rtquig

Thanks fishnet, one less thing to be thinking about for now. I spent a lot of time in NH and Georgia in the summer.

I have read where PA would be most likely getting more strict, and have the NH permit. Is NH now leaning towards a liberal Democrat State? I know NH went no permit for CCW last year for people that don't have a felony.

Her Sweat Shirt seems to have a conflict with the sign she is carrying.

Mrs. Peel, While I can not make it to the rally on Monday, my heart and soul are with those that attend. I have never given up the fight, but through history there are examples of an Offensive Retreat to fight another battle another day. There WILL be other rallies which I can attend. I am sorry to see from some members that if you do not attend this rally you become the enemy . Divide and conquer is a method in use since the beginning of man. I am this forum to be connected with fellow NJ gun members. I have read more of your posts than I can count, and do see how involved and how passionate you are on this subject and how much work you actually do. Admittedly, I don't come close to how much time you put into this work. I still have magazines from the last ban that seem to have been lost during that time period and were discovered after the ban was over. We will prevail in the final showdown in the court system. On past occasions I have marched on Washington, been beaten with Police and National Guard batons, tear gassed an held for 4 days to be released with no charges in the end. Government is for the People, not the Politicians who believe are above us and have more rights than we do. Sorry for the extended rant, but I do want you to understand that I am with you and not against you. For those who want to believe I have given up the fight, sorry for the miscommunication.

Really? Adiós señora

I ask myself this question many times in the past months. My answer to myself is who is actually coming to take them? Once I know, then I can truthfully decide my action. Local or Feds?

I can and do see your point. As everyone that is concerned over pur 2A rights, I have non stop followed not only this forum, but others as well, read and re-read the sponsored bills looking for some hope that these bills will not be realized. I do believe this last 5 bills regretfully will be passed. I was disheartened to receive the above letter from my Senator. While my title could have been worded better, it is not meant to be a defeates concession. There are no ill feelings towards you or your response.

Move on to fight another day. Will the courts overturn it? Maybe. Ray Ray Come and take them.

I have spoken several times with Senator Connors over the past several years concerning our 2A rights. He is in our corner. That is who sent the letter I posted. I have lived in Lacey for 42 years now.

Such a friendly response. I didn't say I liked what was sent to me. Here is a State Senator that knows better than anyone on this board what the outcome of the vote will be. When you are retired, you don't need to request Mondays off. New Jersey is a lost cause when it comes to firearms. If you don't believe it, well maybe you should read some Fairy Tales yourself. I live in Lacey, I know the situation better first hand than what you think you have read. So, tell me which Legislators you have written to, spoken to, or went to their office.

Here is the email I received from my Districts Legislators: Your recent correspondence to our 9th District Legislative Office in opposition to new gun control measures was received and reviewed by our Delegation which greatly appreciates your proactive outreach and valued input. Protecting Second Amendment rights continues to be a significant priority for our Delegation in representing the interests of a large segment of our constituency. As the records show, the principled stance we have consistently taken is in opposition to “feel good” gun-control measures that will only impact law-abiding gun owners as opposed to criminals who disregard the law by their very nature. New Jersey already has the third most restrictive gun laws in the nation - behind only California and Connecticut. This has led many constituents, such as you, to question the effectiveness of enacting yet more State gun laws in preventing violence. Over the course of his two terms, former-Governor Christie vetoed a significant number of poorly conceived and written gun control bills that our Delegation opposed and voted against in representing of you and similarly-minded constituents. Fast forward to the present, in which Governor Murphy ran on a campaign platform that touted his Administration would sign a number of gun control bills that former Governor Christie vetoed. Equally notable is the fact that by running on this platform, Governor Murphy’s party expanded its majority in both Houses of the State Legislature - the same controlling party that passed the gun control legislation that former Governor Christie vetoed. In the wake of the Parkland, Florida mass shooting tragedy, gun control advocates in the Legislature have advanced legislation and intensified rhetoric on the issue. It is our responsibility to provide you with an objective and sober assessment of the dynamics at play in the Legislature and Governor’s office with respect to gun control. That being said, our Delegation remains committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights cherished by our constituents and, will act accordingly, in carrying out our Legislative obligations to protect and uphold the US Constitution. Thank you for the privilege of serving as your 9th District State Representatives and we hope that you will maintain an open line of communication with our Delegation on this or any other State issue of interest to you. They are being honest. The Democrats outnumber the Republicans, and the bill that passed in the Assembly will be passed in the Senate.

When you read the article on the 101.5 site, it states the school called all the parents of the students and explained the change. I never received any phone call on this subject. They have called for delayed openings and school closures though. I just re-read the student handbook, it has been changed.

https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/docs/Demand_Letter_to_Lacey_Schoo.PDF Lacey has been put on notice. My tax money wasted by the schools districts unlawful rules.

And here lies a problem. Once you retire and collect your pension, you are only allowed to work 4 days a week and earn under a certain amount of what the pension board allows. I worked municipal, different name of Police and Fire, School teachers, and County workers. While all 4 have different names, they still consider you under the same so called roof. I am only allowed to work 4 days a week in my school district and work another day in another district. You can work as much as you want if the job is not under a state pension. But, depending on when you retired, the rules may or may not apply to you.

The districts that I first worked at had Local Police everyday and parked near the front entrance to show their presence. That was only at the high schools, the other schools had ex-police in plane cloths that would visit the middles schools and lower grade schools during the day, but did not stay posted there.

I had read the same thing 2 or 3 days ago. I wondered at the time what backpack would not hold a 20/30 round magazine. I know the firearm was a Smith & Wesson M&P AR 15, the particular model was not mentioned, but they did speculate it was a cheap version because there was suspicion the gun jammed. Suspicion? Why don't they wait and give out the real facts instead of feeding bits and pieces of may or may not be true. The gun jammed because it was a cheap model? Where do they get this information (news media)? I have not seen a police spokesperson state that yet. I fear the same thing. Ten rounds? better pass a law to make it a 3 round magazine.

How do you or the police know what a shooter is carrying. Just because recent shootings have an AR 15 used, the majority of them didn't. You are looking at Parkland Fla. and not at other mass school shootings. How many different guns used in the NewTown shooting were first reported? All a LEO knows at first is that there is an active shooter. The first descriptions of the shooter and gun used usually turns out to be something different in the confusion. As I stated, I work in a district with 7 high schools. I can be at any one of the schools on a given day. I have worked for this district for a year now and before that worked 3 years in 2 other districts at the same time. I wouldn't pretend to know who all the teachers are. Last week I worked at a school that had two teachers in a classroom. I though my fellow teacher was a student as he was so young looking, and asked him why is he going through the drawers in a teachers desk. Earlier in the week when I had a prep period at another school, I was asked to take over a class where the teacher was sick and needed to go home. When I entered the room, I look around and finally said "where did the teacher go"? As it turns out, She was 5 feet from me, both arms had a lot of tattoos. She had shorts on, and my guess could have been 22 or 23 but could easily have passed for a student. I myself would like to see a CCW for teachers, but a lot, and I mean a lot of training is needed, not some 40 hour course.

One of the concerns I have is that a LEO can't know all the teachers that are carrying and shoot one by accident thinking they are the bad guy.

I work in a school district with 7 high schools. Not one teacher or principal that I have talked to has any desire to carry a gun in school. I have offered to take a few to a range and see for themselves what shooting a firearm is like. No takers.

I don't know what it is, I think a white collar crime but he never specifically said what it is. He has paid a lot of money $10,000 (so he claims) to a lawyer to get his firearms ID, and still has been turned down by a judge. I had to tell him at one point to get a 22Lr out of his house that he found while doing renovations to some ones house that had been foreclosed by the bank. He told me he would claim it was his wife's gun. I informed him he can't have it in his house. He is the same age of my oldest daughter and they know each other from back in the 90's in high school. She thought he had gotten in trouble with a firearm. I don't ask, I figure one day he will tell me.......maybe.

I change the post, he is the convicted felon not I.

I stayed in my home, the water from the bay came as far as our curb and never came up on the lawn. My neighbor asked if I was going to "lend" him an AR 15 for protection as we didn't have power for a week. a convicted felon, uh that would be a no.

I think your analogy on Sandy does not fit here. If you lived on the barrier island and stayed in your house, in a lot of cases you would be dead.

Keep your friend close and your enemies even closer. It is not a made up story, it is what Trump said. You have to read the news on both sides and try to decide if any are true.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-stuns-lawmakers-with-seeming-embrace-of-gun-control-measures/ar-BBJI1QI?ocid=spartandhp Trump has betrayed us. Trump Stuns Lawmakers With Seeming Embrace of Gun Control Measures Click to expand WASHINGTON — President Trump stunned Republicans on live television Wednesday by embracing gun control and urging a group of lawmakers at the White House to resurrect gun safety legislation that has been opposed for years by the powerful National Rifle Association and the vast majority of his partIn a remarkable meeting, the president veered wildly from the N.R.A. playbook in front of giddy Democrats and stone-faced Republicans. He called for comprehensive gun control legislation that would expand background checks to weapons purchased at gun shows and on the internet, keep guns from mentally ill people, secure schools and restrict gun sales from some young adults. He even suggested a conversation on an assault weapons banAt one point, Mr. Trump suggested that law enforcement authorities should have the power to seize guns from mentally ill people or others who could present a danger without first going to court. “I like taking the guns early,” he said, adding, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”The declarations prompted a frantic series of calls from N.R.A. lobbyists to their allies on Capitol Hill and a statement from the group calling the ideas that Mr. Trump expressed “bad policy.” Republican lawmakers suggested to reporters that they remained opposed to gun control measures“We’re not ditching any constitutional protections simply because the last person the president talked to today doesn’t like them,” Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, said in a statement.Democrats, too, said they were skeptical that Mr. Trump would follow through.“The White House can now launch a lobbying campaign to get universal background checks passed, as the president promised in this meeting, or they can sit and do nothing,” said Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut. At the core of Mr. Trump’s suggestion was the revival of a bipartisan bill drafted in 2013 by Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Despite a concerted push by President Barack Obama and the personal appeals of Sandy Hook parents, the bill fell to a largely Republican filibuster. © Tom Brenner/The New York Times President Trump appeared to embrace comprehensive gun control during a meeting with lawmakers on Wednesday at the White House. Mr. Trump’s embrace did not immediately yield converts. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said after the meeting that he was unmoved, repeating the Republican dogma that recent shootings were not “conducted by someone who bought a gun at a gun show or parking lot.” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican who sat next to the president looking flustered, emerged from the meeting and declared, “I thought it was fascinating television and it was surreal to actually be there.” But Mr. Trump suggested that the dynamics in Washington had changed after the school shooting in Florida that claimed 17 lives, in part because of his own leadership in the White House, a sentiment that the Democrats in the room readily appeared to embrace as they saw the president supporting their ideas. “It would be so beautiful to have one bill that everyone could support,” Mr. Trump said as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and a longtime advocate of gun control, sat smiling to his left. “It’s time that a president stepped up.” Democrats tried to turn sometimes muddled presidential musings into firm policy: “You saw the president clearly saying not once, not twice, not three times, but like 10 times, that he wanted to see a strong universal background check bill,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “He didn’t mince words about it. So I do not understand how then he could back away from that.” Just what the performance means, and whether Mr. Trump will aggressively push for new gun restrictions, remain uncertain given his history of taking erratic positions on policy issues, especially ones that have long polarized Washington and the country. The gun control performance on Wednesday was reminiscent of a similar televised discussion with lawmakers about immigration in January during which the president appeared to back bipartisan legislation to help young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children — only to reverse himself and push a hard-line approach that helped scuttle consensus in the Senate. Mr. Trump’s comments during the hourlong meeting were at odds with his history as a candidate and president who has repeatedly declared his love for the Second Amendment and the N.R.A., which gave his campaign $30 million. At the group’s annual conference last year, Mr. Trump declared, “To the N.R.A., I can proudly say I will never, ever let you down.” But at the meeting, the president repeatedly rejected the N.R.A.’s top legislative priority, a bill known as concealed-carry reciprocity, which would allow a person with permission to carry a concealed weapon in one state to automatically do so in every state. To the dismay of Republicans, he dismissed the measure as having no chance at passage in the Congress. Republican leaders in the House had paired that N.R.A. priority with a modest measure to improve data reporting to the existing instant background check system. “You’ll never get it,” Mr. Trump told Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House Republican whip who was gravely injured in a mass shooting last year but still opposes gun restrictions. “You’ll never get it passed. We want to get something done.” Mr. Trump also flatly insisted that legislation should raise the minimum age for buying rifles to 21 from 18 — an idea the N.R.A. and many Republicans fiercely oppose. When Mr. Toomey pushed back on an increase in the minimum age for rifles, the president accused him of fearing the N.R.A. — a remarkable slap since the association withdrew its support for Mr. Toomey over his background check bill. “If there’s a Republican who’s demonstrated he’s not afraid of the N.R.A., that would be me,” Mr. Toomey said after the meeting. The president appeared eager to challenge the impression that he is bought and paid for by the gun rights group. While calling the membership of the N.R.A. “well meaning,” he also said he told its leaders at a lunch on Sunday that “it’s time. We’re going to stop this nonsense. It’s time.” Officials at the gun group were taken aback by the president’s comments and immediately ramped up their lobbying against measures that they have long said would damage the Second Amendment and do little to protect people against gun violence. “While today’s meeting made for great TV, the gun control policies discussed would make bad policy that wouldn’t keep our children safer,” said Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the N.R.A.’s lobbying arm. “We are going to continue to work to pass policies that might actually prevent another horrific tragedy.” But at least for Wednesday, Mr. Trump seemed willing to veer far from the N.R.A. script, even appearing to suggest that he might back an ban on assault-style weapons when Ms. Feinstein asked what they could do about “weapons of war.” The N.R.A. has helped defeat an assault weapons ban since the last one expired in 2004. The reaction in Washington was swift. Breitbart.com, a right-wing site once led by Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s one-time chief strategist, published an article with a headline in bright red that said, “TRUMP THE GUN GRABBER.” The site added that the president “CEDES DEMS’ WISH LIST — BUMP STOCKS, BUYING AGE, ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS,’ BACKGROUND CHECKS. TELLS SCALISE TO TAKE A HIKE — AFTER SURVIVING ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT.” The president did return several times to a proposal that conservatives like: arming teachers in schools and ending the so-called gun-free zones around schools that Mr. Trump said had made those institutions among the most vulnerable targets for mass shooters. “You’ve got to have defense, too,” the president told the lawmakers. “You can’t just be sitting ducks. And that’s exactly what we’ve allowed people in these buildings and schools to be.” But several times, he acknowledged how controversial that proposal was, and seemed to accept the idea that it might not be included in a comprehensive gun control measure that could pass through both chambers of Congress. He also backed a modest measure sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat in the Senate to improve the quality of the data in the background check system. But he told the bill’s author, Mr. Cornyn, to consider just adding that proposal to the broader expansion of the background check system. “It would be nice to add everything on to it,” Mr. Trump said. “Maybe change the title. Maybe we could make it much more comprehensive and have one bill.” Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter. Correction: February 28, 2018 This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the timing of a similar televised meeting. It