Leaderboard

Frustrating! I just spent an hour on the phone "in the queue" to ask a question on Congressman Lance's telephone town hall meeting - but the meeting ended before I got up to bat. NO ONE mentioned National Reciprocity btw - hey, maybe that's a good thing? I would have expected a shrieking mom (or 2) on the call, but nada. (BTW, the vast majority of questions were concerns about tax reform - and how SALT and a few other proposed changes might whack people in this high cost state). Oh, well... I tried! But, as it turns out I'll have to call his DC office tomorrow morning anyway.

Keep in mind the Continental Army lost most battles during the American Revolution but they won the important ones.

To the naysayers who say NJ will never allow it and it will be challenged in court by Murphy and his cronies. If they're smart they will take a lesson from Washington DC and not challenge the overturning of their CC May Issue law. If they do they stand a real chance it will have to go to SCOTUS and if it does, it could very well mean the end of May Issue for ALL states. It's strategic to not fight it. If they decide to take the tactic of fighting it, it's poor strategy that could end with them losing the entire war by focusing on the battle.

Keep in mind the Federal government and COTUS are there to prevent the state from violating your rights under COTUS. Yes, gun rights have been taken away over the years but this is a big step in getting them back. In this thread or the other on this topic someone said they wanted to see something about this law not being repealed by the next administration. Well you can't do that. Any law can be repealed. You need both houses of Congress to pass a repeal and a POTUS to sign it. Very few laws get repealed.

As others have said the Constitutional authority is the 2A. Antigun states can challenge any law they want but Federal law is the law of all states. Read the entire COTUS.

under what constitutional authority can the federal government force a person to buy insurance?

WARNING - WARNING - WALL 'O TEXT COMIN' ATCHA!! (I including citations so people don't need to look them up). OK, I hate to beat a dead horse... and I realize I'm NOT a lawyer, but I just don't see that the "Fix NICS" section would open anyone up any new areas of abuse or overreach. If that Congressman Massie (or others) have concerns, I wish they would spell out their arguments better. Here's the text of the proposed law: “(G) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.— “(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the head of each Federal department or agency, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall establish a plan to ensure maximum coordination and automated reporting or making available of records to the Attorney General as required under subparagraph (C), and the verification of the accuracy of those records, including the pre-validation of those records, where appropriate, during a 4-year period specified in the plan. The head of each Federal department or agency shall update the plan biennially, to the extent necessary, based on the most recent biennial assessment under subparagraph (K). The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code. So, for the sake of argument - if you dig deeper and you pull those 2 sections from Title 18, section 922 (I did, and they appear below)... those are the sections of law that describe people who are already prohibited from owning guns (e.g., serious crimes, fugitives, adjudicated mental defective/committed, subject to restraining orders, dishonorable discharges, etc. etc.) This is NOTHING NEW!! And the reporting requirements are clearly limited to these situations. So, if some groups want to be hardline and say "there shouldn't be a NICS at all" - well, that's an argument they can certainly make... one that may have some merit. But if Congress keeps the wording in this proposed law intact, I do NOT see - as some have implied - that it will open up abuses like "new categories" of people to deny 2A rights to without due process. I just don't see it. The wording clearly limits it to people who fall under the existing definition provided in those 2 subsections of Title 18 *below): >>>>(g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. >>>>>>(n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. I REST MY CASE!!!

And then there is this....................

When I spoke to Congressman Lance's aide this morning --- I made that case a major point. I was only on a few minutes...but I said not only did I want Lance to vote for reciprocity - but I was urging him to speak out forcefully on the issue. Because particularly as a representative from NJ, where we've seen so many egregious cases of prosecutorial overreach (like Shaneen Allen's), it's only appropriate that he brings those cases to the forefront... as good examples of WHY this legislation is so desperately needed. I also made it clear that I was expecting Lance and other republicans not to crumble in the face of what was likely to be tremendous pressure from the well-funded gun control groups. The aide was very polite and appeared to listen closely, but he didn't really "telegraph" anything either. So, eh! Who knows? But, at least I tried! Actually, I think it was the first time in my life I ever called a "federal-level" rep. I feel inspired (LOL). Who knows? I might make an appointment at his office in Flemington too sometime soon. I'm his constituent, after all... why shouldn't I? Maybe this is something gun owners should do regularly? Squeaky wheel and all that... (and good for those of you who already do this).

Gotta love uncle @GRIZ till he beats you with a stick.... summabitch!

Mic drop!

Here is the link to congressman Massie's Facebook page and the post he put up about this. For me the operative paragraph is: "A few have speculated that the House is combining the bills to ensure reciprocity will pass in the Senate. I have some news for them: Senators Feinstein and Schumer aren’t going to vote for reciprocity even if it contains the fix-NICS legislation they support for expanding the background check database. If someone is naïve enough to think that’s going to work, and they’re willing to accept fix-NICS to get reciprocity, then they should ask the Senate to go first with the combined bill. (Emphasis mine) Here’s a dangerous scenario that’s more likely to play out: The House uses the popularity of reciprocity (HR 38) to sneak fix-NICS through, while the Senate passes fix-NICS only. The Senate and the House meet at conference with their respective bills, with the result being fix-NICS emerges from conference without reciprocity. Fix-NICS comes back to the House and passes because all of the Democrats will vote for it (as they just did in Judiciary Committee) and many Republicans will vote for it. Because Republicans already voted for it once as part of the reciprocity deal that never came to pass, they won’t have a solid footing for opposing fix-NICS as a standalone bill. Then we’ll end up with fix-NICS, which is basically an expansion of the Brady Bill, without reciprocity." I think this is the most likely scenario. Senate Democrats, IMO, will never vote for reciprocity if they think it will really be enacted. I also happen to believe that the House leadership won't mind the above scenario and will simply say "Hey, we tried and those Democrats screwed us again. But we had to do something."

I want to see Loretta Weinberg's fokkin head explode! Maybe. I pray, she'll have a heart attack. Then we can piss on her grave. Is that you Loretta?

Being discussed right now - https://www.c-span.org/video/?438152-1/rules-takes-concealed-carry-gun&live Lots of false statements by Dems (shocked face). Lib heads be 'sploding If this passes, I hope that someone plans to sue NJ, when people from constitutional carry states can carry in NJ and NJ residents cannot, for unconstitutionally preventing equal justice under law.

@Mrs. Peel There is also protection for a CCW holder that is charged with unlawful carry in states such as the People's Republik of New Jermany. They have to foot your legal bill if found innocent.

I disagree, conditionally. The dissident arms shotguns (VEPR/SAIGA base) run like raped apes with cooled mags/ammo. As screwball pointed out shotgun shells don't like being stacked in magazines. Case in point, go to a major action shotgun or 3 gun match and look at the guys who don't have issues. All the open shooters store their mags and shells in coolers. This keeps them running. Hot shells get egg shaped and won't feed, and sometimes while feeding hot shells smush in the action.

You know what....In the end, it does not matter what we say or what we want on this or any forum. We are not in control!

No loophole - I just explained to Matt the best way to go about the process Matt is a customer of mine - I always want the best for them.......

Now this could make me think of buying from Big Green again. @Screwball here, ya go!

Senate Law and Public Safety meets Monday 12/11/17 10:30 AM Committee Room 10 State House Annex On the docket is S3477 banning bump stocks. Text - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2016/Bills/S3500/3477_I1.PDF Since they're already illegal in NJ they will be making them double secret illegal. Or something. More to come ...

While this laudable, I find it laughable that the LEO giving this seminar had the hutzpah to stand before this crowd and say the following, “The only person that’s going to save your life is you.” Easily said, but a little difficult to execute given that the state has co-opted our right to self-defense. What are we supposed to do? Throw hymnals at them and pray? Those are the only options that I see. Here's the article: http://www.fox29.com/news/active-shooter-response-training-at-gloucester-township-church Adios, Pizza Bob

Here is who buys this "stock". A 19 year old kid in 'murica who takes said stock, his budget AR, 3 friends, one chick (there's always one) and a case of Tula 223 from Wal-Mart into the local community shooting pit. They only shoot it one time because the gun jams due to the gun AND the stock AND the shitty ammo. They reinstall the regular stock and throw the "bump stock" in the closet. Done

This is true... I’m sure the DNC is broadcasting emphatically

Boom!

John, As stupid as it is, the stock moves in / out and it is technically "Telescopic" You're thinking in the vein of a stock the is adjustable, (multiple positions) but ANY stock that moves in / out can be ruled as telescopic..............

I love the “ state’s right’s” arguments here. They consistently omit the citizens rights

You may be right in that Nazi States like NJ may challenge this in Supreme Court. But the issue of NJ has to goto Supreme Court anyways (as NJ dictators will never ever allow carry on their own). So if this situation helps expedite getting to SCOTUS faster, then it may not be a bad thing. My gut feeling it that NJ will NOT challenge this in SCOTUS, for the scumbags know what they are doing is patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What they may do is take advantage of other "not yet incorporated" rights, such as excessive fines (8A). I could be wrong, but what if NJ says any out-of-state resident caught in school zone (redefine to include a 1000 ft circle no matter what) will get mandatory 20 year sentence ? Next, The 2A is already incorporated against States. So any law favoring enforcement of that incorporation cannot be illegal (atleast thats common sense). ------- Right to keep and bear arms This right has been incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, see McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as "the central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra., and upheld District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S (2008) concluding the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010). "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," McDonald, supra.. ----------------

I don’t have a bump stock but I was considering a crank fire for my M1919. Oh well, it would have been a “once a year” toy anyway.

Called Booker and Menendez’s offices today, will do it again tomorrow. ”I urge you to vote in favor of the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation which will end New Jersey’s long, infamous and unconstitutional suppression of its citizens civil right to carry firearms for self defense.” I’m sure they’ll sneer at my request individually, but maybe there will be enough of us that they notice the numbers.

Gotta love it. Got a text from Everytown for gun control. They automatically connect me to my reps office and of course I said to vote YES on HR 38. Love using their resources against them.

Up until now, the stock was not legal when installed on a Semi-Auto rifle because it was (technically) a telescopic stock, which is banned as an Evil Feature on a S.A. wit ha pistol grip. The New legislation is going to make it illegal to own one even if it is not on a rifle. I am assuming the mear possession of one will be some sort of heinous crime.......

Uhhhhhhh, sure. Whatever makes you sleep at night! And I resent being called a ‘hillbilly’. No bbq for you.

It is called the United States Constitution! Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

TMI in this thread

Does anyone other than the south Jersey hillbillies even have one of these so called bump stocks?

Open carry your Wang in public and you’ll be arrested Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'M HOPEFUL it'll get through. i don't see any way whatsoever nj or any other state can fight it. the precedent was set with obamacare i think.

If everyone calls their congress representative (House and Senate) and pushes hard, I think it will pass just like Trump got elected despite the naysayers. If the majority of people continue to be Debbie Downers, we will continue to be felons in NJ and a dozen other states if we dare try to CC. Yes I think it will. They can fight it like they can fight Obamacare...they will lose. Fed trumps state.

@Screwball, time will tell.

IIRC, courthouses are also covered by statute. Educational institutions are covered under criminal statutes in NJ. There are a few other things in this law which I don't think anyone has mentioned I'll throw out here. IANAL, please read the cite. These are my interpretations of some of the other provisions of this statute. 926D. (c) (3)- requires award of attorney's fees from court if you are arrested and tried by state for violation and your defense is successful. 926D. (d) (1) and (2)- defines this as a civil right which would allow anyone who is arrested and acquitted using this statute as a defense able to sue for a civil rights violation under Federal law. 926D. (e) (2)- "Includes any magazine" no mention of capacity. Any means any. Sec 103- allows active off duty and retired LEOs to carry in school zone as long as firearm is concealed. Now the state could still prohibit carry in a school owned by the state or local government. Private schools could also prohibit carry but it would have to be posted. 926E.- allows Federal judges to carry in any state.

so is having a penis, from what I've gathered lately.

@Mrs. Peel From your favorite hardliner organization: I'm assuming S.2135 is the equivalent to HR 4477 https://gunowners.org/news12317.htm

It's not just if people in Free America want to visit NJ. Try NY, CT, DC, CA, etc. And an end to patchwork quilt of regulations in many ways. I hate it when I drive down to FL and I get to put on my piston, then in North Carolina I need to put it in the glove box and when I cross into South Carolina I can once again retrieve it from my glove box. Ridiculous. So if they do combine the two bills, what will you suggest we do? Call our representatives and tell them to vote against it, and wait another decade or two in the hopes that a similar bill without the NICS provision gets out of the judiciary committee? The number of negative people in here continue to amaze me. No wonder Murphy is the new governor... Yes I will support a NICS bill if it gets me concealed carry. NICS is here to stay and like our 300 million guns it's not going away unless you split the country into two - the dems and republicans (to paint it simply).

I dunno @Screwball, I think Remington might have a winner here. There are a bunch of different variations already which leads me to believe they are all in on this set up. Remember when everyone said the Shockwave was a joke and nobody would buy them? Well, we know that isn't the case. So much so that Remington had to make their own version. Let's play the game of wait and see.

Face it, it's 2017 and we are outnumbered. Give nothing and get nothing. everything stays as it was. We have the chance at a small step back for a giant leap forward! Your choice!

I'd save my money and use it to get the hell out of NJ.

i'm gonna get flamed for this...... they are 100% correct that it shouldn't exist at all. it is VERY simple. if you trust someone to walk amongst yourself and those you care about, then you should be able to trust them with pretty much any tool(in this case a firearm). if you can't trust them with a firearm, then they should not be walking amongst us. it really IS that simple.

this is a scary/bad thought. i get where you're coming from......but....it's the same as saying "if you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about" when it comes to unwarranted searches. then theres the people mistakenly put on watch lists...... wrongo. they all could've cracked it IF they wanted to.

Assuming you get far enough to dial and get the operator to answer...