Silence Dogood

M249 SAW is really cool to shoot. Have done it indoors at 25 yards (frangible ammo).

Here's some really great related news (on Duncan vs. Becerra - CA magazine 10-round ban): https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180717/federal-court-upholds-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban Here is the ruling: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Duncan-2018-07-17-Memorandum-Affirming.pdf

From 2015, BTW.

Warrants must be specific. That's why police may not necessarily have one. They must describe what is being searched for and where they are looking. Lots of case law on this. Example: Warrant states they're looking for a person. They cannot look in drawers that a person would not fit into, or the evidence found will be disallowed in most cases.

I have been a CERT member for around 4 years. Basically, FEMA makes Fed funds available to counties and they've done quite a bit of CERT training in NJ. I've participated in all of that training. The goal is to have better emergency training at the local level. Clearly some of the training is 'wasted' on individuals who move away, aren't committed and so on. I'm a ham but they weren't really interested in that. Training has generally been good, very little practical application and I guess that's a good thing. OTOH, you never know ...

Remembering, of course, that they DO have our prints

Two of us (wife and I) on Sunday - 450 rounds of .22 and 200 rounds of .40 - 650 total. She's a crack shot with the .22 (Ruger Mark III Hunter).

I'm hearing from a recent applicant that our town has added a character reference requirement to the employment verification form. Large employer HR department refusing (rightly) to comment on character (can you imagine, say, for a new hire)? PD refuses to show applicant a copy of the form (suspicious). OPRA request? No response from NJ2AS or ANJRPC on how to address this. SD

The fully semi-auto ones?

According to Evan Nappen's interpretation, pins aren't going to cut it: (16) May a person lawfully possess a “blocked” large capacity ammunition magazine? A: Yes, as long as it was owned on the day the law was enacted and was permanently blocked during the six-month grace period. Temporarily blocked magazines are not lawful. (NJAC § 13:54-1.2 Definitions) A large capacity ammunition magazine must be permanently altered so that it is not capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. (e.g. riveted, welded, epoxied, etc.) It cannot be readily restorable. An ammunition magazine which has been temporarily blocked or modified from holding more than 15 rounds, as by a piece of wood or a pin, is still unlawful.

Liberal mayor in your town? On the day before the 180 days expires, mail all of your > 10 round mags to the mayor. By the time they arrive and the box is opened, they'll be illegal. Anonymous tip follows ... Wouldn't that be fun?

Number of crimes in New Jersey committed with "Ghost Guns" = ZERO.

In New Jersey he'd better have a "reasonably articulable purpose," LOL

That's exactly right (I have a 2002 AMG). You'd know they were failing (usually slowly) if you have a 'clunk' when you shift into reverse from park or vice versa. It's not impossible that the front flex joint came apart suddenly. Your 2000 is too old to be affected by the Takata recall. Sorry this happened to you! Please let us know what you find out.

As in "Home on the Range"

Agreed. And the local firearms officer at our PD said essentially the same thing years ago re: mags. You have a gun part (as they can perceive it) that is loaded, therefore the gun can be considered loaded. Hasn't been tested in court so far as I know.

SENATE COMMITTEE PASSES 6 BILLS, "HOLDS" 7TH BILL On May 21, the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee passed 6 of the 7 anti-gun bills it was considering, and “held” the 7th bill, ostensibly to allow additional time for amendments that were not ready at the hearing. The bill held was S2259 – so-called “extreme risk protection order” legislation that provides for the unconstitutional suspension of Second Amendment rights and seizure of firearms with no advance due process. It also fails to penalize those who fabricate allegations simply to harass those with whom they disagree. We will have further updates on this bill as it moves through the legislative process. We anticipate additional legislative activity on these bills throughout the State House during the last week of May and the first week of June. Gun owners should plan to mount a renewed and sustained grassroots campaign fighting these bills after Memorial Day weekend. The bills that passed out of committee are: S102 (Magazine Ban / Gun Ban) Criminalizes possession of magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Turns 1 million law-abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen. No grandfathering of existing magazines (though the Assembly amendment providing for permanent blocking of non-compliant magazines has been adopted in the Senate version). Will be ignored by criminals and madmen. Makes no one safer. Interferes with ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. S160 (Allows Suspension of Gun Rights by Unaccountable “Health Professionals”). Authorizes firearms seizure and suspension of Second Amendment rights when mental health “professionals” think someone poses risk. Allows marriage counselors, social workers and nurses to cause suspension of rights. Allows forfeiture of firearms without compensation to owner. No penalty for fabricating allegations to harass gun owners. S2376 (Kills Self-Defense) – Cements NJ’s unconstitutional “justifiable need” carry permit standard into statute to prevent most law-abiding citizens from ever exercising the right to self-defense with a firearm outside the home. No one would be eligible for a NJ carry permit unless they had previously been attacked or received specific verifiable threats. S2245 (Bans Ammunition That is Already Federally Banned). Bans ammunition that is already banned under federal law. Completely redundant with pre-existing law, makes no one safer, criminals will ignore, changes nothing -- a complete waste of legislative resources. Squanders an opportunity to severely punish the criminal misuse of ALL ammunition, not just one class of ammunition. S2374 (Background Checks on Sales That Already Require Background Checks) Mandates background checks on private sales of firearms that already require background checks under state law. Redundant with existing law, makes no one safer, criminals will ignore, changes nothing – a complete waste of legislative resources. S2465 (Criminalizes purchase of components to manufacture unserialized firearms) Note: This legislation has not yet been heard in Assembly committee.

Here's the link so you can check more: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/BillsForAgendaView.asp

10 Round mag limit: Identical Bill Number: A2761 (3R) Last Session Bill Number: S818 A3327 Weinberg, Loretta as Primary Sponsor Gill, Nia H., Esq. as Primary Sponsor Gopal, Vin as Co-Sponsor Greenstein, Linda R. as Co-Sponsor Turner, Shirley K. as Co-Sponsor 1/9/2018 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee 4/16/2018 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading 4/16/2018 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee 5/21/2018 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading Introduced - - 8 pages PDF Format HTML Format Statement - SLP 4/16/18 - 2 pages PDF Format HTML Format Reprint - - 18 pages PDF Format HTML Format Reprint - - 18 pages PDF Format HTML Format Statement - SBA 5/21/18 1R - 3 pages PDF Format HTML Format Committee Voting: SLP 4/16/2018 - r/Sca - Yes {4} No {1} Not Voting {1} Abstains {0} - Roll Call SBA 5/21/2018 - r/Sca - Yes {8} No {4} Not Voting {1} Abstains {0} - Roll Call Sarlo, Paul A. (C) - Yes Stack, Brian P. (V) - Yes Addiego, Dawn Marie - No Bucco, Anthony R. - No Cruz-Perez, Nilsa - Yes Cunningham, Sandra B. - Yes Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. - Yes Gopal, Vin - Yes Greenstein, Linda R. - Yes O'Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. - No Oroho, Steven V. - No Singleton, Troy - Yes Private Sales Illegal: Identical Bill Number: S2374 (1R) Greenwald, Louis D. as Primary Sponsor Holley, Jamel C. as Primary Sponsor Moriarty, Paul D. as Primary Sponsor Murphy, Carol A. as Co-Sponsor Eustace, Tim as Co-Sponsor Vainieri Huttle, Valerie as Co-Sponsor Downey, Joann as Co-Sponsor Houghtaling, Eric as Co-Sponsor Benson, Daniel R. as Co-Sponsor Pinkin, Nancy J. as Co-Sponsor Jasey, Mila M. as Co-Sponsor McKnight, Angela V. as Co-Sponsor Reynolds-Jackson, Verlina as Co-Sponsor Mosquera, Gabriela M. as Co-Sponsor Chiaravalloti, Nicholas as Co-Sponsor Armato, John as Co-Sponsor Gusciora, Reed as Co-Sponsor Mazzeo, Vincent as Co-Sponsor Lampitt, Pamela R. as Co-Sponsor 2/1/2018 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee 3/5/2018 Reported out of Assembly Comm. with Amendments, 2nd Reading 3/26/2018 Passed by the Assembly (62-10-4) 4/5/2018 Received in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee 4/16/2018 Reported from Senate Committee, 2nd Reading 4/16/2018 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee 5/21/2018 Reported from Senate Committee, 2nd Reading Introduced - - 9 pages PDF Format HTML Format Statement - AJU 2/28/18 - 1 pages PDF Format HTML Format Reprint - - 8 pages PDF Format HTML Format Statement - SLP 4/16/18 1R - 1 pages PDF Format HTML Format Committee Voting: AJU 2/28/2018 - r/Aca - Yes {5} No {1} Not Voting {1} Abstains {0} - Roll Call SLP 4/16/2018 - r/favorably - Yes {5} No {0} Not Voting {1} Abstains {0} - Roll Call SBA 5/21/2018 - r/favorably - Yes {10} No {0} Not Voting {1} Abstains {2} - Roll Call Session Voting: Asm. 3/26/2018 - 3RDG FINAL PASSAGE - Yes {62} No {10} Not Voting {3} Abstains {4} - Roll Call Extreme Risk Protection Order Act: Note the Republican "not voting" and "abstain" S2259 Sca (1R) "Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018." Budget and Appropriations Identical Bill Number: A1217 (ACS/2R) Last Session Bill Number: A2390 S370 Codey, Richard J. as Primary Sponsor Weinberg, Loretta as Primary Sponsor Singleton, Troy as Co-Sponsor Turner, Shirley K. as Co-Sponsor 3/8/2018 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee 4/16/2018 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading 4/16/2018 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee Introduced - - 20 pages PDF Format HTML Format Statement - SLP 4/16/18 - 4 pages PDF Format HTML Format Reprint - - 19 pages PDF Format HTML Format Fiscal Estimate - 5/7/18; 1R - 4 pages PDF Format HTML Format Committee Voting: SLP 4/16/2018 - r/Sca - Yes {4} No {0} Not Voting {1} Abstains {1} - Roll Call Greenstein, Linda R. (C) - Yes Lagana, Joseph A. (V) - Yes Bateman, Christopher - Abstain Cryan, Joseph P. - Yes O'Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. - Not Voting Sacco, Nicholas J. - Yes

Lawn Ranger no like electric, KimoPeelsee.

As of today's rain, it's at least 8" high ... and still too wet to cut.

2 3/4" on the John Deere tractor , 42" mulching deck. Jonathan Greene lawn.

New Jersey pre-emption law is strong. Yes, we have home rule and towns can do a lot, but they are not allowed to make ANY law that is stricter than NJ state law. This would, for instance, keep a NJ town from passing a "no rifles allowed" law. Municipalities and other such entities in NJ (HOAs, etc.) would probably fall under this category as well. Public housing administered by the local government, much more likely covered than a private venue. Of course, IANAL