Wile E Coyote

I'm not worrying about the DA because I'm arming myself, calling the cops, and yelling at the the POS from inside my house he's got 2 minutes to hot wire the damn thing. What do I care if he steals the car? It's insured and there isn't anything inside besides some gum and my sunglasses. Not worth risking my life. However if he get's frisky and turns around and tries to come my house, he'd better have his affairs in order. Bottom line is in NJ the ways the laws are written, if you shoot someone outside your home you are going to have a rough time

Then you'd better hope the DA see's it your way as well, because that is what really matters. If they think you provoked the encounter or could have avoided needing to use deadly force with complete safety by (a) retreating (b) surrendering possession (c ) telling the thief to stop and they comply, they could prosecute. As much as I don't agree with it, I'm not politically connected or rich enough to try and test it out in court.

If that number is accurate (certainly doesn't seem out of place or unreasonable to me), that 1.25% drops down to 0.0725726%. They are spending months crafting these bills to try and have an effect on 0.07% of firearm murders. Totally ridiculous. They'll do their normal PR stuff, like when the Yield to Pedestrians law passed. Then they'll use the old "ignorance is no excuse" when prosecuting people who said they never heard about it. I fear that there are a number of gun owners out there who still have no idea these things are about to go through the legislature.

2b is where you they might jam you up depending on your PD, who you are, who you shot, who you are related to, who they are related to, and what the political aspirations of the DA are. NJ law makes a big to do about your "dwelling." Not your property, not your land, your dwelling. I think the prosecutor out to make an example out of you would say, you were OK to arm yourself inside your dwelling and to tell them to stop. Once you went outside, with your firearm, to the driveway to confront and/or stop them from stealing your property, you could have "avoided the necessity of using such [deadly] force with complete safety by... surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto." By using deadly force instead of surrendering your property, you broke the law. Not saying that I agree with it or that a jury wouldn't see it your way, but you'd have to weigh whether or not a car covered by insurance is worth possibly going to jail over.

Because: 1. Limiting legal possession of "large capacity ammunition magazines" to the home of legal gun owners or those legally allowed to carry in NJ makes entirely too much sense. I'd be willing to bet that over 90% of magazines holding 11 rounds or more that are recovered from crimes in our state were found loaded into illegally obtained/owned firearms. 2. Politicians claim that these laws are focused to minimize the deaths at random mass shootings. According to the FBI, in 2011 there was 8583 firearm homicides. Also according to the FBI, there was 390 justifiable firearm homicides by LEOs and 201 by civilians in 2011. That leaves us a total of 7992 non-justifiable firearm homicides in 2011. I can't find FBI numbers when it comes to mass shooting homicides in 2011, but even if we said 100 were killed in such events (which is most likely way too high), that would put mass homicides at a whooping 1.25% of total firearm murders. Leave it to politicians to tackle the sexy 1% number, leave the other 99% untouched, and then have a press conference saying how they "made a difference." In case you were wondering, saving "just one life" in 2011 by having a magazine ban would account for 0.012513% of total victims of firearm homicides. What do you say to the families of the other 99.9874875%?

The most ridiculous thing is that, to my knowledge, we don't even have a law that specifically targets straw purchasing. Yet in NY, they propose a law that specifically targets law abiding owners that have had their property stolen. If they really wanted to do something useful they'd pass a law that severely punished people who knowingly straw purchase and/or actively traffic firearms. Make those people at least partially responsible for the crimes that are committed with those firearms, similar to how the driver in a bank robbery turned murder can be charged with murder.

Depends how badly you want that BCG. If you are willing to wait out rguns and don't mind the horrible customer service you received, then stick with them. If not, cancel your credit card and get it reissued. As far as the response they gave you, there isn't an excuse for it. It doesn't matter how busy you are, how hard you are working, or if you answered the same question on the phone or by email a 1000 times in a row. That 1001st person doesn't deserve to be talked down to. They weren't asking their question the other thousand times, they asked once and deserve the same answer in the same manner as was given the first time. /end customer service rant

An interesting point.

What a bunch of incompetent idiots. They try to further restrict the magazine size on this updated AWB but make the same exact mistake as was made in the 10 round bill currently up for vote. They just changed "semi-automatic rifles" from 15 to 7 rounds and left the definition for a "large capacity ammunition magazine" at 15 rounds. Undoubtedly they'll catch this in committee and change it like they did the other bill, but how are we the public supposed take them seriously when they are legislatures that can't even produce legislation without screwing it up? Rhetorical question obviously.

My 2¢. Christie might be a lot of things, but one thing he isn't is stupid. I think he'll take his time with these bills once they inevitably make it through the Assembly and Senate. If he has 45 days, he'll take the full length. I also suspect he'll wait to see how the debate shapes up in D.C. For example, if it looks like a 10 round mag limit will pass on a Federal level he'll conditionally veto the state bill. By sending it back to the Legislature, the hope would be Menendez & crew will get something to Obama's desk to sign before Christie has to put his John Hancock on something in NJ. Some of these things are going to pass and I think they are going to hinge on what the NJ SAFE Task Force (or whatever it was called) recommends.

Some stats for your meeting. NJ has a gun trafficking problem, not a legally bought NJ gun problem: 75% of guns recovered in NJ crimes come from out state and were trafficked in. National average is 30% (tracetheguns.org - ATF 2010 Gun trace data) 8% of guns bought in NJ are recovered from a crime within 2 years. National average is three times higher at 24% (tracetheguns.org - ATF 2010 Gun trace data) Major origin states of our "crime guns" are PA, VA, GA, NC, SC. None of these state have an AWB or mag restrictions. Criminals will continue to used AW Banned weapons and 10+ round standard magazines. (tracetheguns.org - ATF 2010 Gun trace data) New NJ magazine capacity bill would not have changed the Newtown tragedy: Approx 150 shots were fired. Shooting episode lasted 20 minutes. That's an average 7.5 rounds per minute. (Various news outlets) Attacker used 30 round mags & would have to reload a maximum of 4 times. At a very generous 4 seconds per reload, total time spent changing mags was 16 seconds. 10 round mags would have added 40 seconds. 40 seconds would not have saved a single victim. New NJ magazine capacity bill would not stop the average gun crime: In crimes involving guns, it is not fired 30% of the time (University of Penn study conducted in Jersey City, http://injuryprevent...nt/9/2/151.full) In crimes when a gun is fired, 75% of the time 1,2,3,or 4 rounds are fired & 42% of the time there are no injuries (University of Penn study conducted in Jersey City, http://injuryprevent...nt/9/2/151.full)

This is where the 32k is coming from. Undoubtedly includes armed guards and retired LEO.

A3704 wasn't brought before the committee

When naming amendments to the bill, they mentioned an exemption to retired LEO's.The amended text hasn't been posted yet.

I know that the bill was amended before being released to the Assembly, but I didn't catch what the change(s) were. From my reading of the bills text without the amendments this bill only targets magazine capacity in semi-auto rifles with no grandfathering clause

Because it skews the percentages in favor of the state's position. Many more people want a permit to carry in this state than have applied for it, but in court they don't just take your word. The proof lies in the number of denials not how many people you say want to carry. I don't know the actual numbers but if the only people who apply are the ones who know they'll get a permit, the issuance rate would be 100%. If everyone applied, knowing they didn't have a snowballs chance in hell, yes they would be denied. However now they are on record as being denied the right to carry based on whatever factor the state wanted to cite and the issuance rate would plummet to the point where it would be an accurate representation of how restrictive the state's "justifiable need" clause is.

Agreed on all points. But the above is why the old, "Don't even try to get your NJ carry permit it's hopeless" is really not helpful and could actually hurt SAF's argument. More of us should be going out to apply and appealing the inevitable denial, not less.

The word "hearing" implies a judicial type of review of the bill. The judiciary has to remain impartial, I don't believe the legislature has the same obligation. The sham we witnessed was a meeting. The committee holds it in public and allows the people to attend so their positions can be heard. People spoke and the committee took note. While that committee meeting may have had the largest turnout they've seen in a while, the attendees did not represent a majority of the constituencies of any of the Assemblypeople. They still have to vote as a representative of their respective districts, not to whoever shows up in Trenton. Also, they were deciding whether or not to refer each bill to a full vote. Technically I guess a member could vote in the affrimative to bring it to the rest of the Assembly not because they support it, but because they think it is an important bill and shouldn't be killed in the committee phase. That'd be a pretty noble thing to do, but a member would have to be sure that once the bill hit the full Assembly, that it had no chance of passing.

And those vying for the nomination against him would simply argue that by not acting, he knew the bills would pass, and therefore must agree with them. The Governor knows the rules and if he doesn't veto them, it'll be taken as him not standing up for the rights that the red states across the nation hold very dear.

No, not from what I understand of the process. My understanding is that, unlike judges, the committee members are not required to remain impartial during the legislative process. They simply vote "in the best interests" of those they represent. If their constituents don't like how they've voted in the past, then they can vote for someone else in the next election. Problem is, the interest and knowledge of the subject matter throughout the general population has plummeted in recent times.

Anybody catch the amendment to A1329 (Mag. capacity)? I missed it what it was.

What makes you so sure that they'll make a point to release that info? I'd guess that if he somehow aquired it legally, it'll be front page 24/7 news. If not, it'll just be a footnote at the end of a print news article.

Obviously a joke

So you are saying those cops in NYC had no right to defend themselves against a man who had just committed a murder and was pulling a gun? Did you see the video? Those officers didn't have anywhere to take cover. When you are looking down the barrel of a gun, it's all above self preservation. If they didn't put that animal down, who is to say how many more lives the gunman may have taken? The LAPD officers might have you believe they were in a similar situation, but they weren't. Had they followed procedure they wouldn't have shot up an elderly woman and her daughter. They had every right to be scared, but that is when you have to fall back on training and not be consumed by that fear.

A 10mm bullet beat you to it