Jump to content

Silence Dogood

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    635

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

  • Feedback

    100%

Posts posted by Silence Dogood

  4. Posted

    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.

  5. Posted

    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 ...

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    On 6/14/2018 at 7:31 PM, Sniper22 said:

    Like what someone else posted, you mail them on day 180 to your least favorite Dem politician's home, so when he opens the box on day 181 or 182, he becomes an instant felon. Make sure to take a picture of him bringing the package into the house, then call the local LEO's and news media to rat him out. :)

     

    Remembering, of course, that they DO have our prints :)

  8. Posted

    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

  10. Posted

    3 hours ago, bhunted said:

    I have many Hexmags...

    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.

  15. Posted

    2 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

    probable driveshaft couplings. they're not u-joints on mb....they're thick rubber. sorta like the rag joint on older steering shafts.

     

     glad you're ok.

     

    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.

  17. Posted

    40 minutes ago, Tunaman said:

    He is offering free advice and you are knocking him?  He knows WAY more about this stuff than we do.  Hope you never need him someday.  

    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.

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    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.

     

  20. Posted

    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

  22. Posted

    9 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

    Almost as bad... it's (gasp!) battery-operated!  Now I've, no doubt, TOTALLY gone and insulted the manly lawn care bro code... again! Because I'm pretty sure that deafening, gas-powered mowers are the agreed-upon gold standard.

    (My cute mower makes a soft little noise... like a purring kitten. And it has a hood (just like a car hood!) that lifts up and the tools store neatly underneath it. Bubbles optional. It's... totes adorbs!)  https://www.neutonpower.com/

    Lawn Ranger no like electric, KimoPeelsee.  :)
     

     

  25. Posted

    23 hours ago, maintenanceguy said:

    Please explain more.

    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 :)

×
×
  • Create New...