Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

16 Good

About wreckless

  • Rank
    NJGF Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    SNJ and SWF
  • Home Range
    Delran Junior Marksmen

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Homeowner Behind Bars After Killing Two Intruders, Because He Used Gun Not Registered To Him Posted by Brandon Curtis, May 30, 2019 Updated on May 30, 2019 at 5:49 pm UTICA, NEW YORK — A homeowner is facing charges of criminal possession of a firearm after he shot and killed two intruders after they broke into his home. The charges come because he had a handgun in his possession that belonged to his father, who is deceased. In New York State, one cannot possess –or even touch– a handgun without a pistol permit issued by the state. If you have a New York State pistol permit, any pistols that you possess would need to be on your permit. If they’re not and you use one to defend yourself, you’re going to get charged. It’s NY Governor Cuomo’s SAFE Act that’s partially to blame, allowing another otherwise law-abiding citizen to go down in flames for protecting his life. Here are the details of the incident; A very complex scenario involving two dead suspects, gun rights, and gun laws is unfolding after a Deerfield homeowner allegedly shot two intruders with an illegally-owned handgun Tuesday afternoon. Suspected intruders, Patricia Anne Talerico, age 57, and her nephew, 27-year-old Nicholas Talerico, are dead from gunshot wounds. The Walker Road homeowner, 64-year-old Ronald Stolarczyk, is charged with criminal possession of a firearm, a felony. via wktv.com While Stolarczyk isn’t being charged in the shooting deaths of the intruders, he is being charged for the possession of a firearm. To make matters worse, this citizen is behind bars. Stolarczyk appeared in Utica City Court Wednesday and is being held on $10,000 cash bail or $15,000 bond. He is scheduled in Deerfield Town Court Monday at 6 p.m. and will remain in custody through that appearance. The maximum sentence for what the homeowner is charged with is 1 1/3 to 4 years in state prison. As Dan over at TTAG points out; So Stolarczyk’s father either gave or left the handgun in question to his son. Under New York’s famously restrictive gun control laws, the son wasn’t required to undergo a background check to receive the handgun from his father. But he did need to have a pistol permit to legally own the firearm and have it registered in his name. According to Mark Wolber, the man’s attorney, his client did everything by the book, and is now suffering as a result. Wolber said Stolarczyk had lived in the home with his parents until they died. His father had a permit for the revolver, Wolber said. “He was in the kitchen when he heard people in the garage coming up the stairs to the kitchen,” Wolber said. “When they got to the top of the stairs he told them to stop, but one started coming toward him. He fired three or four shots and struck both.” Stolarczyk called 911 and placed the gun on the driveway when police arrived, Wolber said. via uticaod.com https://concealednation.org/2019/05/homeowner-behind-bars-after-killing-two-intruders-because-he-used-gun-not-registered-to-him
  2. Jewels of Wisdom from Court Finding California Magazine Ban Unconstitutional Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 15, 2019 by Dean Weingarten U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- On 29 March, 2019, Judge Roger T. Benitez granted a motion for summary judgement against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the case of Duncan v. Becerra. California's Byzantine regulations and bans on firearms magazines of over 10 round capacity were ruled unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. I have read the decision by Judge Benitez. It is well worth reading. At 86 pages, many will not take the time and energy to read the densely argued document. Below, I have transcribed my choice of the jewels of this masterfully reasoned and written order. The selections are my own; others may disagree. They are in order, as found in the court document. I list the pages as an aid to others. Many will recognize the cogent arguments put forward by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez. They have been made by Second Amendment supporters for decades. Judge Benitez first shows how the California magazine ban fails the simple and obvious test of constitutionality under the Heller decision. Next, Judge Benitez shows how, even under the Ninth Circuit's convoluted “Tripartite Binary Test with a Sliding Scale and Reasonable Fit” the California ban still fails miserably. Near the end of the document, Judge Benitez eviserates the attempt by the State of California to define ordinary magazines as “a nuisance”. The conclusion of the order is exceedingly well done. I have not cut or edited it. It is on page 84-85 of the court document. Judge Benitez has done the Republic a valuable service. He has shown himself highly capable, and more importantly, seriously committed to the rule of law. The Nation, and no doubt, President Trump, are taking notice. https://www.ammoland.com/2019/04/jewels-of-wisdom-from-court-finding-california-magazine-ban-unconstitutional
  3. PSA has announced that they are shipping standard capacity mags to CA ASAP.
  4. Judge blocks California's high-capacity ammunition ban SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets. "Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets. California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them. In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling. Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades. "We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said. Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps. The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino. Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich. But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country." Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court. Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state." Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets. In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone. "She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped. https://www.omaha.com/news/nation/judge-blocks-california-s-high-capacity-ammunition-ban/article_2b9c16b9-2592-5507-b871-218e70617699.html
  5. You have no idea how we had to cannibalize our IBM Selectric typewriters to keep a few going for forms like this. It was a real PITA.
  6. A clerk types them up and the Chief or designee signs it in most agencies.
  7. Oh Boy, it makes me wonder what other bugs are in this new system waiting to rear their ugly head.
  8. I worked for a County Prosecutor's Office as an agent for five years after 26 years as a municipal police officer, Sergeant, and Lieutenant. As a result, I have reviewed many hundreds of cases. That is what I base my beliefs upon though I have been out of the loop for the past five years so that explains my ignorance of the change. Prior to Witt it was a free for all with those telephonic warrants. Glad to see that has stopped. Thank you for the education counselor.
  9. Hold on one minute here. The probable cause standard for search warrants has been diluted to the point of irrelevance in NJ. You are aware that NJ has two simple check the box forms for telephonic search warrants? Those for Domestic Violence and those for Vehicle Searches. I have never heard of a single request for either of those to have been rejected. They are cookie cutter format applications that are rubber stamped and approved. They result in searches, arrests, and confiscations on a daily basis in NJ. We have already slid down the slippery slope and red flag laws will only make it worse.
  10. Here's the link for the NJSP RPO pages: Check it out for yourself. There's no secrets... https://www.njsp.org/firearms/rpo.shtml
  11. Only if they primarily reside out of state. Otherwise, they need a NJ RPO yearly permit.
  12. Pork Roll is in Publix. I don't like bagels. The pizza I give you but the trade off for freedom? Priceless. I own NFA things now. Could never do that in NJ. I'd rather have a suppressor, SBR, or MG rather than a good pizza. I get to buy firearms on an impulse now. No permit or FID required. Gunshows have guns and you can buy them. How novel. Nope, I'll take a hard pass on pizza. I can always fly north fo $79.99 roundtrip for a fix.
  • Create New...