Sig226GuyNJ

Listen to this guy. ^ He knows what he's talking about. The fire tv, in addition to the benefits he already stated, is also a faster device. And hardwiring directly to your modem or router is definitely faster and a more consistent internet connection.

I'm sending out my affidavit to them on Monday. I'll report back what they say.

The Giants usually play on Fox. Why don't you just get an antenna for your tv?

Yes. Not even worth it tbh. Kodi on a Firestick is great for watching already aired tv shows, and movies. But it's not that great for live tv.

Don't expect to watch all live tv in HD. Most live channels are spotty and not in HD.

90 days from the day it's signed by the POTUS which means the bill would have to be passed in 3 months to meet the 6 months time frame. On average, bills that do get passed take roughly 260 days according to Quora. So no, I highly doubt we'll be carrying in 6 months.

I hope you're right. But even if this is the case, I highly doubt we'll be carrying in 6 months like someone eluded to earlier in this thread. I hope I'm wrong, but like I said earlier, I'll believe it when I see it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Concealed+Carry+Reciprocity+Act+of+2017%22%5D%7D&r=1 A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carryconcealed firearms may also do so in the State. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the “ConcealedCarryReciprocityAct of 2017”. SEC. 2. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms. (a) In general.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following: “§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that— “(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes. “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that— “(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. “©(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section. “(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b). “(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee. “(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief. “(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. “(e) In subsection (a): “(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals. “(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine. “(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun. “(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public: “(A) A unit of the National Park System. “(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. “© Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. “(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. “(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”. (b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following: “926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.© Severability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (d) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The bold part is what worries me the most. If this passes, what's to stop NJ lawmakers from getting rid of "May Issue" and instead taking away all carry options in this state?

I wish I could be as confident as you are, but I'll believe it when I see it.

If you want to shoot Production in USPSA, the trigger mods must not be visible. In other words, you can do internal trigger work, but replacing the actual trigger itself, is a no go. Also, night sights aren't the best for shooting competition. Not that it won't work, but a fiber optic front sight and plain black rear sights are the setup you will see most on competition guns.

Didn't even know wood furniture for AR's existed. I'd be lying if I said I didn't like the looks of it.

I "think" this is what Princetonian is talking about. This article does bring up some valid concerns of this bill. https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/01/04/the-good-and-bad-of-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act/

He can say whatever he wants but I want to see it written in the actual bill. That's the only things that's I trust, not what he says is in it.

I will. My buddy from NY applied for one a couple of years ago, and received his in two weeks.

Thanks for the clarification. Does anyone see in the actual bill itself that this will apply to folks like us who can't get a carry permit here? I want to make sure the bill itself states that this will apply to a person with an out of state permit as well, even if they do not have a permit from their own state. I know the articles states this is the case, but if anyone can confirm this is in the actual bill itself, would be much appreciated. The reason I'm asking, is because of this video. Listen at about 30 second to a bit after 1 min.

It states on the page that I opened the pdf from that it's no longer needed. It also quoted the court case. You're good to go. Just fill out the app, and send a $100 check with it. Another thing I've been thinking about. Even though the Republicans hold the majority in the House and Senate, we still need to urge all of them to vote in favor. Make those phone calls and send those emails.

They had a court ruling in 2016 that makes it so that is no longer needed.

I was advised by an out of state lawyer acuaintance that I should send a letter to the court file, requesting photos of my car, and a sworn affidavit from the ticketing parking authority officer. I will also send along any proof I have that will hopefully get them to drop the bogus charge. Who knows if it'll work but it's worth a shot. Does anyone know if Hoboken Parking Authority takes pictures of the cars they ticket?

Make sure to answer why you want a permit by responding "protection" or the other option they give you on the second page. This literally could not be easier to apply for a permit.

Easier but not sure about cheaper as I don't know what Fl costs. Nh is $100. All you have to do is fill out their application and send it in.

Did you just say you wanted to hunt deer with a .22? ETA: Didn't realize this was an older thread.

If the legislation requires a photo on the permit, I will apply for FL as well.

Does anyone know if this is true or not?

I think what Zeke is asking is if this Reciprocity Bill requires a photo on your carry permit. If that's your question Zeke, I don't know the answer to that but would like to find out before I send my app and money to NH as they do not require a photo. The only reason I chose NH was because of how easy it is, but if a photo is required, I'll have to look at other states that do require a photo on the permit. Anyone care to chime in?

I honestly can't see how this WON'T pass, considering the Reps hold the majority in both House and Senate, and we have a Rep POTUS. If it doesn't pass, it'll be because of the RINOS.