carguy3j

I am really curious as to a definitive answer on this. I can see a private company, such as Greyhound, being within their rights to prohibit firearms on their private property (buses). However AmTrak, and NJ Transit would be a very interesting matter, as they are both closely tied to the government. Are they prohibited areas,as government property, or conversely, being "public" are they required to remain neutral and allow anything legal?

Which is exactly why ex-military should be BARRED from being, not encouraged to be, cops. This is not Iraq or Fallujah. We, the citizenry, are not enemy combatants or insurgents. The president, as commander-in-chief, should order, under threat of re-call to active duty followed by court martial, that no soldier engage in civilian law enforcement, for a minimum of 5 years after their discharge, or 5 years after the end of the military service (including reserve/Guard). That should be enough time for them to "calm down" and re-integrate, and re-identify with the civilian population. Also, screw the homeland security "grants". No more "surplus" military gear for LE. Sorry, but Barney Fife does NOT need an APC. If you really feel the need, then I guess we could outfit a FEW special response teams, stationed at several locations across the state, as to be able to cover the whole state. But, NO regular/local cops geared up and trained like military units. If its something beyond their capabilities, they call in one of the "special" teams. Further, those "special" team members, having been given military weapons and training, and likely to have a military "mindset" may NEVER engage in routine law enforcement activity. I think the above would go a long way towards improving the "regular" cops relationship with the public. Return to the old "being part of the community", and someone the average citizen could trust; as opposed to Officer Rambo trying to intimidate everyone he sees with his almighty super cop "I AM the law" routine. From what I understand, court precedent has established that a noise ordinance is enforceable ONLY if it states specific decibel levels, measured at an accepted scientifically valid distance (ie, it can't just say "too loud" is bad, ticket for you), and the enforcing agency/officer has/uses a certified decibel meter to PROVE you exceeded it. Remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. Your friend should not have had to prove squat. The burden is on the prosecution.

How? Again, we don't have the text of the actual order yet, but here's the "release" news briefing from whitehouse.gov : "bold/underline mine") "When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval. Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms." When/to whom did the US EXPORT and sell any SKS, AK, or Mosin's to our allies? The statement clearly uses the term "re-import", implying that these arms would have been made in the US, EXPORTED to an allied government, and now no longer allowed to RE-imported. You can't RE-import something then never came from here to begin with. Yes, its playing "semantics" to an extent, but that's how you beat them at their own game; by exploiting "flaws" and "gaps" in the foolish ill-conceived policies they come up with. Might it take an importer taking a case court, to set precedent? Maybe. But it might also just be a matter of an opinion letter from the ATF, and those guys are ANAL about the EXACT letter of the law. The LETTER of the law, assuming the actual order is consistent with the press release, supports the continued importation of anything that WE didn't originally EXPORT from here, to an ally.

From what I saw on their website, the CMP is/was slowly dying anyway. They were NEVER going to get anything more modern then the Garands, and those are mostly gone anyway. Its not like they ever had a chance of getting some surplus M-16's or Barrett .50s, or S.A.W.s. There hasn't been any "eligible" weapons in use for decades. What this WILL do is stop importation of various historic/classic firearms, such as the WW2 Lee Enfields (at least the "Savage" US made lend-lease ones). These, and similar guns, are probably the bulk of that 250K number Biden mentioned in the press release. Someone mentioned it affecting the SKS. I don't see how. WE didn't make those, or export them to allies; which is what the Exec. Order pertains to. In the end, we won't really know the details until the text of the order is published. I've been refreshing the White House website since last night. Still nothing, for these new orders. With the holiday, they might not be "published" until next week. The good thing, is they are only executive orders, and a new president can unwind it all in about 5 minutes; as opposed to months or years of trying to get Congress/the House to implement legislation.

Personally, I refuse to do business with ANY business that won't give you prices over the phone. There's some scrap yards that try to play that game. To me, it tells me their prices are too low, they know it, and hope you'll just say "screw it, I'm already here", and sell to them anyway. It reeks of dishonesty to me. Sure, I understand that there can be variables, and in some situations it is impossible to give a firm price on something, bu it would be a rare case where it would unfair to expect them to give some sort of idea. If you're talking about a retail store, such as gun shop, then there should be no excuse for refusing to tell people what your retail, on the shelf price is. Custom work? Yeah, sure I can see that being a "We need to see it" kind of thing, but not new retail items. Call 'em back, and ask again. If they refuse, TELL THEM they are losing any chance of gaining your business. Let them know that it gives the appearance of being "shady". Maybe if they hear it from enough people, they'll realize its a policy that is bad for business. -Note: I'm not "bad mouthing" any particular place/people. I have never met the owners, or ever tried to do business with this place. I'm just discussing my general,personal policy which I apply to any business I may seek to patronize.

Huh? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/?ref_=sr_2 As has been discussed,the civilian population would likely end up getting armed with military hardware (either officially, unofficially, by individual units they meet, or through picking up what they find), and the resistance may even be integrated into, or at least coordinate with the regular army/military; perhaps even with embedded military "liaisons" acting as trainers/planners/maybe even unit commanders. Also, I think our geography may be one of our greatest assets. All of these enemy forces would have to arrive to by sea or air, travelling VERY long distances. There is no direct overland route, from the middle east, China, or Russia. We have the most powerful Navy left in the world. Even combined, Russia's rusting rotting remnants of the Soviet Navy, combined with China's bad copies of stolen designs, and even with all of the south american countries (some of whom are allies/friendly anyway) throwing in their pitiful fleet of obsolete hand-me downs, wouldn't stand a chance. We'd send most of the combat vessels, and virtually all merchant/transport ships to the bottom, while way out at sea. As for air combat, the US is really the only country with extensive air refueling capabilities. Most nation's military aircraft, and certainly their fighters and ground attack aircraft have nowhere near the range to get here to support ground troops, and they lack the refueling ability to extend that range. Sure they could do some "hops", to ferry some over, and I'm sure Russia does have SOME airborne re-fueling abilities, but not enough to come close to gaining air superiority over the CONUS. Whatever they do get here won't last long. Yes, the Mig-29s will put up a good fight, but just about anything else a com-block nation could send at us is out classed by even the stuff we have in mothballs (F-4- yes they're pigs, but w/ modern missiles/fire control they'd put up a good fight, F-14, F-15, older F-16's,etc...) Hell, we have so much good stuff, we moth balled the F-117 stealth fighter; ( Yes, I know its not really a "fighter") something other nations would drool over even today. NOBODY has anything to counter the B-2, which can do intercontinental missions, and bomb the hell out of the bad guys before they even leave home. We still have plenty of B-52's to send on long range bombing missions, anywhere in the world. Yes, they are old, and in hostile skies, we'd lose a lot of them, but they deliver such a huge payload, that even a small percentage getting through would be devastating to the enemy. After all that, we also still have the ultimate deterrent. If all hope is lost, the US has been overrun and occupied, with no hope of fighting back; then the final act of the president/national command structure would be launch our nukes. We still have more the enough to wipe out every hostile nation in the world. Even if the land based silos are compromised, we still have "boomers" hiding out there somewhere, waiting to rain hell down on our enemies, and those enemies know that. That's why we should never completely give up our nuclear arsenal, why no little dictators should be allowed to have them, and why all of these scenarios will probably never happen. We have the ultimate "Game Over" button. Maybe. Or you make it hurt enough that they leave voluntarily. It all depends on how/.what kind of resistance can be formed. That's the whole idea of guerrilla warfare. You don't need score big battle victories. Just inflict enough damage, enough times, to demoralize the enemy, and make them not want to be there. Alternatively, we hold out long enough for our allies to come to the resuce. Sort of a reverse WW2, where we swap roles with Europe. Well, then we, the population, might be in trouble. Of course, we are assuming that a major motivation for the invasion, is our various resources. If they go and destroy too much of our infrastructure, it won't be nearly as valuable to "them". Frying our electrical grid would be a big problem for them, post occupation. It would take years decades to re-build. But, I would think that most of the military assets are hardened against EMP, at least the "big stuff"; including the nukes, and the systems to order and carry out the launches.

True. But, they are called "sheep" for a reason. They might try to "sell out" the resistance, to save themselves. Don't give them the info/intelligence to do so. If they become enough of a problem... Well, then they become enemy sympathizers/collaborators/traitors. Harsh as it may be, some sacrifices may have to be made. To your last question: Anybody who A.) you are confident won't turn it on you, and B.)you are confident is willing to point it at a "bad guy" and pull the trigger, and C.)you reasonably believe can hit the bad guys with said guns. They don't need to be trained marksmen; just good enough that they aren't a total waste of ammo. That's all that matters. Assuming this is Russia or China, we need numbers. Sure, a lot of the untrained resistance will probably end up getting themselves killed eventually, but as long as they can kill a number of "bad guys" first, then they have helped. You say 300 million firearms. Is that just civilian owned? What about "un-documented" "illegal" stuff, such as machine guns and DDs in civilian hands? I think the populace has more "heavy" firepower then anybody really knows about. In a time of war such as this, many civilians could easily manufacture mortars, IED's, and even crude ROV/drones, out of RC planes/model rockets. Teenagers on YouTube build homemade guns. Also, the military has more guns/ammo/heavy weapons then they have soldiers to shoot/man them. In an all out invasion, I would think they would start arming willing civilians. Assign one or two fully trained regular soldier to a group of "draftee" civilian resistance fighters. You instantly double, triple, or even quadruple the size of the military. Granted your aren't going to pluck a plumber out of suburbia, and stick him in an F-22. But there are many things that minimally trained people can do, in a war-expedient situation, and still be combat effective, even if not up to the usual standards. True, and this has probably been the cause of so many US casualties in these conflicts; by playing games and holding back. We won WW2, because we were willing to be ruthless. We bombed German cities. We nuked Japanese cities. They were ALL the enemy, and that was that. Well, I'm not so sure they would have "relatively unlimited supplies". Unless they took Canada first, they would be a long way from any means of re-supply. Further, assuming this IS Russia or China, or any similar com-bloc/former Soviet related country, they won't find much in the way of usable ammo here, to steal. They will most likely be primarily equipped with AKs, and derivatives, in their "native" caliber. All of our military's 5.56, 7.62 NATO, and .50BMG isn't going to help them. Sure, they might capture some of our rifles, but not enough to re-equip most of their troops. Again, sure they'll find some stuff, in the civilian population, but not enough to supply an invasion force.

Agreed +a google (the number, not the company) Although, I do think that committing any other crime WHILE using a drug should have severely enhanced penalties. There should also still be criminalization of drug use while doing certain high-risk activities, or engaging in certain professions. For instance, use a "home-owner" size backhoe in your own garden, all by yourself, while high? fine. If you want to be stupid, have it. Attempt to run a dozer on a busy construction site, with any drugs in your systems? Instant crime, even if nothing goes wrong. Same for,say, doctors, cops, truck drivers,etc.... Professions where being even a little "off" from drugs is clearly an unacceptable condition. Show up for work that way, and instant crime. There should also be prohibitions against public use.

Would a foreign nation's "regular" army, or even a coalition of nations, ever be able to successfully invade AND occupy the CONUS? Maybe. But, not if they just came at us openly, right from the start. We'd crush them in the air, and on the ocean before they ever got here. Even with the element of initial surprise, which would be nearly impossible for them to achieve (unless Canada turned on us. That, we'd never see coming, but we would still likely be able to detect the buildup/staging of troops/weapons), we'd quickly put a serious hurting on them. Sure, they could probably capture and hold a few cities, maybe even a few non-strategic states (if we let them), briefly, in the opening stages, while we decide what to do. After that, they'd be gone quickly. That would be the stupid way. On the other hand, if they decided to "soften" us up, from the inside first, then it could be a different story. 9/11 proves that a determined group can do serious damage. If those guys had been part of a larger military operation, whose mission was soften the US for an invasion, then they would have forgotten about the towers, and went straight for more strategic targets. In the pre-9/11 atmosphere, if they could get the small group they did, to take a few commercial planes, then they certainly could have, with a real governments money backing them, purchased/acquired many more aircraft (small planes, filled with explosives), trained many more pilots, and coordinated a larger simultaneous attack. Send more then one big plane into the Pentagon,as one more plane would have probably rendered the Pentagon unable to function. One into the Whitehouse, as more of a Psy-Ops/ de-moralizing goal, rather then any real strategic value. Although, I suppose if they got lucky and caught the President, V.P., and or major aides/agency heads/etc.., it would create some serious problems for us. Put another airliner into 3-mile island. Maybe it leaks some radiation. At worst (for them), it at least causes major power outages. Send a few explosive packed Cessnas into each of the major bridges in/out of the city, while "ground units" simultaneously destroy/block all the tunnels. Ditto with the harbors. Sleeper cells working as dock workers/long shoremen take actions to disable the large commercial ports/receiving areas. No cranes and other equipment (which is specialized and difficult to replace) means no off-loading of goods. You've crippled a big chunk of the east coast, and created panic amongst the citizens. Repeat this scene (coordinated to occur simultaneously), all over the country, and you've dealt a serious blow to the U.S's ability to respond. Couple that with a.) simultaneous diversionary attacks on our forces at various overseas locations, B.) along with stopping supplies/goods, at their point of origin (Ie, don't try to seize oil tankers on the high seas, as the US Navy would quickly resolve that situation. Rather stop the tankers while in port, in "softer" nations/harbors, and C.) possibly employing similar sleeper cell attacks in our allied nations, such as the UK. You don't need to do as much damage to them; just enough that they are too busy worrying about their own problems to help us. Would most of our military still be perfectly intact? Sure. But, they would have a hard time, just dealing with the civilian chaos. Roads would be destroyed, or blocked with fleeing citizens, food and fuel would be difficult to acquire through "normal" channels, and you would have a lot of soldiers very worried about their own families. Some might even desert, to take take care or search for their missing family. Also, while the US does have means of operating in a self-sufficient manner, I doubt they are really prepared to do so on their own "home turf" They depend on the usual national/"civilian" infrastructure nearly as much as the rest of us. Sure, the major military installations could operate for a while, if totally cut off. But, many national guard "armories" look like not much more then big brick gymnasiums. A number of the air national guard units operate out of commercial airports. I doubt many are equipped for any sustained "off-the-grid" operation, at least not while at home. And what "self-sufficiency"' gear we have; I would guess that much of it is already deployed overseas. Granted, none of this would be a small undertaking, BUT, we're not talking about Osama sending a few cave rats to knock down a building. If they could pull it off, a government funded/backed operation ( a REAL government, like Russia/China, not "Dictator-of-the-week-astan"), planned to play out over a number of years, could easily infiltrate the country and plant "sleepers" in any number of key positions; both civilian and military. The KGB did it in the Cold War. There is no reason to think it couldn't happen again. In fact, it would maybe be easier today. Yes, we have more sophisticated technology today, but we also have many, many more people, and less and less personal interaction as well. Years ago, a stranger would stick out. Today, everybody is a stranger, and nobody gives it a second thought. How many people have never even spoken to their next door neighbors? I mean, its a KNOWN fact that that a number of "street gangs" have already infiltrated the US military: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/gangs.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10 So, why couldn't a foreign nations operatives?

WOLVERINES!

White Castle is awesome, but I find it too overpriced, for what it is, so I rarely partake of its steamed burger-y delicousness. The seasoned curly fries are also awesome.... I sense a disturbance in the force. An imbalance if you will. Just as good can not exist without evil, light can not exist without dark; when we are all extreme, then no one will be extreme. We'll all just be normal........ Ha, wrap your mind around that

Really? I get where you were trying to go with that, but I don' t think allowing misconduct to continue until it "fixes itself" is a great idea. Its about more then just winning/losing court cases: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/nj_attorney_general_agrees_to_pay_425000_to_man_beaten_by_nj_state_police_troopers.html They really do think they are ABOVE the law: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/02/nj_state_police_trooper_seeks.html "A State Police trooper who was disciplined in connection with the beating of a mentally disabled man contends officials broke the law by waiting too long to punish him, and has filed a lawsuit seeking dismissal of the charges." Isn't that ironic? "State law requires the State Police to file disciplinary charges against troopers within 45 days after obtaining "sufficient information" to substantiate the complaint." So, when do the rest of us get a 45-day statute of limitations for violent crimes; 'cause there are a few people I'd like to kick the crap out. I mean hey, as long as you duck prosecution for a month and half, you're forever in the clear, right? "The state Supreme Court found in a past ruling that the clock starts in such instances when a case is given to the superintendent for review. The law, signed in 2002, is intended to protect troopers from unreasonable delays in disciplinary proceedings, which can hold up career advancement or delay retirement." Yeah, THAT's what's important here.....:sarcasm: "Neither trooper was criminally charged in connection with the incident, and both deny any wrongdoing." A.) Why the hell not? The AG has determined they plainly "breached the Ag's use of force policy" (from the first article linked above), the NJSP internal affairs saw enough to "charge" them with excessive force. So, as far as I'm concerned, they should no longer have any special privileges/protections associated with their job or union. They are now common criminals/thugs, and should be treated and charged accordingly, with assault and battery, and whatever other charges the "rest of us" would be subject to for the same acts. They belong in PRISON! At the very least, they should be IMMEDIATELY fired, and become "prohibited persons" for firearms ownership purposes. Clearly they have violent tendencies. B.) Of course they "admit no wrongdoing". Why would they? They clearly assume they are above the law.

True. I don't think you can be charged with "violating" the advisory sign, per-se. The way it was explained to me was, if you exceed that 'advisory" and have no problems (no crash,etc...) then more power to you, "have a nice day". If, on the other hand, you do have an accident while going around said curve, and while exceeding the "advisory" limit, then they will hold it against you. Again, not a speeding ticket for exceeding the "advised" limit, but rather an "unsafe operation", "careless", or "reckless", because you would have allegedly acted in an imprudent manner by ignoring the advisory. By exceeding the advised "safe" speed, you are assumed to be at fault. To make an analogy to the gun laws, and to paraphrase a court ruling: "when a driver exceeds the posted "advisory" speed, he does so at his own peril" I don't really see how what 2ANJ said was "disrespectful" to the cop; certainly nothing to warrant your bad attitude. ASSUMING, things happened the way he said, and there was nothing else to the story (no accident, stunt riding,etc...), then I think the cop was in the wrong. It sounds like he basically wrote an improper "careless" ticket, because he knew a speeding ticket wouldn't stick. You yourself pointed out that the advisory signs are not enforceable "unto themselves", so if all the bike rider was doing was going faster then the advisory sign "allowed", with no other legitimate "bad acts", then he shouldn't have been ticketed at all. I've had my share of speeding tickets (or things issued instead of speeding) and sat through numerous municipal court sessions, and from what I've seen, the prosecutors/judges are way too "forgiving" of no-shows and delays by "arresting" officers. Unless, the cop involved has pissed someone off, or has missed multiple appearances without a "good" reason, the judge will almost always "let it slide", and inconvenience the defendant with a postponement. The other thing to keep in mind though, is they may not have been there for a trial, but rather the "first appearance"/pleading, which the officer/witnesses are not obligated to show up for. Its assumed that nobody is ready for trial at that point, so it won't be happening that day. IF the officer is there, or has already spoken to the prosecutor, you may be able to negotiate a plea, and "handle" everything that day/evening, but if not, you're coming back for a trial at another time.

Here's what I was told by several cops in the past: The white signs are the speed limit. The yellow ones, such as around curves, are advisory. They can't give you a ticket for speeding, for exceeding the "yellow sign" speed, as long as your under the posted "white sign" limit. HOWEVER, I was told that if you get into/cause an accident where your speed was above that "yellow sign" advisory speed, then you can be ticketed for careless or reckless driving. I suppose that would also apply, minus an accident, if say you were exceeding that "yellow sing" number around a corner and were observed to be "drifting" around the corner, or otherwise appearing to not have control of the car. I think that would be pretty hard to do, while still under the "real" "white sign" limit, unless snow/ice/etc... were involved, in which case, your speed might be considered excessive/unsafe for the conditions, regardless of being under the "white sign" limit.

Google:http://www.google.com/#fp=54b78a9b0d3b5366&q=How%20do%20mil%20dots%20work&safe=off http://www.mil-dot.com/user-guide http://www.chuckhawks.com/mil-dot_scopes.htm Those were just the first two results. EDIT: njpilot typed faster then me

"Losasso’s neighbors said they found bullet and pellet holes on the sides of their homes." "As agents searched Losasso’s home, they found a .22 caliber rifle and .17 caliber pellet gun, both equipped with scopes, propped against a wall next to the back sliding glass door, according to the complaint." Sure. I've heard of a "Broom Handle Mauser", but c'mon..... That wasn't a broom, or fishing pole he was sticking out the door. We aren't on the jury. Its ok to say that he looks guilty Yeah. The hawks aren't coming for the seed, but the things they eat are. There was also mention that he had worked in/on rescue of squirrels, so one theory is that he had a grudge against the hawks, because they eat squirrels. It would seem kinda counterproductive to lure in the thing you are trying to save, as bait. But, then again, this guy sounds like he might be a few rounds short of a full magazine: "As he left the courthouse yesterday and a reporter asked him for a comment, Losasso, his gray hair matted, made two piercing bird whistle sounds into the air."

The article didn't mention any gun charges, despite his possession of a .22 and a pellet gun (both firearms in NJ), so I would assume that, at least on the face of it, he had the guns legally. Given that you can't buy .22 ammo in NJ without an FPID, I would think he probably does have one. I would also assume, that if he possessed the guns illegally, that would have been the headline of the article, and they would be laid out on a table for a photo opp.......

Speaking from a general common sense stand point, and not as someone with "gun specific" knowledge: Check and see just how "air tight", and "water tight" those bags are. They may be fine for preserving food for a while, but that doesn't guarantee that they aren't porous enough to eventually lose a vacuum, or let water/air in. Perhaps call the manufacturer's "help line", and see if they will tell you the "pore" size of the molecular structure of the plastic, and then compare it to the pore size of common contaminants such as salt molecules,etc..., as well as the size of common air/water molecules. This will tell you if those things can get in/out through the plastic. You could also try just asking them if the product is truly air/water tight, and how long it will hold a vacuum. I wouldn't mention the gun part. Given that these bags are meant for chicken cutlets, and not sharp edged metal guns, I would also be careful to pad any edges,etc... where the gun will contact the bag. Maybe wrap it in a soft cloth first. Also, keep in mind, you are basically "marinating" the gun, when you draw the vacuum on the bag, so just like juices/flavor will be drawn deeper into meat, you should expect that grease/oil (and dirt I suppose) will be drawn, via the vacuum, into every little nook and cranny of the gun, including places it might not normally go, or be desired.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/atlantic_co_man_accussed_of_shooting_protected_migratory_hawks_from_his_backdoor.html#incart_river_default#incart_hbx#incart_best-of Sigh..... They found MULTIPLE bullet holes in surrounding houses! Ok, first time it happens, cops should come, and give the "misguided" old man a stern talking to. If he stops, good enough. The second time, throw the book at him and take the guns. How did this go on for 2-1/2 years?

You're right, they will probably try to fire him. However, since drivers use their own personal vehicle, I don't see how Dominoes has any legal authority to control/decide/require what he can or can't do in/with his own vehicle. Dominoes doesn't have any legal standing to suspend the constitution. Granted, they certainly could have a "no guns" policy in THEIR stores/property, or in the vehicle if it was company-owned. At least he doesn't work for Autozone: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/devin-mcclean-autozone-employee-fired-robbery_n_2220219.html http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/04/autozone-employee-and-veteran-fired-for-using-his-gun-to-ward-off-armed-robber/

I've actually taken a liking to them, aesthetically. I've never driven one, but they look cool; especially in black. I think they are "beefy" enough to squeak in under the line as a truck. I have a feeling they may end being one those sought after vehicles many years from now. Now, the new "Explorer"? That I can't stand being called a "truck" or even an "Explorer". It is neither. Sure its an ok vehicle, for what it is, but its not a real Explorer. To qualify for that name, it needs a real/body and frame, and real, true 4wd; not that computer controlled "nanny-fied" AWD.

If mandatory minimums are "flawed" then how is it that 3 strikes are genius? Its just another version of a mandatory minimum. And, it is just as flawed. There are plenty of small time petty thieves in CA, who are doing life in prison for a third very minor offense, such as shoplifting a pack of gum. Granted, they did commit a crime, and should be punished, but in many cases, these mandatory life sentences are nowhere near appropriate. Life sentences are only for those who we have decided, based on their actions, are never going to be fit for society again, and have no hope at all of being reformed. I have even read articles of JUDGES nearly being in tears, and even apologizing to the defendants, because their hands were tied by "3-strikes" laws, and they had no choice but to impose life sentences where they were clearly, tragically inappropriate. I'm not saying we shouldbe "soft" on crime, but we need to be reasonable, and fair about sentencing. It is also in our own best interest. Assuming your going to let someone out at some point, do you want them to be a disenfranchised, angry, bitter person with no hope for their future, but to return to crime? Or would you rather someone who could see some light at the end of the tunnel, and thus work to improve themselves in prison, and set themselves up for a productive/successful life after release? Quite possibly. But, again, every case is different. While not likely, a few MIGHT be less then hardened criminals who just got "mixed up" with the wrong people. Give the judge the option, to sentence as may be appropriate. Also, perhaps, in some instances, its a matter of taking what they can get, if the prosecution has weak case. Perhaps, the defendant what take a plea for a year, but would choose to fight,and maybe be acquitted, if they were only offered 3 years? Again, every case is different.

A corporation can though, right? So, the law does recognize some form of firearms ownership by other then a single natural person. Does the law specifically prohibit "joint" ownership, or does it make some sort of clear "notwithstanding any other laws, only one person can own...."? My point being that, regardless of firearms specific laws, firearms are personal property, and if established property/marriage law says ALL post marriage/joint funds purchased is jointly owned, doesn't that "override" any "unwritten"/between the lines firearms interpretation that conflicts that? Obviously, if there is something I missed, where the gun laws specifically say otherwise, then it would be a moot point. If it is a case of one law/set of laws clearly establishing or saying one thing, and another set of laws sort of/kinda maybe vaguely being interpreted to mean the opposite, doesn't the clear, established law take precedence, legally?

As I said, I agree with your overall assessment of the HD situation, if it were to occur. I just saw some flaws in the choice of LA incident as a good apples-to-apples comparison, for the reasons previously stated. As for your comments, re: my #4 - I don't know. Depending on where it happened, and how the local community (and local media) feels about it, it may never make the mainstream media. There is a lot of "noise" in the news. It could easily escape widespread scrutiny. I would hope not, but it could. Re: #2, Common sense would say yes, but this is NJ. I thought someone else had mentioned that there may not be a "emergency" exception/exemption on the books in NJ, at least when it comes to firearms, for "civilians" Re: #3. Yes, I agree, good for him. Again, unfortunately, if this were to happen today, in NJ, he would probably never see his property again, and would be very lucky to get the actual normal retail price for them. "They" would just keep them as evidence. Even if the cops wanted to return them, I'm sure some politician would intervene, and stop them from putting more "assault" rifles on the street, at the howling screaming behest of organizations like those "Morons Demand Something,Blah, Blah".

I agree with pretty much everything else you said, except for it being no different then that LA bank robbery. HUGE difference. As usual, the police are "special". There are numerous exemptions in laws, including firearms laws, just for them, allowing them to do what would otherwise be a serious crime for us mere mortals. I realize this was in CA, years ago, and not NJ, but the post is about NJ, so I'll frame it in current NJ laws. In that situation, the gun store owner was not charged for several reasons: 1.) He was "assisting"/rendering aid to the police in carrying out their lawful duties. I believe this type of action is a specific exemption in most, if not all of the gun law categories in NJ 2.) The police themselves were exempt, because they were acting in their official capacity, in an emergency situation where such actions were reasonably necessary. 3.) Was the gun store owner actually "asked"? Or was it more of a case of "you can give or we will take, in the name of a police emergency"? Perhaps he might have even been threatened with being charged with obstruction if he refused? 4.) Even if all the above were not sufficient to prevent prosecution, this was a high profile incident. Charging the guy who apparently played a big part in saving many lives would be a PR nightmare, and political suicide. One little ole' Nj housewife, in a case that never makes the papers? That might be different. In that case a prosecutor might feel that a conviction is enough of a benefit to his career to risk it.