Phone meeting with Assemblyman Charles Mainor.

[02gixxersix 0]

Bhunted that will be my exact approach. We cannot come off as gun-crazed psychos. That is exactly what they want. I plan to address specifically the magazine limit, any further restrictions on assault rifles, online ammo sales, the .50 cal ridiculousness, and briefly rifle slug barrels. I want to bring up CCW as well since, to be honest, the fact that I can't CCW in this state is what annoys me the most. I'd be willing to settle on 10 round mags personally if I could carry because changing mags takes like 5 seconds.

[pjd832 146]

I would just think he realized and / or was told he f 'd up at the meeting with his outright arrogance and disregard for the tax paying voter. I believe he's just trying to pander and calm everyone down with B.S. until his agenda passes into law. Once bitten twice shy

 

I'd agree it is more of a damage control type thing after allowing it to become obvious of the blatant disregard/circumvention of the process and simply trying to backpedal and act the way they are supposed to operate as opposed to actually believing he suddenly had an epiphany and discovered they are REPRESENTATIVES not dictators.... But I'll keep my fingers crossed for the latter ..good luck and make us proud!

[deerpark 83]

I wouldn't be nice to this POS. He thinks he is above you, the law, the constitution, NJ, etc. He needs to be reminded he works for us, he is not anyones ruler. Remind him that we are monitoring his every move via social media, and that there are 45,000 voting FID card holders in Jersey City alone. How many votes did you get last election sir?

 

Nice to see the positive comments but you may be right.

 

When he said that hes going to run "his meeting" as he sees fit (paraphrasing), that lady let him have it and rightfully so in my opinion but her delivery could have been more diplomatic.

[deerpark 83]

Are you prepared to go on record with your full name etc to make these statements and affirm them, with dates and times of the call etc.....?

 

If so I might have an outlet for you to discuss this and set this in larger motion to the general populace....

 

Would it be possible to legally record the call for documentation purposes? May have to ask the other party?

[njmike319 0]

Just remember it is easier to ask for forgiveness after the deed (vote) is done. It was clear that he did not care, vote first then hear from the floor. What's the 1st and 2nd amendments?

I look at any politician and don't trust any of them, red or blue.

[dslar 0]

I spoke to him yesterday as well. We had a lengthy discussion on why an internet ammo ban is bad for FID holders, why a .50 cal ban creates a problem for people who hunt with a rifled shotgun, and how assemblyman Joe Cryan, who is a known supporter of the Irish Republican Army, which is a terrorist group, should not be supporting a terrorist list. He laughed at that.

He explained to me that he really does not understand it, that the legislature things we are lunatics.

I think he is trying to talk with gun owners so that he can go back and say 'look we met with gun owners and made these changes'...

DONT GIVE AN INCH. I let him know that all of these bills should be sunk and he needs to get off of Newtown CT, its a done deal.

He understood, he said the legislature wants our guns.

I told him that would be the end of America, and he agreed.

Dont give an INCH. The agenda is set. They were not ready for our passion. Next time 1k people need to show up to a hearing

 

I spoke with him yesterday also regarding the 50 cal ban and rifled barrel shotgun. He admitted that the committee came in with their minds already made up and that once things got out of hand, he just shut down.

 

He said that these laws will do nothing to curb the gun violence we have and we really need to go after the criminals, he mentioned that they would be proposing new laws to go after criminals. (i saw an update from ANJRPC last night about some additional laws.) I also told him that it was lunacy to have ever even proposed having someone come in a home to inspect it and he said he was completely against it and did not agree either. He said he would be happy to talk to anyone regarding the gun law, just call his office and leave a message 201-536-7851. I do not support him in anyway, but at least he did call me back and talked with me for over 30 minutes about my concerns. It's more than I can say for the rest of the libs on the committee!

 

I would recommend giving him a call, probably won't change his mind, but at least he'll get the point that we're not going away.

[Kingsoverqueens 10]

I'd be willing to settle on 10 round mags personally if I could carry because changing mags takes like 5 seconds.

I know you are just talking out loud, but when you speak with him please do not concede this point, even in passing. They aren't going to "give" us CCW...it's going to have to be taken, by litigation, as was done in Illinois. Settleing on 10 round magazines is giving up ground we don't need to give up, nor should we.

[Kingsoverqueens 10]

I would recommend giving him a call, probably won't change his mind, but at least he'll get the point that we're not going away.

I plan on calling to speak with him next week, once this cold and head congestion abate and I can form a cohesive thought.

 

Basically, my only real purpose is to have him to explain to me how any one of these proposed bills make us safer. We all want safety, and to be safer, right?

[njmike319 0]

I know you are just talking out loud, but when you speak with him please do not concede this point, even in passing. They aren't going to "give" us CCW...it's going to have to be taken, by litigation, as was done in Illinois. Settleing on 10 round magazines is giving up ground we don't need to give up, nor should we.

 

Amen!

[dslar 0]

We all want safety, and to be safer, right?

 

Agreed

[Kingsoverqueens 10]

Agreed

I haven't met a gun owner yet who isn't in favor of safety, and none of us want the tool (for lack of a better term) of our sport used in evil. Our entire sport revolves around safety.

 

If I can get him to realize none of these measures make us safer and in fact that there are already laws in place that deal with the concerns, I'll have done my job.

 

They are concerned about 6,000 round ammo purchases? Ask they why they are concerned and whether or not they know how much 6,000 rounds of ammo weighs. How does preventing or restricting someone from buying 6,000 rounds make us safer? It doesn't.

[Sigman 41]

Are any of you going to talk to him in person? You need to bring recorders and record the conversation. We need to bring out in the open how he may actually disagree with some on the bills that were forced through and any controversial issues that happened. The media will not expose them, we must.

 

Project Veritas were at the NJ2AS meeting in January giving tips and instruction in how to expose the gun control hypocrites. Check out their site. You may get some tips.

 

http://www.theprojectveritas.org/

 

Make him support their decisions and get it on tape. We need to expose them.

[Hawkin 0]

Tell him public meetings are not his but they are OURS.

[02gixxersix 0]

Phone conversation. And you can't just record people without telling them and I doubt he would agree. I'm not going to attack the man, and I suggest that any of you that think attacking these people publically or during a private phone call please just voice your opinion through Ruger.com where everything is typed out for you and avoid making the rest of us look bad. They think we are crazy people. Acting like crazy people is the LAST thing we need to be doing. As someone else said, I'm sure most are just thinking out loud, but some aren't.

 

A friend of mine called the BUrlington Country Rep's office recently and was told that they are overrun with people calling and writing about their opposition to new gun laws so we all need to keep it up. I hope we can do at least a little bit of good.

[z2886 0]

Phone conversation. And you can't just record people without telling them and I doubt he would agree. I'm not going to attack the man, and I suggest that any of you that think attacking these people publically or during a private phone call please just voice your opinion through Ruger.com where everything is typed out for you and avoid making the rest of us look bad. They think we are crazy people. Acting like crazy people is the LAST thing we need to be doing. As someone else said, I'm sure most are just thinking out loud, but some aren't.

 

A friend of mine called the BUrlington Country Rep's office recently and was told that they are overrun with people calling and writing about their opposition to new gun laws so we all need to keep it up. I hope we can do at least a little bit of good.

Before the conversation starts just merely state this call is being recorded for quality assurance. Legality covered

[02gixxersix 0]

LMAO funny but I'm not going to do it. I bet money he'd decline to comment.

[Handyman 5,682]

Before the conversation starts just merely state this call is being recorded for quality assurance. Legality covered

 

Not a lawyer, but I have been told by more than one that it is legal in NJ to record without everyone's consent.

[NJCK 5]

I CAN tell you that he IS NOT the ONLY legislator willing to at least entertain listening RIGHT NOW!!! The presence, our presence, on Wednedsay was taken note of, and conduct of the Committee Meeting was not well received by many legislators. I know this as first-hand fact because I spent my entire day on Thursday reaching out to every one of them I know across the State, even if it was because I did one tiny project in their District and interacted with them 2-3 times, reps from both parties - didn't matter to me, and I was incredibly appreciative for the moment or two I could get out of them before and after session. Some are viably questioning whether or not the public was really considered, or if this is a matter of presumed perception of what the public wants. They are also not blind to what is happening in NYS and how other States are resisting.

 

Contact, communicate, and just don't thump 2A at them but try to sway their position and educate them. Believe me, I know it is incredibly difficult to contain the frustration, especially after the farce on Wednesday. Cryan and Weinberg need to be halted in their tracks as they're trying to bully the legislation.

[Bob2222 317]

Not a lawyer, but I have been told by more than one that it is legal in NJ to record without everyone's consent.

 

I think (and I am not a lawyer, and I don't need to stay in Holiday Inns any more) that in New Jersey if one party of the telephone conversation is aware it's being recorded, it's OK. And why would you think he's not recording it?

[njpilot 671]

According to this, NJ is one of the 38 states that have a "one-party consent law". You don't have to advise that you are recording as long as you are a party to the conversation.

 

http://www.citmedial...d-conversations

 

 

 

Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?

 

Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.

In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted "one-party consent" laws and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.

 

When must you get permission from everyone involved before recording?

 

Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington (Hawai'i is also in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.

[HINCHMAN 4]

Are you prepared to go on record with your full name etc to make these statements and affirm them, with dates and times of the call etc.....?

 

If so I might have an outlet for you to discuss this and set this in larger motion to the general populace....

 

I have no issue with that, PM me.

[raz-0 1,259]

Phone conversation. And you can't just record people without telling them and I doubt he would agree. I'm not going to attack the man, and I suggest that any of you that think attacking these people publically or during a private phone call please just voice your opinion through Ruger.com where everything is typed out for you and avoid making the rest of us look bad. They think we are crazy people. Acting like crazy people is the LAST thing we need to be doing. As someone else said, I'm sure most are just thinking out loud, but some aren't.

 

A friend of mine called the BUrlington Country Rep's office recently and was told that they are overrun with people calling and writing about their opposition to new gun laws so we all need to keep it up. I hope we can do at least a little bit of good.

 

The hell you can't. NJ is a one party notification state, and that would be the person making the call in this instance. Only California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington require all party notification at this time.

[wooly bugger 1]

Probably ( HOPEFULLY ) because he is in hot water by the way the hearing was conducted by him.

My thoughts exactly. Seeing how the autoresponse emails evolved (or devolved) over time makes me think he was taking some serious heat from his colleagues.

Now that last one was too precious to waste. I sent the key paragraphs in a letter to my assemblymen asking them to send the bills back to committee for a proper hearing. Hard to argue with when the chairman himself admits he wasn't listening.

 

I truly think that email may have been a turning point. No matter what happens from now, we will drag out that email at every step.

 

We've got some pretty great material for a Youtube montage. I'm imagining Navy woman't video followed by a black screen with his email text displayed. Also the "communist" accusation fading into Vlad's memorable speech.

 

I still feel like we're babes in the woods, though. If nothing else, he's a seasoned operator. We don't know why he's doing what he is, but if we're going to play, we need to do it from a level of equal sophistication.

 

I realize that it's not good to talk strategy in the open (kind of like broadcasting the football huddle across the stadium,) but is there anyone on the forum with legal/political background that can help prep people for these kids of meetings?

[wooly bugger 1]

how assemblyman Joe Cryan, who is a known supporter of the Irish Republican Army, which is a terrorist group, should not be supporting a terrorist list.

That was precious. Another good juxtaposition for our Youtube montage. Another good soundbite for discrediting these people.

[NJCK 5]

Sending them back to Committee won't help (unfortunately) as the Committee was prepared to vote without testimony. One would need to force a Special Committee to be formed in any attempt to have a "fair" hearing of testimony.

[wooly bugger 1]

"

• 8% of guns bought in NJ are recovered from a crime within 2 years. National average is three times higher at 24% (tracetheguns.org - ATF 2010 Gun trace data)"
  

???? what does that mean? It can't mean what it sounds like it means. Do you mean 8% of those "illegally" bought?

[wooly bugger 1]

"45,000 voting FID card"

Where does this number come from??? It would be powerful if we could compile a database on number of FID holders in each of their districts.

I'll be working on figuring out the OPRA process on Monday.

 

And remember, not every gun owner has or needs an FID. An interesting and probably unanswerable question is, what percentage of owners actually have an FID. In my recruitment calls to my friends, I discovered that two didn't. They'd just never bothered.

[wooly bugger 1]

Seems to me and correct me if 'm wrong. If I were to speak with him, it would be civil and respectful completely with an open mind. If I was in his shoes and someone pissed down my neck, I simply would just shut down and ignore you. Regardless if he was wrong or rude at the meeting, etc. If his mindset is always the same in life, you'll never change it.

 

Have him explain to you what these new bills will do and how he believed they'd affect legal gun owners vs. criminals regarding statistical crime stats. I don't think he could give you straight answers without fumbling because they'd cancel out common sense. Let him lead instead of you pushing unless he refuses to commit to a viable answer. Just don't ramrod him. IMHO...

 

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

 

+1

Of course be civil. Even if he's your enemy, he's taking time he doesn't have to take to meet you. And remember, everything you say and do can be recorded. So, speak and act as if the meeting is going to be streamed on Huffington Post.

 

I completely agree that the burden is on THEM to demonstrate the validity of their laws. Not on US to explain why it's so important to be able to buy ammo from the internet. The default should always be for them to explain themselves. Not vice versa.

 

The perfect example of this was when Cryan baited someone about how many rounds of ammo Loughner had and how he got them (6000. Internet.) The proper response would be: "OK, with your law in place, what would have been different? Would the outcome have been any different if he had gone to his LGS, shown a real (or fake) ID, and walked out with 500 rounds?"

 

We should also anticipate likely hypotheticals, like Cryan's whopper about taking a .50 BMG to a bridge and setting off a chemical factory with an incendiary bullet.

Question: 1) where would he get a .50 caliber incendiary bullet? Do they even sell them to civilians? Are they legal in NJ?

2) Given an incendiary bullet and a target the size of a warehouse, would the outcome be any different if he'd fired it out of a .30-06? As a bonus, he could fire the .30-06 out his window, which would be hard with the .50

 

I think the hardest hypotheticals to beat are the mag capacity ones. It's true, in a couple of cases, shooters were stopped when they fumbled. The best I can think of is:

1) in a firefight 20% hit rate (I heard this at one of the SAFE meetings. don't know the source)

2) have a pocket full of stories, like the one about the Georgia woman who shot the intruder 5 times, and he still got away.

3) a premeditated shooter will have as many mags as he wants. in a self defense situation, it's not practical

[wooly bugger 1]

deleted

[wooly bugger 1]

He said that these laws will do nothing to curb the gun violence we have and we really need to go after the criminals, he mentioned that they would be proposing new laws to go after criminals..

Did you just say what I think you just said? Now it that had been caught on tape, it would have been priceless.

So, if they won't curb gun violence, then why are they risking their cushy jobs to ram these through?

It's good to share these responses, because others will probably hear them again.

 

If anyone hears that, please turn that into the focus of the entire conversation. Why are you passing laws, against huge resistance, and risking years and millions of dollars of litigation, that do nothing good?