Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some details from the recent hearing on A2006: HERE

 

Lots of interesting "anti" comments and other tidbits:

 

* Sweeney's change of heart

 

* NJ one of seven states with magazine capacity laws. That is, 43 other states somehow survive without these laws.

 

* "the new limits will save lives, reduce gun violence, and protect our communities..."

 

* "limiting the number of rounds make sense, given the empirical evidence from recent mass shootings" (Mass murderer: "Oh no, I just realized my mags hold 12 rounds!! I'd better go home and get the lower-capacity magazines or I'll be in SERIOUS trouble!!")

 

* the assault weapons ban "worked." When even liberals agree it had no impact on gun crime.

 

And so on and so on. Same old shit over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some details from the recent hearing on A2006: HERE

 

Lots of interesting "anti" comments and other tidbits:

 

* Sweeney's change of heart

 

* NJ one of seven states with magazine capacity laws. That is, 43 other states somehow survive without these laws.

 

* "the new limits will save lives, reduce gun violence, and protect our communities..."

 

* "limiting the number of rounds make sense, given the empirical evidence from recent mass shootings" (Mass murderer: "Oh no, I just realized my mags hold 12 rounds!! I'd better go home and get the lower-capacity magazines or I'll be in SERIOUS trouble!!")

 

* the assault weapons ban "worked." When even liberals agree it had no impact on gun crime.

 

And so on and so on. Same old shit over and over again.

 

Did it say which are the other states that have mag limits? Obviously, we know about NY and CT, and I assume CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea the antis have of tackling the shooter between mag changes.

 

Unarmed victim at shooting:  "Let's see, did he fire 8 shots or was it 9?  I think it was 9."

Hears another shot and rushes shooter.  Hears, "Bang!"  Dying thought:  "I guess it was only 8..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea the antis have of tackling the shooter between mag changes.

 

Unarmed victim at shooting:  "Let's see, did he fire 8 shots or was it 9?  I think it was 9."

Hears another shot and rushes shooter.  Hears, "Bang!"  Dying thought:  "I guess it was only 8..."

 

What's really amazing is that Greenwald et al suggest intervening with a shooter...as long as you don't do it with a firearm.  

 

Tackling a nutjob mass shooter = OK.

 

Having a firearm to protect you and others against a nutjob mass shooter = INSANE!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea the antis have of tackling the shooter between mag changes.

 

Unarmed victim at shooting:  "Let's see, did he fire 8 shots or was it 9?  I think it was 9."

Hears another shot and rushes shooter.  Hears, "Bang!"  Dying thought:  "I guess it was only 8..."

a tactical load means you never leave your chamber empty, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea the antis have of tackling the shooter between mag changes.

 

Unarmed victim at shooting:  "Let's see, did he fire 8 shots or was it 9?  I think it was 9."

Hears another shot and rushes shooter.  Hears, "Bang!"  Dying thought:  "I guess it was only 8..."

 

I guess he didn't "feel lucky." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea the antis have of tackling the shooter between mag changes.

 

Unarmed victim at shooting:  "Let's see, did he fire 8 shots or was it 9?  I think it was 9."

Hears another shot and rushes shooter.  Hears, "Bang!"  Dying thought:  "I guess it was only 8..."

How about he hears 10 + 1 in the camber.  Or he gets up, but the perp has a 17 round mag because he wasn't obeying the law to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karateman for the win!!!

 

What if the criminal has a 100 round drum just for the simple fact that he is a criminal.

 

I guess if they make it a law they figure when you buy it in PA it magicly dissapears when you cross the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick Question - Regarding the so called "companion" bill, A2777 which further "clarifies" reasonable deviations (and for which we await an one word "amendment" to make things easier), I read that part of the enumerated "reasonable deviations" include:

 

 

Collecting/Discharging passengers whose transportation is permitted under paragraph (2) of subsection b., subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section,

 

It would take me a while to read through all this legalese, so for anyone more familiar with this, does this also include regular family members, etc.? Say I wanted to bring my nephew or Mom to the range with me... Can I stop to pick them up / drop them off, or is that not permitted under these new changes?  It seems like (as best I can interpret it), we may only be talking about *certain individuals* (Army personnel, club members, LEOs, etc.)...

 

Just trying to figure it out.   :dontknow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick Question - Regarding the so called "companion" bill, A2777 which further "clarifies" reasonable deviations (and for which we await an one word "amendment" to make things easier), I read that part of the enumerated "reasonable deviations" include:

 

 

It would take me a while to read through all this legalese, so for anyone more familiar with this, does this also include regular family members, etc.? Say I wanted to bring my nephew or Mom to the range with me... Can I stop to pick them up / drop them off, or is that not permitted under these new changes?  It seems like (as best I can interpret it), we may only be talking about *certain individuals* (Army personnel, club members, LEOs, etc.)...

 

Just trying to figure it out.   :dontknow:

 

No. It basically defines passengers who can be collected/discharged the same way as people who can transport in the first place. See below:

 

 

For the purposes of this section, “deviations as are reasonably necessary” means collecting and discharging passengers whose transportation is permitted under 

 

paragraph (2) of subsection b., (A licensed dealer in firearms and his registered employees during the course of their normal business while traveling to and from their place of business and other places for the purpose of demonstration, exhibition or delivery in connection with a sale, provided, however, that the weapon is carried in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section.)

 

 subsection e., (a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm, or from carrying the same, in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section, from any place of purchase to his residence or place of business, between his dwelling and his place of business, between one place of business or residence and another when moving, or between his dwelling or place of business and place where such firearms are repaired, for the purpose of repair.  For the purposes of this section, a place of business shall be deemed to be a fixed location.)

 

or paragraph (1) (A member of any rifle or pistol club [organized in accordance with the rules prescribed by the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice]affiliated with the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, the National Rifle Association or the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, in going to or from a place of target practice, carrying such firearms as are necessary for said target practice, provided that the club has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits a list of its members to the superintendent and provided further that the firearms are carried in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section)

 

or (3) of subsection f. (A person transporting any firearm or knife while traveling:

     (a)   Directly to or from any place for the purpose of hunting or fishing, provided the person has in his possession a valid hunting or fishing license; or

     (b)   Directly to or from any target range, or other authorized place for the purpose of practice, match, target, trap or skeet shooting exhibitions, provided in all cases that during the course of the travel all firearms are carried in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section and the person has complied with all the provisions and requirements of Title 23 of the Revised Statutes and any amendments thereto and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; or

     ©   In the case of a firearm, directly to or from any exhibition or display of firearms which is sponsored by any law enforcement agency, any rifle or pistol club, or any firearms collectors club, for the purpose of displaying the firearms to the public or to the members of the organization or club, provided, however, that not less than 30 days prior to the exhibition or display, notice of the exhibition or display shall be given to the Superintendent of the State Police by the sponsoring organization or club, and the sponsor has complied with such reasonable safety regulations as the superintendent may promulgate.  Any firearms transported pursuant to this section shall be transported in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section;)

 

purchasing fuel, using a restroom, and contending with an emergency situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It basically defines passengers who can be collected/discharged the same way as people who can transport in the first place. See below:

 

 

For the purposes of this section, “deviations as are reasonably necessary” means collecting and discharging passengers whose transportation is permitted under 

 

paragraph (2) of subsection b., (A licensed dealer in firearms and his registered employees during the course of their normal business while traveling to and from their place of business and other places for the purpose of demonstration, exhibition or delivery in connection with a sale, provided, however, that the weapon is carried in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section.)

 

 subsection e., (a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm, or from carrying the same, in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section, from any place of purchase to his residence or place of business, between his dwelling and his place of business, between one place of business or residence and another when moving, or between his dwelling or place of business and place where such firearms are repaired, for the purpose of repair.  For the purposes of this section, a place of business shall be deemed to be a fixed location.)

 

or paragraph (1) (A member of any rifle or pistol club [organized in accordance with the rules prescribed by the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice]affiliated with the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, the National Rifle Association or the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, in going to or from a place of target practice, carrying such firearms as are necessary for said target practice, provided that the club has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits a list of its members to the superintendent and provided further that the firearms are carried in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section)

 

or (3) of subsection f. (A person transporting any firearm or knife while traveling:

     (a)   Directly to or from any place for the purpose of hunting or fishing, provided the person has in his possession a valid hunting or fishing license; or

     (b)   Directly to or from any target range, or other authorized place for the purpose of practice, match, target, trap or skeet shooting exhibitions, provided in all cases that during the course of the travel all firearms are carried in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section and the person has complied with all the provisions and requirements of Title 23 of the Revised Statutes and any amendments thereto and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; or

     ©   In the case of a firearm, directly to or from any exhibition or display of firearms which is sponsored by any law enforcement agency, any rifle or pistol club, or any firearms collectors club, for the purpose of displaying the firearms to the public or to the members of the organization or club, provided, however, that not less than 30 days prior to the exhibition or display, notice of the exhibition or display shall be given to the Superintendent of the State Police by the sponsoring organization or club, and the sponsor has complied with such reasonable safety regulations as the superintendent may promulgate.  Any firearms transported pursuant to this section shall be transported in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section;)

 

purchasing fuel, using a restroom, and contending with an emergency situation. 

 

Actually, for the two people I mentioned, the above would work. My mom (as a gun owner herself) would qualify under "subsection (e)" above, and it would appear that my nephew is covered under  "(3) of subsection f (b)" - but I'll try to get clarification. In any case, these "clarifications" are way too restrictive. We should be able to collect/discharge anyone we choose, as well as stop for meals/food, among other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with all of this crap legislation (in-place and proposed / pending) is that a lot of other states don't have this kind of B.S. to put up with and they're not war zones, so why do we need them?  Kinda like the stupid gas pump law.  It works in other states, so why can't I pump my own gas?

 

98antt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank from NJ2AS posted a message on facebook that I used as an email to his list of reps.  I can provide the letter and list of reps if anyone wants it.  I sent it out last night and got an interesting and very good response today.

 

The reply came from Elaine Turner on behalf of Asm. Michael Carroll

 

Thank you for favoring me with your EM respecting the latest absurd, yet profoundly dangerous, proposal to further erode the basic freedoms of NJ residents.

For me to support any law, it must, first, qualify as not patently inane. This proposal, obviously, fails that basic test. I will steadfastly oppose it. Indeed, I will continue to fight to expand our basic freedoms to give full effect to the Second Amendment.

 

mpc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I studied some pretty dense stuff in my day, but this legalese kills me.

 

Here's a complex situation that takes in most of the "reasonable deviations" components:

 

I live in Newton and shoot at Cherry Ridge. My friend lives up the road from the range in Highland Lakes. Let's say we want to shoot together and have lunch afterwards, but he can't drive because he broke his foot. 

 

Under the old law: I drive to pick George up (24 miles), then drive us both back to my house (24 miles) where I load up my guns and ammo. They we drive to CR (22 miles), shoot, and drive back home to my house (22 miles) to unload the guns. I then drive him to a pizza joint near his house (24 miles) where we both order veal parm sandwiches. I drop George off and drive home (24 miles). 140 miles total.

 

New law: I load my guns, pick George up, drive to the range (24 + 2 miles). We shoot, eat, I drop him off at home, and drive home (24 + 2 miles). Total 52 miles.

 

True or false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...the new interpretation has almost tripled your time and distance on the road.  Thereby exposing you to three times the risk of a vehicle collision and a subsequent increase in insurance rates, placing undue financial stress on you that may also be coupled with accident related injuries that you may not have sustained if you were only required to drive 52 miles vs. ~140 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I studied some pretty dense stuff in my day, but this legalese kills me.

 

Here's a complex situation that takes in most of the "reasonable deviations" components:

 

I live in Newton and shoot at Cherry Ridge. My friend lives up the road from the range in Highland Lakes. Let's say we want to shoot together and have lunch afterwards, but he can't drive because he broke his foot. 

 

Under the old law: I drive to pick George up (24 miles), then drive us both back to my house (24 miles) where I load up my guns and ammo. They we drive to CR (22 miles), shoot, and drive back home to my house (22 miles) to unload the guns. I then drive him to a pizza joint near his house (24 miles) where we both order veal parm sandwiches. I drop George off and drive home (24 miles). 140 miles total.

 

New law: I load my guns, pick George up, drive to the range (24 + 2 miles). We shoot, eat, I drop him off at home, and drive home (24 + 2 miles). Total 52 miles.

 

True or false?

What if George has his own guns ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I studied some pretty dense stuff in my day, but this legalese kills me.

 

Here's a complex situation that takes in most of the "reasonable deviations" components:

 

I live in Newton and shoot at Cherry Ridge. My friend lives up the road from the range in Highland Lakes. Let's say we want to shoot together and have lunch afterwards, but he can't drive because he broke his foot. 

 

Under the old law: I drive to pick George up (24 miles), then drive us both back to my house (24 miles) where I load up my guns and ammo. They we drive to CR (22 miles), shoot, and drive back home to my house (22 miles) to unload the guns. I then drive him to a pizza joint near his house (24 miles) where we both order veal parm sandwiches. I drop George off and drive home (24 miles). 140 miles total.

 

New law: I load my guns, pick George up, drive to the range (24 + 2 miles). We shoot, eat, I drop him off at home, and drive home (24 + 2 miles). Total 52 miles.

 

True or false?

 

If you are still eating at that same Pizza place away from the range, then "FALSE."  You can't stop for food.

 

If the eatery is on the range itself, then "TRUE."  Also, I do believe that George must have his own guns to qualify under "subsection (e)."  If he doesn't, then "FALSE"

 

That's my interpretation, anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank from NJ2AS posted a message on facebook that I used as an email to his list of reps. I can provide the letter and list of reps if anyone wants it. I sent it out last night and got an interesting and very good response today.

 

The reply came from Elaine Turner on behalf of Asm. Michael Carroll

Could you please send that to me.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are still eating at that same Pizza place away from the range, then "FALSE."  You can't stop for food.  Thats correct. Still can't stop for food. But, you could drop the guns off at george's place, go eat, take george home, retrieve your guns and go home.

 

If the eatery is on the range itself, then "TRUE."  Also, I do believe that George must have his own guns to qualify under "subsection (e)."  If he doesn't, then "FALSE" George does not have to own guns, as long as the purpose of collecting/discharging him as a passenger was to go shooting at a range, etc.

What's not covered is something like- You're going to a range, stop to pick up you're Mom and drop her off at your brother's place, then continue on to the range.

Or in Newtonian's scenario, if he's on his way to Cherry Ridge, he can't detour to pick George up and drop him off at the pizza place. The purpose of the pick-up/drop-off has to be one of those covered activities. 

 

That's my interpretation, anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There've been a lot of postings about these proposed laws. Now I'm confused.

 

On the "digression" law, I thought they included food and picking up passengers, but the gripe was that they limited it to 4-5 specific situations and did not allow judicial discretion for emergencies, e.g. atomic bomb attacks or picking up specific individuals ("I proclaim that picking up George is a reasonable diversion!!"). 

 

There are too many threads on this subject. This was not even the original topic in this thread. I'm so confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...