John Willett

Kinda sad that I missed out on the beginning off this discussion. As someone who formerly worked at a bank, though, I think I might be able to contribute to this discussion. Many people have been encouraged to add a "Representative Payee" with SSA not because they were unable to handle their finances but simply for convenience. The person might want to appoint someone to cash the check mailed to them, or have their deposit made to a bank account held with a family member. Nominating the representative gave that person some authority to deal with things without the person having to go get a power of attorney or some other more complicated process. People made this nomination without any indication that it might be used as a proxy for mental impairment and to have it held as such against them is really quite cruel.

If you read the NRA article, you will find that Robinson was not legally in possession (He is a felon). https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170127/federal-appeals-court-s-shocking-pronouncement-lawful-gun-carriers-must-forfeit-other-rights The argument that this decision has any impact on passing national reciprocity is tenuous at best.

It takes four justices saying yes for SCOTUS to hear a case. How they make that decision is up to them.

I read the article as saying its a bad decision, but that's ok because this guy was a bad guy. Not how I think about the law.

If we are going to count votes, we would theoretically get Thomas, Alito, & Roberts. Kennedy is the only other remaining member of the Heller 5, but tends to be the swing vote and has voted against us on related issues (Strawpurchase case comes to mind). It stands to reason that we couldn't get a case taken up by the court because neither side was certain where the majority would fall. (And they know much more about the dynamics of member's decisions on cases than anyone outside the court does) Anyway, that leaves us with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagen. I am pretty certain we are not getting one of them. So it will fall to the new nominee when he/she arrives and... hopefully Kennedy.

If they think its a bad case, they aren't going to touch it. Also consider, if the guys case is all about race, maybe he stands a better shot with a justice or two by not being backed by the big bad "gun lobby"? Frankly guys, I don't think we will see a decision either way. SCOTUS with Scalia passed on multiple cases, SCOTUS without Scalia isn't likely to take it up in our favor. Even if the nominee is Scalia incarnate, we are back to status quo.

The NRA of yesteryear (1950's & 60's) was very different from the NRA we have now. In fact, it was passing off laws like we have here in New Jersey that prompted a change in leadership and tactics. The NRA had started taking steps to get further our of politics, but that didn't sit well with the 2A activists. As a result they took over and rallied membership so that they could take a much harder line against the anti's. More money was directed to lobbying and membership grew. Honestly, some folks around ought to take time to put things in perspective.

Nice!

I've heard that, but not the timing. Good news, IMO.

Tony Simon and Sean Fisher do training at Ft. Dix. They have a handgun course there on their calendar. Blackbagresources.com has a full schedule.

The reporting is that the Obamacare repeal will be completed the same way it was passed into law, using a process called "reconciliation". It only requires a simple majority and isn't subject to filibuster. So Obamacare probably won't be a vehicle for squashing the filibuster for legislation. I do agree that once it's gone, it stays gone. Moore v Madigan was the case that forced carry on Illinois. It was decided at the 7th circuit, not at SCOTUS.

I listened to this too and have a couple thoughts. First, the dems only have to peel off a couple of R's to protect the fillibuster. There are plenty of old Senate Republicans that might be willing to split with the party claiming to be protecting the institution of the Senate. Second, it's not that he thinks its unconstitutional, he just recognizes that it is easier to challenge. Long thought this was our greatest ally.

Its a permit to purchase, not to possess. Your possession of handguns is only lawful by way of exemption, unless you have a license to carry. If you think it can't happen, you don't remember Keith Pantaleon. He was arrested for possessing firearms in his own home.

Agreed, the lack of a "will" is key.

A third approach that Evan Nappen has been working is to have the courts recognize that the exemptions that we all rely on to possess handguns are merely defenses to the crime of possession. We are still subject to arrest for possession while in our homes. This approach would possibly eliminate the need for a finding on carry outside the home. I understand your point here, but I suppose it depends on how you define whether a case "made it" to SCOTUS. NJ had Drake get denied cert by the court, which happened to cases from a couple other states as well, if the court were sure to swing in our favor it likely would have been heard.

Evan Nappen has been a key person for them here in Jersey and has been doing many of these seminars himself. If you haven't caught a presentation by him, it is well worth it. (I don't know if he is doing this one).

That strange, it was available immediately for me on Sunday using the podcast app on my iphone.

I don't think anyone I have asked yet has seen this specific proposal before. It's basically a custom application of the Universal Background Check conceptual framework. Fortunately, for other states, most don't have these stupid FPID, PPP credentials on which to base a law like this.

Haha, agreed

LEO's absolutely objected to these, as the laws were carelessly crafted to technically prevent them from using the range, even their own ranges, without following the same stupid rules. (Another item that I believe was discussed in the interview with Bach. There's so much there I simply can't recap it all in text.) Also, legislators don't write their own bills. Office of Legislative Services is responsible for actually crafting the language.

I think those other issues raise the average gun owner's ire as much or more than this bill did, the difference I think is in the response of the sponsor. I think it was because he is a "soft" anti, rather than a hardened anti, who would have completely ignored every email and phone call. The assistant in his office that I spoke with on Friday listened to my points and tried to argue for the bill. She also stated that the bill was being changed to address concerns. Other folks I know were told the same thing. Caputo's office was also telling callers about wanting to meet with, and meeting with, ANJRPC on Friday. So the timeline I describe is based on multiple sources that all fit together pretty reasonably.

I completely get being cynical, but there are some key points that you seem to be missing out on. First, your post doesn't indicate that you understand the effects of the two bills that were offered. Joe Shotgun might not care about someone else renting or borrowing a gun at the range, but he does care about citing in his muzzleloader at the WMA Range for Deer season. Second, there was plenty of time for an impact. ANJRPC had offered their concerns about the bill to the sponsor with no meaningful change resulting prior to the alert. The alert came out on Wednesday November 30. By Thursday evening the sponsor was calling for another meeting with ANJRPC, and the bills were pulled from the agenda on Friday December 2nd when that meeting took place. I am also hearing that NRA's link for sending emails to legislators had a significant response (from a different yet reliable source). Also, in the interview I did with Scott (I know, its long) he notes that having this bill tabled is a first for NJ. It didn't follow the usual script, likely because it wasn't the usual gun banning crowd that sponsored this bill. We likely wouldn't get this result with legislation sponsored by Lorretta. Finally, there is a segment of the admittedly small gun culture here that is focused on growing our ranks. This legislation would have been a death blow to that effort. People who care about sharing the shooting sports probably called multiple times, just like I did. The sponsor has said they want to work on it to bring it back in some modified form, so saying it isn't completely dead isn't news to anyone either. That doesn't mean that we can't be relieved to have beaten it back for now.

I think we did have an impact. If we look at the sponsor of the bill, it wasn't the usual suspects. They were likely not prepared for the response they got. Per my conversation with Bach, this started out following the usual script of "we will make amendments after it passes" and things changed when gun owners spoke up. Full interview below. (Its a long one).

Thanks to everyone for the calls and email that lead to these being pulled! Anyone interested in more details about this proposed legislation and the events surrounding its inclusion in, and subsequent removal from, the agenda for that hearing can watch this interview with Scott Bach linked below.

Christie will have an opportunity to veto. But we need to make sure that there is an unmistakable groundswell of opposition to these bills. That helps support efforts to stop things like this. Frankly this is the most cynical and aggressive attack on gun culture I think we have seen to date.