Mrs. Peel

For those too tired to click, lol, their theory is: The move suggests that legislative leaders may not be satisfied with the Attorney General's work, and/or that they have tried and failed to get the Attorney General to make arguments that the AG was not willing to make. Not a lawyer, but that sounds pretty logical. Agree with what @DAHL stated a few posts up... this sounds to me like the wailing and clenched-fist tantrum one would expect from toddlers, not from the heads of state legislative bodies! The AGs office has likely chosen not to embarrass themselves in the courthouse (well, any more than they already have anyway) by going along with this nonsense. These legislators are a JOKE! An embarrassment! And they presume to be speaking "for the public"? Oh, yeah? Really? What about the domestic violence victim who has a creepy ex- who keeps cropping up in her life as an omnipresent threat? Do they represent her? Or the guy whose work (like getting cash out of vending machines) takes him into bad neighborhoods that pose unique risks? Or hell, for that matter, what about the perfectly ordinary NJ residents who face NO "unique" threats at all, but merely read the news, use their critical thinking skills, and realize that CRIME can happen to ANYONE, at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, and they'd simply like to have the means to protect themselves that their Constitution guarantees them? Maybe they'd just like to be treated like equal and full U.S. citizens (like their brethren right across the river in PA, for instance)? These 2 birdbrains don't "represent the public". Far from it!! Mealy-mouthed, moronic little attention-seekers with no respect for the law. They should both be recalled IMO and bounced to the curb!

Don't let this thread devolve, pls! No insulting other posters, etc. Let's strive to debate like gentlemen and ladies (as politically incorrect as that might sound these days ). Thx! Besides... honestly, it seems these are GOOD DAYS for the 2A in NJ. Why squabble - now of all times? Of course, some of these issues ARE confusing and will take time to iron out. In the meantime, pls be patient. And if you've still got a bit of pent-up energy, here's a suggestion... channel it into writing out some checks to the 2A orgs behind these current cases. Now that they have some real "ammo" (thanks to Bruen), they're leveraging it really well and doing a bang-up job!

Are you referring to winning points with the staff? Because, if so, I think the rules here are pretty simple and reasonable! A certain amount of reasonable venting (with this admittedly frustrating and daunting system) is understandable and no one gets dinged for that. But when frustration levels run so high that a poster... goes on attack mode against other posters, starts making veiled innuendos or threats, or keeps repeating the same pointed question ad nauseum when it's been "asked & answered" multiple times already (thus clogging up the thread), etc. - well, THAT"S when staff gets involved. Basically, you have to act like a stubborn PITA to get your knuckles rapped by a staff member. With rare exceptions, I find that most people here know how to conduct themselves like adults. Carry on!

This is true! I've always said there is a trifecta of trusted professionals that I like to have in my life - someone who knows the law, someone who knows medicine, and someone who knows cars! Fortunately for me, I have all three, including a WONDERFUL auto mechanic who is as honest as the day is long, reasonably priced, expert at diagnostics... and just a sweetheart of a guy. As good as he is, I realize I have to do MY part too... keeping an eye on the mileage, getting it in for regular oil changes, listening/reporting any new sounds, etc. I was really terrible about car maintenance in my late teens/early 20's... I probably could have been in this video ... but you do get older and wiser!

Those of you smarter on the law than me (e.g., pretty much everyone here, lol)...help me understand... I just want to know next steps & timing of those steps (forgive me if I've mangled the legalese): These newly consolidated cases will now go back in front of Judge Bumb... first, to rule on the issue of TRO (and then later, she will also preside over the full consolidated case, is that right?) What happens in a consolidated case? Is it natural that both 2A legal teams will strategize and work together to some degree? Because a TRO is now being requested on the "other" sensitive areas listed in the law (and not just the 5 in the CNJFO case which Bumb already ruled on), isn't there some sense of urgency with TROs? What kind of timing are we talking about here? Is it a set number of days or weeks by which those particular kinds of actions must be heard and ruled on? This should happen pretty quickly, right? In the meantime, the state can still appeal the initial TRO, correct (even if it's a high bar)? How long do they have to do their appeal? Thanks... I'm just trying to get a timeline in my head! (Now that we're winning, I kinda feel that mo' winning can't come fast enough... ! )

OK, I'll do what I can without you! Now that you've ducked out of work, you better bring me some swag from the show.

In the meantime, in related coverage - I think someone mentioned (upthread?) that the Star-Ledger had posted a VERY snarky and incredibly disdainful article about 2A rights in NJ in light of the recent TRO. Link to the editorial here: http://thf-legal.s3.amazonaws.com/Star Ledger 2A Curse Article.pdf Subsequently, the Heritage Foundation has responded directly to that editorial in a fairly blistering way, here:, here: https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/second-amendment-blessing-not-curse-end-year-examples-defensive-gun-use - an enjoyable read! I sure do like the way that various 2A orgs and pro-2A think tanks are REALLY paying attention to New Jersey now! Bruen changed the landscape a lot, didn't it?

I can't disagree. Things are moving so fast... my head is spinning too! I think we'll know a lot more after tomorrow - whether these TWO cases with some overlap are being consolidated or not. I'll tallk to @Krdshrk and maybe a couple of others who have a better grasp of this than myself - between us maybe we can figure out some kind of summary document - with links back to the original docs. (A locked thread with NO comments on it... that just gets updated as things change). If it's dependent on my schedule, don't expect anything until next week at the earliest - as I'm jammed through early next week...

Yet again, a criminal who never should have been released early gets out on parole and causes havoc. In this case, forcing a woman to protect herself and her kids with... Glock Perfection?

Going to lock this as the OP requested. No need for 2 dueling threads.

This is only the TRO; the full hearing still needs to happen. That may bring more good news on some of these issues. I don't know about anyone else here, but my mode is now "guarded optimism" about all of these cases. I've both read and heard several 2A attorneys in recent weeks who were nearly "giddy" about Bruen and how Thomas wrote it. It has provided a solid legal foundation for our side for sure. So, THIS is what WINNING looks like in NJ, huh...? It feels great - can't we just enjoy that for a few more minutes before Negative Nellies rain all over the parade? A big "shout out" to CNJFO ( @Smokin .50, @Krdshrk - who I believe are both on the board?), NJ2AS & the other 2A orgs who made this happen. Forgive me if I'm leaving out any NJGF members out who played a role in the orgs supporting this specific case! For anyone who has whined - "what are our NJ 2A orgs doooooing?" This is the answer: WINNING! At this point, I'm really looking forward to seeing what happens with the ANJRPC case too!

Damn, you guys are hardcore, lol. Maxing out on # of cans per item, huh? Now you've got me doubting whether I got enough! But, as I've mentioned in other threads, my pantry expanded in the last couple of years not only within the kitchen itself, but it flowed into 3 under-the-bed storage boxes in my spare room, and into 2 open shelves and 2 wall cabinets in my laundry room. Room-temperature storage in an older home is always in short supply - that's the main reason I'm starting to now rein myself in. I feel like my level of food stuff, cleaning supplies, paper goods, etc. is adequate enough and can still be neatly contained in those out-of-sight storage areas. Now, I just use the Can-can sale (and other sales throughout the year) to replenish... so supplies don't draw down. For instance, last week I only got: 12 lg cans of tomatoes, 10 cans of tuna, 10 cans of Progresso soups, a dozen packets of Knorr rice & pasta sides, etc., etc... I spent less than 200 but "topped off" the pantry across all categories. I'm not going to say I haven't considered getting a bit more hardcore - you know, with some bulk dry goods, mylar bags, storage buckets, etc. (Damn, the 1/2 price sale on rice caught my eye, lol)... Nonetheless, I think I'm going to stay in replenishment mode for now. I hope I don't come to regret that! I find it difficult to determine - what's inadequate? what's ample? and what's just plain ol' OCD? In any event, glad some of you got some good hauls! I think it's still going all this week, too - in case anyone (myself included) weakens and decides to dive in again....

I think that interpretation you quoted is spot-on, but particularly so when viewed through a political lens. I won't get overtly "political/partisan" in this thread (so please, no one else do it either!). Suffice it to say that when ANY politician (of ANY party) aspires to higher office, it would be natural to establish your bona fides on contentious issues that are top of mind to the people most likely to vote for you, and I think that's playing out here... I think our governor was all too happy to force even surprisingly weak legislation (even a layperson could point out some the logical failures of this law, but the learned judge's questions only drive them home more). But what does that matter if the Governor can then leverage the results either way? If the law gets overturned, the campaign language is: "See, I tried to do the right thing. I fought the good fight, but these crazy activist judges went against us. Make me your President, and I promise to appoint better judges and justices... blah, blah, bullshit, blah." If even parts of the law are ultimately upheld, the spin turns into: "See, I'm leading the charge on this issue! Make me your President and I'll continue to WIN for you and we'll expand on this success... blah, blah, bullshit, blah." In that sense, this new law is more a tale of pure political gamesmanship/ambition than it is about ...2A legalities... or safety... or self-defense... or gun crime... or anything else! It doesn't matter to him if the law itself is weak, riddled with holes in logic, and clearly goes against Bruen. It's simply a political means to an ends... being funded with our money (regrettably on both sides of the aisle).

STOP! Just stop. There are posters who like to check in, take a quick glance at a few choice threads, and catch up on what's going on with these important cases - they don't need to have their time wasted by having to wade through 50 snarky comments. Get this thread back on track - keep it to updates on what's happening with the legislation and other relevant info. Next person to start attacking someone will be sitting in the clink. Act like brats, you'll be treated accordingly.

I, for one, appreciate that a certain "displaced and now re-placed Texan" is still rootin' for the rest of us left back here in Joisey!

Reminder -- keep for sale threads free of unnecessary chit-chat. Had to clean up some posts. And thank you, @Bklynracer, for doing yet another 2A fundraiser! Very generous.

LOL! Hey, you! I was just going to post that... Oh well. I graciously acknowledge your quicker draw. Everyone should check with their own store... I'm not sure if this is done at EVERY store, but mine is now in its pre-Can Can "kick-off sale" (where a bulk - but not all - of the items are marked down), and then the full sale kicks in after the 7th. Again, varies from store to store perhaps? Have fun! Stock up that pantry!

That's an interesting analysis... and I hope it's true. I'm not sure the author even went far enough though. Although Roberts and the other SC justices would understandably feel grateful to the armed agents that protect them... I can't help but wonder if they also harbor some level of distrust in the system that was supposed to offer them vigorous protection, but arguably FAILED. After all, under Federal law, those protestors in front of justices' houses after the Roe vs. Wade leak could (and should!) have been removed IMO for trying to intimidate the justices... yet, they weren't! Some of those protestors were even advertising that they knew where Amy Coney-Barrett's kids attended school. If that's not intimidation, what is? And to have someone fly cross country with a gun and show up in front of Kavanaugh's house with essentially a murder kit in his car? Out of control! I was astounded day after day at how little was being done to protect them. If I, a casual observer, felt that way - can you imagine how the justices themselves felt? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some SC justices are "newly armed". If (and it's still a big "if") Roberts has a newfound respect for the 2A, I would argue it's NOT because he's feeling charitable towards us normies, but more likely because he himself (and his fellow justices) were left feeling vulnerable and in need of self-defense (in addition to protection from agents).

Merry Christmas, Everyone!

No, you and your pork roller minions are absolutely NOT "right". But, yes, I must admit... I do love you.

Assemblyman Bergen was IMPRESSIVE in those recent hearings on NJ's latest gun control nonsense. He was a refreshing breath of fresh air... a paragon of common sense... and a tough questioner, too. (And frankly, his performance looked even better when compared to the behavior of the bill's sponsor, Danielsen, who came off like a childish and sarcastic brat who - worse yet - clearly didn't even understand the full implications of a bill he had attached his own name to). Delighted to see you giving Bergen the appreciative 2A audience he so richly deserves!

I applaud that thinking... and couldn't agree more! Anti-2A efforts should be treated like cancer cells... you need to blitz them hard and fast at the point of origin... instead of sitting back and waiting while they spread to other sites. The people pushing the anti-2A stuff have very deep pockets, and plenty of useful idiots (MDA) all too happy to follow their direction... that's a potent combo and not to be underestimated.

Let's try to keep our public-facing forums - and our Thanksgiving tables, too - free from politics on this special day! (Well, we can try...can't we?) Wishing everyone an abundant, joyous and peaceful Thanksgiving! Gobble-gobble.

From the article: Nearly 6 million Americans were toting loaded handguns on a daily basis in 2019, up from about 3 million just four years prior, according to estimates in a new study from researchers at the University of Washington and Harvard's TH Chan School of Public Health. "The next step is to ask what is the impact on public health and public safety when guns are easier to carry," Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, a UW epidemiologist who led the new study, told Axios. "In a situation where you have a fight, do they contribute to the escalation and make it more lethal?" All the things wrong in just those 2 short paragraphs: the study was done by people hailing from statistics and public health dept's - not one criminologist in sight! That's the equivalent of making an app't with your accountant when you have chest pains. For instance, the guy quoted is an epidemiologist. the study itself reveals that "more study is needed" in this area - again, they're saying this because they're NOT criminologists and apparently haven't consulted any. If they had, they'd know there's a FULL body of evidence from credible criminologists gathered across several decades that ALREADY SHOWS US that concealed carriers RARELY commit crime. It's ex-felons and other repeat offenders that contribute the overwhelming lion's share of gun crimes. So, they want more study on the people least likely to offend - when the data is already clear as a bell. note the clear, inherent bias on the part of this researcher - asking do concealed carriers "contribute to the escalation and make it more lethal?" Note he wasn't asking, "do they possibly contribute to deescalation, prevent bloodshed, and save lives?" or most neutrally of all, "does an increase in concealed carriers impact crime, and if so, does it impact positively or negatively?" So, he's wearing his bias on his sleeve. Would YOU believe the conclusions from any of these people's studies? I certainly wouldn't. The entrance of "public health" specialists into areas where they have no expertise was politically motivated (because real crime studies puts the focus where it should be, and gun grabbers don't want to see that)... and the results have been thoroughly unscientific. Ridiculous! Makes my head explode.

Welcome!