carguy3j

Uggh. This is why we can never have nice things...... Seriously, these are two totally separate issues (gun control/abortion- which is clearly what the first two quote were also referring to as well). Do you not realize that you may very well be turning off/turning away potential 2A/gun rights supporters and/or possible "converts" when you try to link 2 unconnected "hot button" issues? Things are not so black and white, with 2 distinct "sides" with clearly defined positions that never "cross-over", despite there still being only 2 viable (having the ability to regularly get their candidates elected) political parties. There are a lot of "independents" and so-called "moderates" that can/do vote across party lines, sometimes vote for 3rd party candidates, or even choose to not vote at all for lack of an acceptable candidate. People are often complex, with widely varying viewpoints, on a variety of subjects. They simply refuse to fit in a neat little box, no matter how hard you try to stuff them in it. Just as law makers should stop trying to sneak unrelated "attachments" onto bills, we ( as in the whole of the populace) should stop trying to connect dots that don't connect. This isn't about "abortion rights", or "gay rights", 1st Amendment issues, or "gun rights". Its about RIGHTS- period. Its about the government running roughshod and trampling individual liberty. Those at the top are loving all the arguing back and forth. Divide and conquer, pitting one group against the other. We're all too busy fighting each other to see what's really going on. "They" don'y really care about Republican vs Democrat, etc.. Those names/labels are just tools they use to keep us distracted. What "they" are really about is taking/keeping "control" for themselves, slowly but surely. What needs to happen is for everyone to "bite the bullet", and join together to fight to protect ALL rights from government intrusion. Advocating for someone else to be denied THEIR rights, while claiming yours are untouchable is disingenuous and hypocritical. Such a person is no better then the "other side". Much like the two major political parties. Its basically two different varieties of the same rotten apple. Whether the decaying rotting fruit put on the plate and served to you is a "granny smith" or a "Delicious" makes no difference. It still stinks.

I thought I read "somewhere" that a MANUFACTURER can, if a firearm is damaged beyond repair, destroy the old receiver/frame and assign/stamp its existing serial number to an identical replacement. If that is the case, then they would legally just be returning the same gun/serial number, which was sent out for repair/gunsmithing. ????????

Well, after reading the article, here's how I see it: If the "town" ( or those working for, or representing it) broke in, then they are responsible for whatever "their" act of compromising the stores security caused. Whether it was first responders, or looters who later came in through the open door that first responders created, its still the town's fault, and should be on their dime. By the way, regardless of the circumstances, can someone show me the law that allows one to escape prosecution for "breaking and entering" , "vandalism", "destruction of private property", and oh yeah "theft"; just because your employer sort of, kinda, maybe agrees to pay for some of the damages later? Personally, if I had owned property or a store in any of these areas, no road block or supposed "order" would have kept me away from my own property. It would have either been "ramming speed" to the barricades, or perhaps a surreptitious beach landing.

This is not the first time I've heard of them making those kinds of comments. Maybe those NJ2AS guys, or anybody planning on having a "conversation" with those "Morons Demand Stupid Stuff", RECORD the conversation. Voice activated pocket recorders, or even cell phone apps, work pretty well, and could go unnoticed by some of these idiots when worked up in such an emotional frenzy. I'm SURE there are plenty of media outlets that would love to get something juicy like that. For that matter, make sure to forward it to any of the politicians they are trying to influence, to let said politicians know just what kind of extremist they are contemplating "getting in bed with". Aligning themselves with people frothing at the mouth, advocating and encouraging child murder, will not look good for said politician's election efforts. Buutttt, to be even more effective, don't "out" them right away. Wait until you have several of them, at several events, saying similar types of comments. Perhaps even one of their "leaders" can be caught in such a manner. This will make it clear that it was not an anomaly, attributable to a "rogue" "mom" moron, but rather an established and accepted belief/position representative of the whole group. This will hammer their credibility. By "outing" them all at once, it also denies them the opportunity to close ranks and warn their members not to make any further comments.

Link is to a password protected site. So, given the automatic "sunset", now at 11/13/2014, we don't actually need to get any laws passed, or fight to get anything "changed", including anything needing a governor's signature. All we need to do is swing the state legislature just enough in the pro-2A direction to basically tie up and "kill" any attempt to renew Chapter 54 in the future. Preventing ANY bill containing renewal of Chapter 54 buried in it from ever seeing the light of day, or the governor's desk means that it will automatically expire on 11/14/2014. NJ would no longer have ANY firearms laws. No FPID, no CCW restrictions, no AWB, no "assault" pellet guns,etc.... Only the Federal laws would apply,which are much more "liveable" It would seem that getting politicians to do "nothing" is inherently easier then getting them to actively do "something". Sure, if we managed to "sneak" this one in, I'm sure all the "antis" would be screaming for it to be re-implemented immediately. But, as I said, once its gone, getting anything "new" in place will be infinitely harder. In the meantime, it will be the perfect opportunity to provide living proof that streets will not run red with blood the minute the evil black rifles,etc... are allowed to roam free.

Vandals, perhaps. But not through the town. According to the article, the local Postmaster approved it. Mailboxes are under the post office/postmasters jurisdiction. I don't think the local town has any say or authority in the matter. Even if they technically do have the ability to regulate it, via zoning, clearly this an artistic expression of this citizens beliefs and views, which are protected by the 1st Amendment. If it was mine, and the town tried to force its removal.... Well, from my cold dead hands (or forklift in this case). They'd be in for a hell of a fight, which they would eventually lose.

Some people make jewelry out of them. Inert large caliber rounds are also fairly popular as "mirror hangers" on the rear view of the car/truck. In some places its a ticket for obstructed view, for anything hanging from the mirror, but certainly not an actual "crime" worthy of arrest. To make gun ownership as difficult as they possibly can, hoping that the risk of arrest for mere accidental possession of an empty bullet shell/casing will scare the "casual" owners away from gun ownership. Do you mean that you personally were told this by a DC officer, or that this is what you are "getting" from the article? Because, the article clearly states the opposite. DC residents, with the "proper papers" will be giving a free-pass, even if they are technically breaking the law. TOURISTS, and others without their "papers", ARE supposed to be arrested; at least according to the article linked in the OP. In any case, how can an inert, inherently non-dangerous or weapon-like small piece of metal/plastic (shot shell) be classified as a weapon? How could this actually "hold up" in court?

Why do you think that? Its still at about 94-95% AGAINST.

The problem with Pipeline is the lack of snow making guns on it; at least the last time I was there (a long time ago). I think many more people could manage the terrain, at least enough to not die, but a near vertical drop covered in almost nothing but ice is a recipe for disaster. I find it hard to believe that Intrawest, and their insurance company, didn't shut that trail down as soon as they had bought the place. I mean, if they can get rid of the race cars, why not its winter-time death trap equivalent? On that note, now that Mulvihill is the owner again, I wonder if it might eventually start reverting to the Action Park ways, at least to a lesser extant? Maybe they'll bring back the motor world stuff, given the current popularity of Nascar and motorsports in general?

That came up in another thread, and nobody addressed the questions I asked. Obviously, the police and whatever agency are running it are not going to be happy about someone doing that at THEIR buyback, so I imagine you'd need to be 100% certain they can;t get you on something. 1.) Is it an illegal transfer for you to handle a firearm belonging to someone else; while examining it prior to purchase? While it may not be at a range, what about on a public street outside the buyback location? Where is line between possessing/carrying/ "BRANDISHING"? If you even come close to "shouldering" a long gun, or pointing the muzzle near anything but the ground, will "they" be ready to pounce on you? 2.) I would guess that handguns would be limited to one per person, assuming you had a permit already. Since you have no idea what is there, or what you'd be buying, getting an exemption beforehand would be impossible. Even more importantly, since this is not happening at a range, can you even touch or hold a handgun in public? The "sellers" are given an exemption because of why they are there. I doubt the police on hand would grant the same "courtesy" to someone buying handguns off the buyback line. 3.) Will YOU be charged if you inadvertently purchase, or even handle, an illegal firearm, say a full auto AK, which you didn't know was full-auto until you held it and inspected it? Keep in mind, common sense and reasonableness may not be the order of the day here. "They" may be watching, even stalking the buyers, waiting for that single moment you do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, even accidentally or briefly. I imagine you would also be precluded from purchasing anything that, in its current state, would be illegal, such as a semi-auto with a pistol grip AND an unpinned stock and/or threaded barrel,etc... Normally, you would just have it sent an FFL, have the "bad" stuff fixed, and be on your way. No way to do that here. I doubt people will be bringing S/A stuff that has already been made to be NJ legal. If they know enough to have it done, and paid the money to do so, they are probably smart enough not to bring it to a buyback. 4.) I think its safe to assume that the people "selling" these guns will not be savvy, as to the laws/requirements for legal sales. Will they cooperate with things such as COE's and filling in the sellers portion of the P2P for handguns? After all, the whole premise of the buyback, for them anyway, is the chance to get rid of the guns "no questions asked". Further, some of them are bound to be some very bad people; including violent criminals. You may not always be able to tell who they are. Do you want THEM having your name/address,etc...? They may just use that to come steal "their" gun back later. Even if they are not "bad guys", many may be paranoid "antis". Is it a good idea to hand them your name/address, and tell them you have guns? You never know who might be on the line. If one of the "Moronic Moms" inherited a firearm recently, maybe they decide to "dispose" of it at one of these events. Accidentally approaching one of them could get ugly real fast.

Yes, I believe you are right. Early in the show they said the walls were reinforced. They look pretty meaty. Also, it doesn't all look like cinder block. Quite a bit of the exterior looks to be stone. Still, I don't know about stopping a .50BMG armor piercing round. Maybe the first one, but after that it starts to get a little scary. Of course, they may add additional protection to the inside later, and one would assume they wouldn't sit up against an outside wall while being fired on with heavy weapons. Now, the whole drawbridge thing; ehhh, not impressed, and it definitely is a vulnerability; at least against heavy weapons, explosives, and vehicles. With all the talk of being in such a rush to get things done, I would think that things like a roof, and filling in/protecting the window openings,etc.... would take priority over building a catapult., or even a listening post. You have a giant castle. Put an observations post on the roof........Once you have a roof that is. If you have the materials, and time on your hands, I guess it can't hurt to have a catapult, as it expands your options for ammo. But, given that this family seems to have a decent amount of money/resources, I would have focused on "machine" gun emplacements, and other real, modern weapons. (such as buried IEDs on the access road) To avoid the ridiculous expense of transferable machine guns, they could have acquired "nuetered" M1919s, M2, Vickers, Maxims,etc... to be legal, and quietly acquired, and then buried, the F/A conversion parts on the property. Never touch those parts unless/until the law no longer matters. I think a few .50 cal machine guns on the roof the castle would have the same or greater range then the catapult, and be more effective. I suppose you could even skip the F/A stuff, as those kids don't really seem like they would the trigger discipline to avoid dumping an entire belt in seconds. Even semi-auto, these guns would be very effective. On the other hand, there has been very little mention of firearms at all, on the show. It could be either the network not being comfortable with it, or maybe the family is keeping some things a secret? Of course, they might also want to be more careful about discussing their location. The mentioned the "blue ridge mountains" in last nights episode. I give the "internet" a week, tops, to find that castle, via google earth, in the middle of the woods of TN. Oh, and I think the blond, Dawn Marie, is definitely the hottest. Yeah, the oldest one has "bullets" big enough to be destructive devices, but she comes off as very stuck up and high maintenance, as well as not being reliable in a bad situation. The blonde seems more genuine, and much more capable. I would trust her in a doomsday scenario. The oldest son, besides looking like a creepy serial killer, is a complete ass. I think I would shoot him myself on day one. Definitely a "pretty boy" who is desperately trying to look like Mr. Macho outdoorsman. I was so hoping they were going to "vote him of the island" last night.

Those two were his brothers, and they didn't live there. They occasionally visited, but were strictly limited to where they (and any other "guests") were allowed to go in the house. It was determined, pretty quickly, that they had no involvement or knowledge, of what was happening. The victims themselves said so. This was all on the one guy, who is now dead.

Hmmm, interesting. You may actually be able to get away with that, based on the letter of the law. However, you only get immunity from the "illegal possession" charge. I'm sure they would find something else to charge you with, that isn't covered. For instance, you would need an NFA tax stamp for your suppressor, in order to not violate Federal laws. However, I doubt the ATF will give you one in NJ, so there's that.....

Well, the way I read it, the only "safe" way to do it is to provide notice beforehand, not at the site. Also, no immunity if you are caught before they have received the notice. So, if you are standing in line outside said collection event, waiting to give your written notice, you are screwed. All they have to do is come outside and announce that everyone in line is being investigated, and is under suspicion of illegally possessing a firearm. Bam. investigation has commenced before notice received, thereby eliminating your "get out of jail free" card. VERY sneaky, but not unexpected. Of course that assumes they did it on purpose, and not just another half-assed law that none of them read before signing....

Well, that depends. A cheap welder, w/flux core wire most likely won't make a strong weld. But, as long as it is secured to the barrel via set screws or some other method, then the flux wire could make a "booger" that "looks" good, and appears to be welded to anybody who might look.

Fixed it..... Hey, at least you don't have to worry about ink that costs more then the device it is used in.

The restoration dept. of a modern history museum........

Good point. I would say that the area of greatest concern would be soldiers with actual combat experience, and/or substantial training in aggressive/violent action. I'm not worried about a supply clerk who has never been deployed outside the US, a KC-135 pilot, a mechanic on an aircraft carrier,etc.... On the other hand, an infantryman fresh off a couple of tours patrolling the streets of Afghanistan would be more troubling, as he has been conditioned to think and act in a highly aggressive manner, to any perceived threat, and in a way that is wholly inappropriate for routine domestic police work. Add in the possibility of PTSD, and it becomes more troubling. Also, regardless of combat action, a Special Forces or Navy SEAL trained individual is probably also going to be an issue, simply because of the entire culture those groups eat/breathe/sleep. Again, not bashing them. Its great, for what they are trained to do/be as soldiers. But, its not compatible with domestic law enforcement. We could be here all day hashing the complexities and various exceptions/conditions and various bureaucrat-speak which would be needed for any appropriate actual regulation. Again, I will willingly admit that my initial statement was over broad. Not ALL former military should be kept out of civilian law enforcement. But, again, I will stand by the general idea that at least SOME fairly broad classifications / MOS's should be restricted/prohibited from doing so, at least for certain period following separation from the military. Again, as I said in my last post, I was mistaken to indicate a focus solely on them as an issue. Yes, it is a concern. BUT, if we first take away the military "toys" from the police; such as APCs, TANKS!, grenade launchers, prohibit them from wearing military uniforms, end most no-knock military style "dynamic" entries,etc.... then maybe that will make a big impact on its own.

This^^^^ As requested: This is an academic research paper, based on a survey of actual law enforcement agencies, and with numerous "citations" of the data. Yes, its a bit dated (1997), but many serious studies and research is. The time needed to collect, organize, and analyze the data pretty much necessitates that such studies/research be done in a retrospective manner. : http://cjmasters.eku.edu/sites/cjmasters.eku.edu/files/socialproblemsmilitar.pdf While the whole paper is a good read, and addresses other contributing factors to the "militarization of police" problem, pages 10, 11, and 12 most directly address the issue being debated here. Of interest here is sections V, VI, and VII. Again, it speaks to both the dangers of military involvement with police, as well as other causes of the militarization trend. (Primarily the "Drug War" and the associated policies.) http://www.davekopel.com/waco/lawrev/cansoldiersbepeaceofficers.htm I'm sure I can find more, but I'm not writing a research paper. I will say that, perhaps, I overemphasized the role of the individual former soldier in the undesirable transformation of domestic law enforcement into a more paramilitary organization. Nonetheless, I stand behind the basic principle of my original position. Former soldiers in law enforcement don't appear to be THE cause of the militarization of police. But, they are undoubtedly a contributing factor, to some extent. Of greater impact/causation, would appear to be the "Drug War" and associated policies, and more recently, the "War on Terror" and its associated policies; including the increasing availability of money and equipment for law enforcement to acquire and use military training/tactics and equipment. Just a few commenting on this: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marto/milpol.htm http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/frightening-new-reason-to-fear-police/

How can "they" make you fill out the form? I can see if you are buying multiple guns from 1 dealer, they may refuse the sale, improperly. But, if you buy 1 gun from dealer A., then buy gun 2 from dealer B, in less then 30 days, and the NJSP call or show up to "point out the errors in your ways", you show them your valid FFL C&R, then cite the specific law above, informing them that you are "a collector of handguns as curios or relics as defined in Title 18, United States Code, section 921 (a) (13) who has in his possession a valid Collector of Curios and Relics License issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;" as per NJ law, and are therefor exempt from the OGAM requirements. If they lay a finger on you, sue them, and press charges for false arrest, and related violations/crimes. This isn't an area where they should get any "leeway" for having a reasonable belief, blah, blah, blah. There is nothing open to interpretation. Its plain as day, spelled out in black and white right in the law. I suppose one could have a letter from your attorney prepared, laying out the causes/grounds for the legal/civil actions you could/would take against them should they proceed any further. While you saying it to them mid-arrest might not matter, a professional letter from an attorney may give them enough pause to at least double check/verify with someone higher up first. Also what about someone obtaining a letter from the NJ AG, recognizing this law. I mean, again, nothing here to interpret as they see fit. The law is very clear and specific. I don't see how the AG could do anything BUT verify it. Again, having that letter on your person could pretty much stop them in their tracks. It would also be useful for buying more then one from a single dealer who might incorrectly object. "They" already try to take so much. Don't give an inch where you don't have to. If the law is on your side, do it. Use every loophole, every end run around available; just because you can.

http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/faq.htm "When will M-14’s be available from the CMP? Although one never knows what may happen in the future, we doubt that M-14’s will ever be available for purchase from the CMP. What bolt action rifles are available?Over the past ten years the Army has transferred to the CMP all depot stocks of Krags, M1917s, M1903, and M1903A3 rifles. In addition, a large quantity of M1903s were returned from overseas and also transferred to the CMP. There are no longer any of these model rifles on loan overseas or in Army inventory, other than what they reserved for museum use. For the past few years, the only source of these rifles was/is from veterans organizations (VFW, AL, AMVETS, MCL, etc) as they either shut their chapters or as they upgrade the worn out rifles to M1 Garands. For all practical purposes, the CMP sold out of these rifles in 2009, but has accumulated a few more that we will begin inspecting and offering for sale sometime in 2011 – one model at a time. We have approximately 600 M1917s, 100 Krags, 400 M1903 and 400 M1903A3 models. At this time we cannot predict how many will pass inspection as complete rifles and how many will be just barreled receivers. Until we complete inspecting each and every one of these rifles and know what we have, we will not be able to set prices or take orders (or pre-orders) or establish a waiting list. As with our smallbore rifles, once all of the above listed models are sold, that will basically end CMP sales of surplus bolt action rifles, except for the trickle – which we will probably just auction by then."

Yes, there may very well be some validity to your point. However, there is still the opposite side of the coin, being the importation of military training/tactics/and weapons into an organization that is not supposed to be behave in a militaristic fashion. Sure, he may be "mature" and calm in your routine traffic stop, but is he transferring more aggressive military skills/attidues to his co-workers in training sessions or even informal interaction? It is an OPINION. I did not claim to post an absolute fact, and not back it up. However, I am in the process of doing some research to find what you ask. I suspect it will take the better part of the day, But I will respond to either admit I could find no such evidence, or to post a link to it. Relax. Like any large group of people, I imagine there would be varying opinions. Some will agree. Some will mildly disagree. Some will call for my head on a pike, literally. As a whole though, I would expect that organization to be opposed to my idea/proposal. No surprise there. They are an organization by/for veterans. of course they will mostly look out for/stand by their own. No different then expecting a teachers union to be receptive to pay cuts, or the expecting the AMA to endorse expansion of homeopathic medicine. Any group by/for a specific subset of society is, by its very nature, going to support that subset, even if to the detriment of others outside that subset. So, yeah, the VFW wouldn't like it. That doesn't really have any bearing, one way or the other, on the value of the idea. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply? I'm not being anti-soldier/military, if that is your point. I have nothing against the military. I just think, and the constitution agrees, that the military and domestic law enforcement are two separate functions, with different roles/goals/rules/methodology, and that they are meant to always remain separate, for good reason. (most of which, at least historically speaking, has little to do with the current "militarization" of domestic law enforcement) However, since you dangled the bait, I'll nibble. In regards to the "domestic terrorist" point, do you count gangs? From the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/gangs.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/7465232.html What's to stop these guys from using their veteran status to become cops? That could be very bad.

I understand what you think makes sense. I understand why you would say it, and I agree that BO very well may have INTENDED to do just that. BUT, we all know, what they THINK they said/accomplished with a new law (or executive order in this case) isn't always the case. At least in part because they are making laws about things they don't understand. "They" often leave loop holes big enough to float an aircraft carrier through.( and not just with gun laws. Politicians make all kinds of laws without being sufficiently educated on those topics; which is disgusting.) I mean, just look at the AWB in NJ. Clearly they THOUGHT they were banning all evil black rifles. All they really accomplished is to diminish and dilute a fairly short list of trademarked model names, and impose a few silly meaningless restrictions. I'm sure that no gun grabber, ever, has thought " Hmm, rifle that says AR-15, and has a flash hider = evil killing machine, but functionally/aesthetically identical rifle that says SuperSport Mega Gun-15 with muzzle brake that is welded on is safe and acceptable" They are reactionary, thoughtless idiots; and let's hope they stay that way. A gun grabber who really knows guns, and starts writing "anti" laws, is much more dangerous. But, we'll have to wait until the order is published, to see how many loopholes they left behind. I would expect to see it on Tuesday or Wednesday. Here: https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders/barack-obama/2013

Just to clarify, although I thought it was pretty clear; the above is how I think it should be, for the reasons I stated. The 5 year wait I proposed, is so that former military have sufficient time to realign their brains to a more peaceful civilian way of thinking. The idea is to wring as much "soldier" out of them, and their attitudes/actions/mindset as possible, before unleashing them on the domestic civilian population as law enforcement. As has been discussed before, the way a soldier can/does/should act in a "combat" zone, interacting with the local civilians, is very different from what is appropriate for a civilian law enforcement officer. Allowing former soldiers to become involved in civilian law enforcement, before the "soldier"' has been removed from their brains, is what leads to the rampant and inappropriate militarization of law enforcement. As for the "special" teams" thing. Again, see above. "Regular" law enforcement, interacting with the public on daily basis, should not be engaging in the training and tactics, nor have the weaponry, of a military unit. My post about the "special" teams, is to recognize that, in some VERY limited circumstances, those aforementioned "military" style tactics may be needed, such as in a "LA bank robbery" or "Virginia Tech Shooting" type of scenario. But, those are far and few between. I think it would be best to "insulate" the "normal" cops, who deal with the public on a daily basis, from being exposed to the "military mindset" and attitudes that such a team would likely have, which is also why those teams should be excluded from routine daily police work.(and to keep them away from citizens) (Perhaps these "special" teams might be an allowable exception to the "no former soldiers" rule?). Think of the "special" teams as vicious trained attack dogs, and the "regular" cops as your friendly family pet. You probably want to keep your viscous attack dog chained and muzzled, until needed; as well as separated from the family pets. I hope that makes my idea/opinion/"proposal" as clear as possible.

No, but I could see one foolishly chopping one, to try and make a concealable SBR . Oh, the horrors!!! :wild: