-Grab/dp/0970981333 https://www.nraila.org/articles/20081010/new-orleans-mayor-finally-admits-illega

Probably just telling the planning board what they want to hear. Gotta get the business license first!