ESB

So far I've tried Hoppe's Gun Oil, Lucas Extreme Duty Gun Oil, Balistol, and Slip 2000. I couldn't tell much of a difference in performance between the Hoppes and the Lucas. The Slip 2000 is noticeably better than the others. Goes on thin, stays on, and doesn't attract dust. Haven't noticed any additional wear since using it. Real test would be to use it with a new gun to see if any of the parkerized coating wears.

I plan on bugging in as well. Major concern is fire or threat of fire though. Some asshole throws a rock through your window and then a molitov cocktail what are you going to do after?

@DirtyDigz would you mind editing the thread title to get rid of the 1/5/2023 date so we can make this a consolidated thread fort just the hearing notes as it progresses. Also maybe change it to Koons/Seigal. Will make it easier to find and understand in the future. As this is an important case, I'm sure it will be looked at for years to come.

Notes from 1/26/2023 Siegel update from today (note: I've got 3 more pages on notes to go through but need to pick up my kids, I'll edit this this evening with the rest) 1/26 – Room 3D Judge Bumb enters 9:50 Attorneys enter appearances Bumb: Will hear parties on their arguments States that arguments related to Koons – Basically don’t go there because there’s nothing to sway the courts opinion on her earlier decision Dan states he’s available to answer any of the courts questions. He wants to point out the differences between Koons and Siegel re: Multi use properties The state is prohibiting properties that are otherwise not prohibited/sensitive. i.e. Section 7 states all grounds and parking lots. Mentions one plaintiff is a church member that also has a school and based on his reading the entire 14 acre property is now prohibited. At this point Dan was going a million miles an hour and the judge playfully yelled at him to slow down for the court reporter. Next example was a strip mall with a daycare center there – everything on the property is prohibited including for example a pizza place that maybe wants to allow guns. The judge asks if the court construes the language to mean that the parking lot of a school or school building can be prohibited only if its solely used with the sensitive place would that be helpful. Dan says yes Bumb states that she feels the intent of the lab was that it would only apply to the sensitive places and not all parking lots or they would have declared all parking lots sensitive. She then asked if Dans concerns were over if the above was stipulated, and if so, what remains? Dan brings up Multi use buildings – for example a building with doctors, lawyers and accountants in it. A doctors office makes the entire building prohibited in addition to the shared parking lot. Finally – Plaintiff Kwozo (sp?) attends a church which has 1 multi purpose building – to the left is a sanctuary for prayer and the right holds bible classes, educational things ,etc. Is Sunday school considered an actual school based on the law? Bumb: She states she doesn’t think religious school is school. Dan brings up – what about Karate school? The school of rock? Tae Kwon Do, etc. Bumb: Does the court have to define school or should they say it’s vague? If the definition is provided by the legislators is it still vague Dan: Depends on the definition Dan: People generally think of school as K-12, colleges and universities. It needs to be easy to tell what is what. You can’t go based on the name having “School” in it. Bumb: Said his point was fair and well taken. Asks if school is defined anywhere? Dan: If so, they’re not references anywhere in the legislation. There are definitions in other statues that aren’t consistent. Bumb: If the court construes the parking lots and multi use properties as discussed – what is left? Isn’t most of this solved? States it seems odd that the court should be writing legislation Dan: This was bill was not well thought out, was written in a fit of rage in direct defiance of Bruen It is the job of the court to determine if its unconstitutional or now Bumb: The court is obligated to construe terms narrowly in light of Bruen . Dan: Wraps up the differences between this and Koons – mentions parking lot argument for shared buildings, and asks that sensitive places for parking lot only be applied when used solely for the sensitive place. Bumb: Asks the state – how can you justify multi use in light of Bruen which dictates sensitive places must be narrowly defined. Cai: The question isn’t related to Bruen but rather legislative. She had no issue with plaintiffs arguments. States that they’re ignoring 7c/d however. Discussed C4 – Concealed carrying between prohibited parking and a not prohibited place – they’re allowed to leave the parking lot. 7d: States that they wouldn’t be in violation on a public right of way when passing through Bumb: You’re ignoring multi use buildings Cai: Buildings like a church and school on the same property – like a daycare on the first floor and a pizza place on the third floor. Can states you’d not be in violation: (e.g. having to go up a set of stairs to get to a non sensitive place passing through a sensitive place) Cai states she hasn’t seen any specific building to say 1 way or the other, but would stipulate on Dan’s arguments – She states that Dan’s arguments were made quickly in haste. Bumb: It’s not haste for the plaintiffs. Bumb then states that you’re not prohibited from going from a parking lot to a non sensitive place when passing through, then states to Dan “you’ve got a stipulation from the state” – this is now stipulated and you have no need to worry. Dan: If the order reflects that our concerns are resolved. Cai: Schools are defined in section 2c:35-9 – school means what is in NJ code, they’re under direction of department of education. Dan teaching a law class: not a school, someone teaching bagpipes: not a school. Sunday school: Not a school Bumb: Asks if this is resolved for now? Dan: For the PI stage will the state offer a definition of schools? Bumb: I’m ok with ruling on this Cai: Plaintiff brings up vagueness, but she wants examples Bumb: States plaintiffs are exposed to criminal liability – asks if this is eleviated by the earler arguments Cai states they don’t have standing Bumb asks to hear Dan on any remaining issues Dan states he’ll answer any questions on standing Bumb: In Koons – the sensitive places are part and parcel to their everyday life. Some of these like movie sets aren’t parsed out and park of everyday life. Dan: Facts here are more specific and granular re: Racetracks and Parks/Libraries BUmb: She’ll deal with that – focus on the others Dan: Brings up that the legislators groups things together because that’s the only way for them to provide multiple historical analogues. There is no historical tradition for these. 1-3 examples doesn’t cut it and Bruen was very clear on this. Bumb: In Koons she restained the whole thing. Should she not parse out individual places? i.e. If we’re talking about parks and beaches and rec centers should she not parse them out individually for standing purposes? Dan: Plaintiffs shouldn’t need to show standing for 25 places – it can’t be based on name alone Bumb: Antonyuk case they parsed out every place on its own Dan: Siegel in part 22 – does he need to go to all 25 places to have standing? The legislature groups things together on purpose – with the Bruen challenge if you say similar then we’re challenging on similar grounds. Dan: Judge had previously asked about things not in daily lives like movie sets. Dan mentions that he had previously walked through a Sopranos set one time – you don’t know where these are going to be. Same goes for news reporters. Bumb mentions this would be more persuasive in the PI stage Dan: Understands the standing analysis is different for this. In this in insufficient now – its never going to be. Bumb: This will be resolved in PI Dan: Will the state argue standing? Bumb: Asks about public gatherings Cai: Plaintiff says time to time and has the burden to prove. Bumb: Does the state have permits for public gatherings? Do they not have standing? Cai: In the TRO stage no Bumb: Will there be public gatherings between now and PI? Cai: I don’t know Bumb: By PI – the state can’t challenge standing, there will be standing Cai: OK Sure Bumb states theres a concession on public gatherings. Move to film locations/movie sets: Cai: No allegations from plaintiff Dan: Will withdraw TRO if state concedes standing. Cai: state can’t stipulate – plaintiff can cure by submitting specificis Bumb: They would say im going to a movie set Cai: State won’t concede theres immenence Dan: Then no plaintiff will ever have standing Bumb: what concerns me is the state says no standing. What happens if someone goes to a movie set – do we need an entire new lawsuit? Why wouldn’t the state want to resolve all of these issues and invite more efficiency? Cai: cannot waive standing – it’s black letter law. Parties can’t waive jurisdiction Bumb: Seems to me its prudent for the state to stipulate to standing so the constitutionality issues are resolved in 1 fell swoop to resolve everything. Bumb to Cai – focus on….theres no reason to deviate from Koons decision. She previously criticized the private property provisions… Cai: In Koons public libraries and museums the government is the proprietors. This applies to airports and government builings – does the 2A ever cover buildings like this? Bumb mentions all of the case related to this is pre Bruen Cai mentions that the government as a proprietor – its similar to NJ transit is a state owned bus company – its no different then if a private bus company states no firearms. Bumb states that Bruen changed all of this – there must be a historical tradition. What about state owned highways – does that count? Cai: The government is in competition with private companies Bumb: Then square that with Bruen. Private vs. Public – there is N DISTINCTION in Bruen. Every case mentioned is pre Bruen . Cai: Bruen doesn’t explain enough or answer when the government is competing in an open marketplace. Bumb: It’s difficult to understand how if the government owns something it eviscerates Bruen, Cai: What she can do – if the government acts as a private owner…. Bump interrupts: That’s grounds for mischief on the part of the government – If Bruen says no analogue they can say we’re just acting as a private business. Bumb: Cases for the government as market participants is for the PI stage – she wants to see. Cai: Does person have a 2A right in someone elses property – that’s not protected by 2A She makes the argument that Bruen/Heller/McDonald extend a right to carry in public not a residence/business – that’s not what the court meant by public. Bumb: Public means outside in the community. Nothing supports right to exclude trespassing, This could be limited by other laws i.e. right to exclude as property owner – not changed by Bruen The plaintiff is not saying that if a property owner puts up a no gun sign that’s not ok. The state says since they are excluded theres no right to carry and you need to show historical analogues. When Jefferson rode on his horse – did he stop and ask if he could carry on someones property? No. Cai: The government can change the law of trespassing. Instead of putting up a sign – they can post on the internet – that’s not a 2A argument Bumb: But you’re not doing this for trespassing – you’re only doing it for firearms! Why is the state interfering with trespassing only for firearms when it’s been fine forever. I don’t understand the argument – Private properties is a clever way for the state to say it’s protecting property owners. What you’re doing is unconstitutional – persuade me! Cai: Mentions exhibit 21 which is a study about ow people believe you shouldn’t be able to carry in peoples homes without permission Bumb: then why not educate the public instead of going after gun owners Cai: Discusses a public campaign saying YOU SHOULD PUT UP SIGNS TO NOT ALLOW GUNS Bumb: NOT THAT YOU SHOULD – THAT YOU MAY! Cai: They can provide historical analgues for PI Bumb> That’s about poaching – you’re ignoring the title! Cai: Poaching is just one part Bumb: State says you have it and you haven’t given it to me. What are you hiding? Give it to me! It’s unfortunate – I keep asking for where it is and you keep ignoring it! Bumb mentions shes hoping to avoid the colonial vs reconstructionist argument Another set of notes from 1/26/2023: (((ANJRPC Lawsuit Update))) *** Today's Personal Transcripts From Siegel TRO Hearing *** Had to get this out now. Will clean up a little later when I get home if necessary. _______________________________________ Judge Bumb enters the Courtroom at 9:46am Starts with Arguments first. Judge Bumb quickly makes it a point to say that she sees no evidence to persade her from making any changes to her TRO ruling in the Koons Case. Tell Cai she will be able to explain were the court errored on their decision. ***Multi Use Property Claim*** Dan starts of with the language use in Section 7a described on page 11 of Dan's moving brief. Dan questions what are schools? The Multi Use issue affects places of worship(names the plaintiff Varga). Church sits on a 14 acres of land that also has a a school on it. Due to this fact it exepts him from carrying while at the church. The language in the law doesn't allow carry in places like strip malls depending on what's attached to it. Dan says that these places have shared parking so even outside of the building would be an issue. If a daycare is in that strip mall the entire property be exempt from carry. Judge believes it wasnt he intent of the legislators to makes strip malls and parking lots such a problem. She questioned if that was the case why not just make all parking lots a sensitive place. She thinks it was the job of the legislators to solve this issue of multi use.q Dan makes more examples of the mult use issuse by talking about professional office buildings. These building could have a random doctors office on the first floor in the back. Which would make the entire building prohibited. Says we need construction that says just the doctors office is prohibited and no other part of the building. Dan Brings up Plaintiff Cuozzo that has a church problem as well. She has multiple issues because everything is all in one building. It has a Sunday School and Adult Bible classes in another room from the sanctuary. Because of this it eliminates the right to carry and even the ability to hire security at the church. Judge Bumb stops Dan and says she has a slight disagreement. She doesn't believe that Bible school and Sunday School are considered actual schools. Dan goes farther on to issue the question could a music school be considered an actual school? Or how about the School of Rock? Anyone can name something a school. What about karate schools. It's could be called the Karate School of Medford or be called the Wing Chun Center of West Orange. Does the names with school in it change anything? Judge questions if legislators actually defined what is a school would plaintiffs still question it on court? Dan drives the point that this is criminal statue and it needs to be well defined and that's not the case here. Dan says he teaches CLE classes and sometimes they're at a hotel. So does that make it a classrom? Judge Bumb agrees with Dan and says his point are fair. She says it's unfortunate that legislators didn't define this. She then goes on to ask of there are any other statutes that can help define this? Dan says Yes, but they're different. The legislators could have fixed this issue but they didn't bring up any. Judge makes a note that she finds it odd that she has to sit here today attempting to draft legislation. Dan pauses and out right says that this bill was drafted in a fit of Rage to spite the Supreme Court and Bruen. This bill was fast tracked and had a lot of mistakes. Some we were able to correct and get removed but there's still a mess left on the table. Dan wants to remove the unconstitutional defects. A reasonable construction would be to only limit restrictions solely to specific places not entire building or entire parking lots. Maybe only the daycare parking lot. Real-estate is complex. There could be other things beside parking lots. Maybe grassy areas or fields that are apart of the grounds. There needs to be a very narrow construction and not so broad. Judge Bumb Questions Cai how how does the State justify this Mult Use Restriction. She thinks is way more expansive that what Bruen allows. Cai says this isn't a Bruen Problem but at Legislative intent statutory interpretation issue. Cites that plaintiffs are looking at.......... Section 7C-4 transport a concealed handgun between a vehicle parked within a prohibited parking lot area and a place other than a prohibited place enumerated in subsection a. of this section, provided that the person immediately leaves the parking lot area and does not enter into or on the grounds of the prohibited place with the handgun. Section 7D The holder of a valid and lawfully issued permit to carry under N.J.S.2C:58-4 shall not be in violation of subsection a. of this section while the holder is traveling along a public right-of-way that touches or crosses any of the places enumerated in subsection a. of this section if the concealed handgun is carried on their person in accordance with the provisions of this act or is being transported in a vehicle by the permit holder in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law. Cai brings up the church on 14 acres of land. Cai doesn't believe that enforcement would happen as Dan is concerned about. She then goes on to accuse the plaintiffs of haste. Doesn't see any credible treat to people. Says she needs to see the mapping of the property to make a better determination. Bumb disagrees. Judge questions if Cai is correct. Dan still doesn't believe these section of the law will protect people. Judge may order no enforcement entering between locations. Cai thinks a school is determined if it falls under the States Department of Education requirements. Cites if the place has a certain amount of fire exits or curtain safety precautions. Doesn't believe going to someone house for music lessons makes it a school. Cai also doesn't believe Sunday School or Karate lessons are a school. Bumb is still willing to assist with the definition of what is a school. Dan request this to be fine tuned in the Preliminary Injunction stage. Bumb is open to it. Requests Cai and Dan talk about how to work this out. Judges thinks legislation reads too broadly. Says plaintiffs are in fear of criminal liability because the law is just not clear. *** STANDING *** Dan thinks Standing has been fully briefed. Judge reminds that in the Koons case the sensitive location were targeted to people everyday life and because of this it motivated the court to make the decision to implement a TRO. Judge questions whether the remain locations affect the plaintiffs everyday life. Dan says our case is more detailed with facts and records. Dan says the State can't use outliers to establish historical tradition. Bruen disallows restrictions of places with crowds. Bruen says that the State has to show a numerosity of tradition and not random events throughout history. Dan says that the court can find standing in the aggregate because of the choices the legislators made. Judge asks Dan if she should parce out certain sections of the law? Dan says Yes. He goes on to cite section 21 of Sensitive locations. Section 21 a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, residential health care facility, medical office, or ambulatory care facility; There's at least a paragraph of locations and people can't be required to show standing on all of them. Judge says that's what Antonyuk did for sensitive locations. Dan says this is the legislators fault. If they think all of this places listed are the same then we should be able to challenge them as the same. Dan goes on to bring up movie sets and says they are more common than you think. He has stumbled on movie set while trying to grab lunch inwhich he had to walk right through a blocked off movie set on a street just to get lunch. Judge thinks something like this can be addressed in the PI stage. Cai states that she has four different standing arguments set for the PI stage. *** Public Gatherings *** Judge things the state should be willing to concede standing on this because there stance is if you want to know if a place is a public gathering then people should check the website. Judge sarcastically says we will address that some other day. The state requests plaintiffs to show standing and the Judge thinks this is silly. Cai isn't convinced that a plaintiff will visit a public gathering all the way up to 6 plus months down the road. Judge doesn't think she can say that. Dan is offering to wait until the PI and Cai finally agrees. *** Movie Sets *** Dan's willing to give up on the TRO and save for PI if the State Agrees to wave standing until PI. Cai is not willing to concede. Dan says that no one can show standing on something like this because you don't know when they will happen. Judge agrees. Dan thinks the state is trying to position the plaintiff to not be able to show standing. Cai strongly disagrees and won't budge. Judge Bumb can't understand why she doesn't want to concede on this. Bumb wants to avoid a merry go round of litigation. Makes more sense to address everything in one feel swoop. Cai not willing to wave jurisdiction. Judge says she can't force the State to do it. *** Koons Provisions *** Cai speaks on The Government as a Proprietor. Example use is airports. Cai brings up a postal service lawsuit and a parking lot lawsuit that Judge Bumb tells her both are Pre Bruen. She then brings up Buses. Says Lakeland Bus Company is private but NJ Transit is Public. Thinks is not logical the government can prohibit firearms on public busses as well. Bumb Says that it seems to her that Bruen changed the entire analysis. If that's the case the State of NJ can no firearms on all of the highways we own. Cai responds by saying there's no private highways that she's aware of. Bruen didn't make the distinction on private or public property. But requires the state to pass the historical tests. Bumb thinks qualifying a place as a government owned kinds of eviscerats Bruen. If the Govornment can claim its private as well it creates a wide latitude of what they want to do. Again she reiterates that it eviscerats the Bruen Decision. Judge concludes that the state doesn't have a proficient argument so it needs to be flushed out to the PI stage. *** Private Property *** Cai brings up Heller and McDonald. Judge believes that in public means in the community which means private property. Cai thinks that private owners had the right to exclude firearms all the way from Blackstone to present. Believes nothing in Bruen can change that. Cai states that people can put a sign up. State believes that they can outright exclude carry through this. Judge Bumb questions Cai's claims that because the private property owners have the right to exclude it then translates that theres no Presumption of the right to carry. Judge doesn't know how Cai can come to this determination. Judge request that's Cai shows her some historical analogs that show this. Bumb paints the scenario of Thomas Jefferson riding on his horse and he stops on the edge of the acreage and does what? Ask if he could carry his firearm on someone property? I don't think your going to find such analog.. Cai Then tries to intertwine Trespassing Laws with firearm entry. Cai thinks putting no firearms on your website is an acceptable way of letting people know if firearms are allowed. Judge believes this is a clever way for the State to ban carry using private property owners. Cai cites Exhibit 21 and Table A5 and A6 Says it's the States job to educate the public and not to punish law abiding citizens. Cai gives the example of a media campaign to inform people of their rights. Speaks on the media telling people you "should" be putting up no firearms allowed signs. Judge Bumb immediately stops her and says Not we "Should" but you "May" put up signs. Cai continues to bring up that they have more historical evidence. This frustrates Judge Bumb because She believes she should have all the evidence now. "What are you hiding?" Where not hiding anything. We didn't think it was appropriate to introduce at the TRO stage. Brings up the founding and reconstruction Era Statutes as more evidence. Brings up 1771 Prohibition of Trespassing. Dan responds by saying 1771 statute is considered an outlier. Cites Fish and Game regulations(cant possess an uncaseed firearm in a vehicle while hunting). Reminds the State that you can have special rules for a Constitutional right. When it comes to private property you can't make a rule that says if you're Gay or Black that you're required to have express permission to enter private property. You just can't do that and this is literally the same thing we are dealing with firearms and private property restrictions. Responding to the posting of signs. Dan Brings up the AG made a post on social media this weekend saying.......... ATTENTION NJ BAR AND RESTAURANT OWNERS No matter what you've heard, here's a fact: you CAN display signs prohibiting guns in and around your establishment. Whether they're sporting midnight green or rooting for Big Blue, let's keep all fans and patrons safe this weekend. Judge asks Dan if the State runs a public campain advising citizen on what the law allows would you come to court saying it violates the 2nd Amendment? Dan isn't sure if or how much they can encourage this. Judge says this is where the nuance is. Willing to respond to this during the PI Stage. She then goes on to correct Dan and says is it encouraging or educating? Judge talks about the Preliminary Injunction schedule request provided by the state. Judge Bumb doesn't agree with it at all. Sides with Dan 100%. Says it doesn't make sense. Says that she wants to deal with this all in one go. Offically denies the States motion. Judge wants everything resolved expeditiously as possible. Says that it's an ambitious but also a fair. Knows an appeal will be coming. Doesn't want a revolving door of challenges. Asks Dan and Jensen to come up with a schedule that's inline with the State.

TLDR version?

For your first AR build, I would recommend an AR15 over a AR9 or AR10. Almost all AR15 parts from all manufacturers are interchangeable. Not true with AR10's and AR9's. Also would recommend buying a complete upper. Saves time and money. You can def build a lower. My first took about an hour while watching videos. Highly recommend using a 1/4" clevis pin to help install the take down pin. Easy AR-15 Front Takedown Pin Assembly - YouTube Aero makes a decent lower. Nice part is they use screws instead of roll pins which gets rid of the hard parts. Realize that you can get lowers from $50-150, but your FFL may charge around $75 to transfer one you buy online. This usually means buying a lower from your LGS will end up being cheaper since they usually don't charge for the transfer when you buy from them. For what you are looking for buy a PSA complete upper. If you haven't read the AR-15 Newbie FAQ, check it as it will probably answer in detail some of your other questions about best twist rate, bullet grains, caliber, etc. Get an armorers wrench. You already have roll pin punches. I use a roll of duct tape instead of a gun block. Use painters tape on the lower to protect it.

If you have a 13.5" barrel, I'd def go with a muzzle device that is 2.75" or bigger (lots of options) and have it pinned and welded. Make sure you do not use a flash hider! You'd then have to pin the brace (can DIY for free) , but you might as well get a stock.

If your permit is subject to a court order or restrictions and those restrictions say you are restricted to X, Y, and Z guns. Those restrictions supersede the code. If you applied for your CCW with X, Y, and Z guns but your CCW permit does not have restrictions or court order limiting you to X, Y, and Z guns then any gun you own you can carry. In this case, you probably would not get in trouble if you were pulled over with a different gun that you owned than the ones you qualified with, you probably wouldn't get in trouble. But if you use a different gun than you qualified with in a lethal force incident, you can bet the DA is going to use that against you.

Probably an attempt to drag this out so that it can't get to the Supreme Court before June.

What would be a stupid big hand cannon you would want for fun? Something like a Dessert Eagle .50AE or Taurus Raging Judge 6.5", Magnum BFR 10", etc. Just something cool to show to your friends and see the look on their faces when they try it.

What is the point of this stuff (this and the abolish ATF proposal)? They know (and we all know) it won't go anywhere. Makes it hard to take them seriously for other things.

As the title says, how do you conceal carry with a tucked in button down shirt?

Taurus TX22 Competition? https://taurustx22.com/

According to the pic from the ATF, removing the brace and making it so that it cannot be reattached would make it legal. Remove the brace and store it at another location.

The problem is only the things brought up in the lawsuits can be struct down. Koons got the important low hanging fruit TRO'd. Seigal is much broader, but still does not encompass all of the unconstitutional laws in the bill. If they aren't brought up in the lawsuits, they can't be struck down. For example the news costs and process would remain. At least that is my understanding. IANAL.

The only problem with this theory is that there are 10's of millions of brace owners (est 40M braces sold). If they did this whole sale, they are going to get a lot of resistance and lots of people are going to get hurt. It would make it damn near impossible for them to pass another gun law where they promise a grace period or grandfathering. Simply put, its not a trap to make 10's of millions of citizens felons after the 88 days. Honestly, I see them rubber stamping the applications in order to just get a huge registry of gun owners. That's the goal. They will then find a way to come after you later. Post something they don't like? Automatic Red Flag law. Or they charge you for some BS and tell you to plead guilty to it or they charge you for possession of an un-registered SBR from before you registered it. They only need to do this a few times and those who registered will be scared into compliance for other things. They now have something to hold over your head.

https://www.repeaterbook.com/repeaters/map/map.php?maptype=standard&state_id=34|New Jersey&band=14 https://www.repeaterbook.com/repeaters/index.php?country_code=US&state_id=34

Not sure. I came free from a client. EDIT: https://techproducts360.com/collections/bags/products/tech-pack-16

Only issue with not removing the brace before the rule gets published is that your Other then technically becomes a rifle permanently because it has a stock on it. Ie. your "brace" has just transformed into a "stock" when the rule gets published. An Other can never have had a "stock" on it to still be considered an Other. I'm generalizing but you get the idea.

Only optics that have eye relief would get you in trouble. Ie magnified optics (even an LVPO). Red Dot type optics should be OK.

Anything on the end that has as surface area could make it into an SBR. For now, just remove the brace and don't put anything on it.

ANJRPC January 19, 2023. The judge in the consolidated lawsuit challenging New Jersey's carry-killer law has scheduled oral argument of ANJRPC's motion for a restraining order blocking the law for Thursday, January 26, 2023. There are unlikely to be new developments in the case before then. Please watch for follow-up alerts as the lawsuit unfolds. If you are not already subscribed to these free email alerts, click here to sign up -- there will be critical updates and alerts coming in the near future.

From Dark Storm Industries

Please reach out to Tech Ops International and/or Troy. They should have a solution for you and/or they should be filing a suit against the ATF. If they don't have either, as an A4 owner, please pressure them to do so. https://techopsinternational.com/troy-a4-other-firearm/