JibbaJabba

Was in there for over an hour this past weekend. Good, friendly people! I definitely recommend HGW to anybody that can make it there.

I'm guessing a finger guard mod

Check out Howell Gun Works. I believe their quote on a g19 a month ago was around 550. Cash is king!

Handed in paperwork 2/18, notice of approval received today 3/5. Howell Township

Set up a meeting at a bar once or twice a month with likeminded individuals like the Sons of Liberty of old. Central NJ preferably with invitations sent through PMs.

The citizens of Ukraine have demonstrated many lessons to be studied, far from least these being how the young and old galvanized behind the effort behind the front lines. There's a strong push for a Ukrainian second amendment by the people, which causes me to be reminded of how brilliant our founders were.

As one of the people commented on Vanderboegh's website, and that I agree with, these 200+ people will act as the scarecrow to the other 99,800 estimated people who didn't comply. Things might get interesting... In other news, Russian armored personnel carriers have arrived in the Ukraine.

By Ed Jacovino Journal Inquirer When state officials decided to accept some gun registrations and magazine declarations that arrived after a Jan. 4 deadline, they also had to deal with those applications that didn’t make the cut. The state now holds signed and notarized letters saying those late applicants own rifles and magazines illegally. But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines. The state is sending letters to 106 rifle owners and 108 residents with high-capacity magazines saying they can destroy the guns and ammunition, sell them to a federally licensed gun dealer, move the items out of state or sell them to somebody out of state, or make arrangements to turn them over to local or state police. Those who fail to do so could face serious criminal penalties. Once people realize they can’t keep the guns and magazines, “they’re going to get rid of them,” Michael P. Lawlor, the undersecretary for criminal justice policy and planning to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, says. Late applicants The Department of Emergency Management and Public Protection initially set a Jan 1 registration date for owners to declare guns and ammunition. But 266 rifle registrations and 506 magazine declarations made it to the state with postmarks after Jan. 1, and gun owners complained that post offices had closed early and without notice on Dec. 31. Lawmakers thought they’d need to pass a bill so the state could count all or some of those applications or extend the deadline. But Gov. Dannel P. Malloy decided this month that legislation wasn’t needed — as long as applications were postmarked by Jan. 4 and signed before Jan. 1, the state would accept them. And while the state won’t immediately prosecute those who missed the deadline, it isn’t ignoring that information, either. The rifle and magazine declarations will be included in information given to police responding to a certain address. “This would be a factor in deciding how to respond to different situations,” Lawlor says. Ron Pinciaro, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition Against Gun Violence, says the administration’s approach of sending a warning letter is suitable. “It’s fair. They’re giving them fair warning that they’re in noncompliance,” he says. Pinciaro adds that he’s glad a new bill wasn’t necessary — lawmakers were considering changes that would have extended the deadline beyond Jan. 4. “Now we’re saying, ‘OK, we gave them eight months, what else can we do for them now?’ That’s not the way any other law works,” he says. State lawmakers passed a law last year in response to the 2012 Newtown school shootings that banned the sale of some rifles and of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. But they allowed those who own the guns and magazines to keep them as long as they registered the items with the state by Jan. 1. State residents registered 50,016 rifles. In addition, 38,290 Connecticut residents said they have high-capacity magazines. ---------------- ^^ The cited article in the initial post. The Irregulars have just recently posted a list of names, addresses, and links of photos and phone numbers of each Connecticut lawmaker who passed the bills responsible.

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=11186 Gun confiscation is one step closer in Connecticut. The mainstream media spins it as “one more chance” for non-compliant gun owners who failed to register their scary guns before the January 1 deadline. In reality, these letters - 106 to rifle owners, and 108 more to residents with standard capacity magazines – are the first step in the Connecticut State Police beginning to round up guns arbitrarily made illegal last year in that state. These guns include America’s favorite rifle, the AR-15 and magazines over 10 rounds, which include the standard capacity magazines made for that America’s favorite rifle. Failure to register is now a felony now in Connecticut. How long will it be before there is bloodshed over this law? We’re not sure, but we’re confident it is coming unless the law is rescinded or struck down by the courts. Mike Vanderboegh of the edgy Sipsey Street Irregulars released an open letter a couple of weeks ago, warning of what’s coming to Connecticut. The Connecticut State Police aren’t listening. Yet. We suspect attitudes may change after the first few rounds of bloodshed. As it stands right now, the best estimates are that 4% of newly-regulated guns and magazines in The Nutmeg State have been registered, leaving a hundred thousand or more newly classified potential felons looking over their shoulder. Editor’s note: We’re not going to link to the article because they are hiding most of the content behind a paywall and we won’t drive thousands of readers to their website. One more chance for gun owners Posted: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:35 pm | Updated: 3:36 pm, Mon Feb 24, 2014. Manchester, CT (Journal Inquirer) – When state officials decided to accept some gun registrations and magazine declarations that arrived after a Jan. 4 deadline, they also had to deal with those applications that didn’t make the cut. The state now holds signed and notarized letters saying those late applicants own rifles and magazines illegally. But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines. This entry was posted on February 24, 2014 at 5:55 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. ------------------------------- 100 letters don't seem like much, but it might be their strategy to tackle a little at a time when it comes to the overall 100k non-compliant gun owners. I'm giving strong consideration to the idea of making future purchases outside state lines.

Yes (20) 4% No (471) 90% Only if used with other gun control measures (34) 6% As of 1:42

Anybody have a newjerseyhunter.com account?

She was nice, but sounded... mechanical?? As if she all ready received a number of calls and was getting tired.

This decision makes me more optimistic about SCOTUS hearing Drake.

So they're (SS) doing us a favor, rrrright. Bulls*hit, f*ck them.

That article is disgusting. Adam Winkler is advocating for open carry so law-abiding gun owners DON'T carry due to an openly displayed firearm being a bullseye for potential criminals. Would the deaths of a few gun owners satisfy this twerp if it meant a decrease in the amount of firearms in the streets?

Waiting on some permits to come through and, without a doubt in my mind, I will steer clear of SS for any and all purchases.

At that point, we would all have a decision to make. A decision that should be made long before they reach your door.

Here's mine... As your constituent, I'm writing to express my absolute opposition to any further infringements and transgressions against our 2nd Amendment rights, most recently being *restricting the magazine capacity of firearms from fifteen rounds to ten rounds. Any law restricting a magazine's capacity, which is less than the firearm's intended standard, is unjust and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States' decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller provides that weapons, with the manufacturer's intended magazine (regardless of capacity) being an apparent part of that weapon, that are in **common use at the time, are protected. Isn't a firearm's intended, standard capacity, magazine only a member of the instrument that is a firearm? With a magazine being only a piece to the puzzle that creates a firearm, ***even though these magazine's weren't in existence during the creation of the 2nd Amendment, it is still protected of said Amendment. Each firearm was created by the manufacturer with specific magazines made for that instrument, these being the model's standard-capacity magazines, and are packaged with said firearm. To restrict these pieces of the intended firearm is an infringement, but also for the ****interest-bearing premise of this proposal that by limiting commonly used magazines it will save lives. For further evidence, look no further than NY's Chief U.S. District Judge William Sketny regarding the magazine restriction of NY's SAFE Act, stating that it was *****"largely an arbitrary restriction that impermissibly infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment." He went on to say that "it stretches the bounds of this court's deference to the predictive judgments of the legislature to suppose that those intent on doing harm . . . will load their weapon with only the permitted seven rounds..." Couldn't the same argument be made for any standard magazine restriction? *http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/deal_in_place_to_cut_ammo_magazine_limit_to_10_rounds.html ** http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf (Columbia v. Heller, common use clause) *** "...the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." (Columbia v. Heller, subsection 8, paragraph 2) **** "...no amount of interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego’s policy..." (Peruta v. San Diego) ***** http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle-1.812042/judge-upholds-most-of-ny-gun-law-strikes-down-seven-bullet-limit-1.6701135

Thanks Ryan

Of the 16 Republicans who crossed the aisle last week and voted with Democrats to begin a debate on gun control, 10 of them have now formally said they will vote against Manchin-Toomey: Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.). Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2Qd1JWsQs Maybe the Republicans had a plan all along, rooting out all the Democrats who plan to vote yes from the following gun friendly states... Maine Virginia Vermont New Hampshire Nevada Montana Virginia West Virginia South Dakota It would be a huge move should Republicans take the above seats. NJ in the middle of it... "Razor-thin passage could hinge on Lautenberg, who has been ill and has not come to Washington in more than a month - his last vote was Feb. 28 - but may return for the crucial vote. "Sen. Lautenberg is feeling better and hopes to be in Washington for gun votes this week," spokeswoman Caley Gray wrote in an e-mail." http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130416_Toomey-Manchin_gun_bill_facing_uphill_fight.html

Looks like it. A member of the US being for activism regarding one of our Constitutional Rights? You don't say... I'm sure Blueline appreciates his mouthpieces, but I'm just as sure that he'd prefer them back on his dick. Also, and trust me, the fact that he's a LEO doesn't require him to post on topics he doesn't agree with, or to be a general tight-ass. If it were to, on the other hand, what are your excuses??

Who would want to get caught doing anything illegal?? Little tight are we?

Motherf....... What the .....? Not a good time for us.

http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/documents/PPB-11-1.pdf Please be responsible and don't overburden the system with bogus forms. We wouldn't want that... Would we?

4 more emails are on their way... Absolutely!