Wile E Coyote

I'll reserve judgement until the text is posted but from the title, A3815 - "Enhances Penalties For Persons Who Illegally Sell or Transfer Firearms Subsequently Used In Crimes might actually be "common sense" legislation.

Minutes after this video was taken, Chief Ken James of the Emeryville Police Department directed reporters to witness the unveiling of the first in a long line of a new new police vehicles for his city. The sheet was pulled away to reveal a converted M1A1 Abrams tank, complete with a police issue black & white paint job and light bar. The standard "To protect and serve" has been replaced by the EPD's new slogan, "To exert power and intimidate."

This. You'd think if this principal can show "justifiable need" by simply working in a school, then an average citizen should qualify because they work in a movie theater, mall, office, supermarket, or any other place where a mass shooting has occurred. If people can qualify because they are employed in these places, how can you deny a citizen that frequents them? This is NJ after all, so I'll believe it when I see it.

As far as the heckling goes, I wasn't there but if I only saw the channel 12 video I wouldn't have even known about it. That report was neutral or even borderline pro-gun.

That's a three or four year old petition that expired and has been reintroduced. The Senate bill S-69 in this legislative period "increases the fine and imposes license suspension for talking or texting on hand-held device while driving." If I get some time tonight I'll try to start up an updated version

Here is what they are contesting: Article 3, Section 14 Article 12, Section 1 The shot they are taking at Gov. Cuomo is that, according to media accounts, this is was the 35th time he has used the "immediate necessity" provision and that "Cuomo said that gun violence constituted an emergency, requiring fast action by legislators." Facts of course don't support his argument as violent crime continues to decline across his state. Furthermore, I think any reasonable person would find it hard to believe that their politicians could read through all 78 pages, ask questions, have their questions addressed, and fully understand the bill in its entirety within the one hour in which it was printed and passed. The constitutional provision allowing for immediate action seems entirely too broad, so I'm not sure how much success they'll have. As far as the militia part goes, I don't know if the NY courts have already interpreted the state constitution to say all NY citizens are militia members. If they have, the SCOTUS "common use" decision could be a good route to overturn the SAFE Act.

If someone tries to use firearm suicide numbers to justify more stringent gun laws, it can be easily refuted as a mental health issue. Mentally sound people don't commit suicide and if they are hell bent on offing themselves, keeping a gun out of their hands won't stop them.

Another reason the non-gun owning public are afraid of firearms. The media tells them that guns are inherently dangerous because they can just "go off."

This was posted on the unconfirmed funding website so take it as you will...

Nothing wrong with questioning the official story, but the bottom line is that people see what they want to see. Nonetheless, here's your next link. Which is more likely? Official Account: Grieving father emotionally has a tough time coping with the very recent death of his young daughter at the hands of a madman and some people don't "like" his reaction. Conspiracy Theory: A crisis actor is planted in Newtown CT months in advance with his real/scripted family. They live in this community and are seen around as to not raise suspicion with the locals. Unknown entities with unknown goals stage a shooting doing who knows what with the supposed victims, witnesses, and their families. Said crisis actor, after months of planning and practice, totally blows the scene potentially exposing the whole plot. After said flub, actor and family meet with the President. Here the supposedly dead daughter not only has her picture taken with the President, but the White House staff inexplicably releases the photo to the public.

Any attendees planning on getting this on video or at least audio? Possibly upload it to YouTube to share with those going to the other meetings.

This is the million dollar question. It's my understanding that a landlord cannot consent to a search of one of their rental properties. I'm reserving judgement until more comes out from this case, but absent probable cause or a warrant anything found inside the apartment would be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissible at trial. Doesn't matter if the guy had a Russian nuke in there. However dumb the NJ AWB is, it is still the law of the land so it really isn't a good idea to keep an EBR with the banned characteristics in your home. On the bright side for the rest of us, maybe he can convince the court that the idea that banning a NJ "assault weapon" while allowing it's NJ "compliant rifle" counterpart is ridiculous, doesn't save any lives and the law should be struck down. [/wishfulthinking]

Alright now it makes a whole lot more sense. While they might have lost the suit, I wouldn't call it a failure if it forced the state to write exemptions into the law

Also: Occam's Razor ; TLDR The simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones. I can't put any stock in the conspiracy theory angle. They tend to break down after you ask the simple questions: How many people had to in on the hoax to pull it off? And considering the greed present in today's society, why hasn't a single conspirator come forward in order to sell a book for a huge payday? Why go through the trouble of setting up an apparent tragedy when you can just wait for a real one to happen on it's own? To each his own...

This court challenge seems like a waste of time and effort to me. From my limited fluency in legalese I gather they were simply trying to get OGAM to be removed from BB/airsoft gun transfers. Would there be anyone on this forum or even in the state that would be jumping for joy if they won? Doubtful.

Yeah no idea why it ended looking like that since it looked fine in the reply box, but I edited it. Took me forever to delete all the #>! nonsense

If your implying that State Sen. Doherty's proposed bill keeps the "justifiable need" clause intact you're mistaken. The bracketed text would be changed or removed and replaced with the green text. Unless I'm wrong, NJ S269 would do the following: 1. When found in possession of "firearms, weapons, destructive devices, silencers, or explosives in a vehicle," a person would be considered innocent until proven otherwise in the eyes of the law instead of the current "it shall be presumed that he does not possess such a license or permit or has not registered or given the required notice, until he establishes the contrary" 2. When it comes to FPID's & P2P's, applications could not be denied on the grounds "any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare" 3. Permits to carry would last for 5 years instead of the current "2 years" 4. On the permit to carry application, removes "such other information as the superintendent may prescribe for the determination of the applicant's eligibility for a permit and for the proper enforcement of this chapter" and adds proof of the completion of a firearm safety course by the applicant, two frontal view photographs of the applicant. 5. Removes the inclusion of providing 3 references that have known the applicant for at least 3 years and testify to their being of good moral character and behavior and instead provides that the applicant "shall attest under penalty of perjury that all of the statements thereon are true. The superintendent shall not add any requirements to the application which are not specifically authorized in this subsection." 6. Removes the provision that the permit to carry be limited to one specific firearm and adds that the permit extends to any legally owned or possessed handgun by the holder. 7. Removes that an applicant must show "that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun" and adds the P2P requirements to the Permit to Carry criteria 8. Removes Superior Court entirely from the permit to carry process ​Looks good to me, but it probably won't even make it out of committee

I'm no expert but if you happen to be lucky enough to live in a free state and carry, there are tons of stuff you can do to prepare. When at home, practice drawing repeatedly wearing all the different kinds of clothes you typically wear. Do this standing, sitting, crouching, on your side, lying down, with one hand free and with both hands. Situational awareness is key. Be aware of entries/exits as well as likely routes a shooter would take to get from A to B, start looking at people instead of avoiding eye contact, know where your areas of cover & concealment are, and choose your seat or where you stand in a room wisely. Most importantly, always have a plan B and be prepared to improvise because things never play out how you've imagined. Those who are more experienced could go on, but these are just some of the basics. It's good that any video (I'm thinking this one you came across ) has gotten you thinking about training, but that is hardly a fair representation of a likely scenario. If i had the resources to do a rebuttal video I most certainly would. Gotta love the video description too, "CCW permit holders don't protect innocent people. They kill them." I don't know about you, but I didn't see any of the volunteers shoot a bystander. First, look at the gunman. The average mass shooter is a mentally disturbed individual with no tactical firearm training. Instead of using one of the study volunteers to fill this role (as they would have a similar tactical training level as the average real world gunman), the police select one of their ERT (SWAT) Officers. When was the last time a highly trained SWAT officer shot up one of our schools or public places? Also, if you didn't notice the volunteer is sitting in the same seat every time. Why not let the CCW holder choose their seat or at least randomize the location? Secondly, look at the equipment. I understand the safety precautions due to the simunitions, but the volunteers were sabotaged. A full-sized Glock in a holster designed for open carry with a Fat Albert sized t-shirt over top to cover it and Mechanix work gloves that the participants put on for the first time seconds before the shooter barged in. C'mon this is a clear attempt to discredit those citizens who take on the responsibility to carry.

I don't know why this wasn't done from the beginning...

Food for thought with good ol' probability: Chance of being struck by lightning in the USA in a given year - 1 in 500,000 Chance of being a victim of any type of homicide in NJ in 2011 - 1 in 23,249 The state does allows me to check the weather before I go out for my morning run, possibly lowering the chances I'll get caught in a storm. The public's response to this is that I'm a responsible runner. The state does not allow me to carry a firearm outside my home, keeping the chances that I'll become a helpless murder victim static. The public's response to this is that I'm a paranoid "gun nut" and should accept that the police will protect me. Yup and we are the crazy ones...

Wondering the same seeing as the judge basically stated it wasn't the fault of the Chief of Police that the results of the background check hadn't been returned by the FBI within the 30 days. Therefore the Chief didn't have the resources to make an informed decision on whether or not to issue the permit. It does however give PD's the excuse of blaming it on the Fed's if they get behind on issuing FID/P2Ps, at least until you file a suit and your paperwork then magically completes itself a la Fantasia. Troopers very well may have called the FBI and asked for a courtesy seeing as they were being sued over it. She lost the case, probably wasn't paying the lawyer anyway seeing as she continued after getting the permit, but may have gotten it quicker.

So let me get this straight.... This mayor and unnamed mayors "from 60 other cities" are threatening to boycott supplies and possibly manufacturers of weapons/ammo if they exercise their corporate 1st Amendment right by opposing proposed legislation? Mind you much of the prominent legislation being debated would ban the sale of their most profitable products to the majority of their current consumer base. On top of that, the PD's and Fed alphabet soup organizations won't be holding any new tryouts for new service revolvers and lever action rifles. They are going to rightfully buy the same SA and FA firearms that have been in common use for over 50 years, but would be (or already are) severely limited to the civilian population/banned. Basically, "you can only fulfill our orders with the new stuff. Break out the circa 1900 blueprints for the civies if you want our business." I'm no conspiracy theorist, but if some of this crap & Feinstein's AWB is passed, you can forget the term "military style" weapons. They'll suddenly be called "police standard issue" weapons once they are out of the population's hands. They'll go from "weapons of war" to "tools used by LE to ensure your safety, cooperation and compliance." Funny how we can change the use of words and phrases once we get the desired result.

NJ 3rd Congressional District Zip Codes - According to the US Census: 08731 ....................................3 08732 ....................................3 08733 ..................................3,4 08734 ....................................3 08735 ....................................3 08740 ....................................3 08741 ....................................3

Yes http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/45895-nj-assault-weapons-law-expired-on-november-12-2012/page__hl__expiration__fromsearch__1