GRIZ

As someone else said I can't see what difference it makes if you're employed or not or who your employer is. The blocks probably doesn't belong on the application but it is. The STS033 (Application for FPID or P2P) asks for name of employer, address and phone number in block 12 and occupation in block 13. That's the same information they ask for your references. Now try to submit that application leaving those blocks blank. You'll be told to fill them out. You can probably leave 12 blank if you put retired in 13. I've seen some suggest putting self employed even if they're not. That would be a false statement and we'll get into that. Go down to the bottom right of the form where you sign. By signing you attest to the fact all information on the application are complete, true, and correct. Below the signature line you are advised that falsification of the form is a third degree crime. That's the same as burglary, aggravated assault, or terroristic threats. You can get 3-5 years for a third degree crime. Now look at the lower left corner of the form where it says reason for disapproval. "E" is falsification of application. If it's on the application and you lie about it you can be denied. So yes, disclosing your employer is a application criteria. Just like anything else on the application it's subject to verification. If you're unemployed that's what you put in block 13.

Fake news. Read page 4 line 3 of the text.

No problema mi amigo

That is fake news. This situation is specifically addressed. See page 4, line 7 of the text of the bill. The bill also exempts transfers between immediate family members and defines what immediate family is. Do not construe this to be any endorsement of the bill. It will have zero effect on crime, protecting the children, or "gun safety".

@Maksim look at it another way if the investigating agency doesn't tell your employer why they are verifying your employment. If the police ask, "does Joe Blow work there?" a normal response from whoever is being asked would be, "Why?". If the police say, "None of your business", that can create a lot of issues. I've dealt with HR departments that refused to tell me anything even though I had signed information releases from the person in question. Should the tpolice lie? Should they tell a half truth like, "he's applying for a license" without specifying what kind of license? Let the employer ask the employee why? That can cause issues too. An employer may feel they don't need the police poking around their business for any reason. Not telling the employer why can work against you too.

IANAL but I don't think "violating confidence" is done routinely. When the investigating authority contacts a reference, either in person or by letter, it makes sense they let the reference know why they are being contacted. That sets the tone for any information they disclose. Most people have very little contact with the police. It let's the reference know they aren't being investigated. Doing it by letter limits the amount of information requested, is specific, and gives the investigating agency a written record of the information provided by the reference. Of course contacting references you provide means they're not going to screw you. Another worthless facet of the NJ system. I really don't see an issue for most people contacting your employer by letter or in person. Employer is one of the blocks on the application and verifying employment is always done in a background investigation. Once again I don't think it's "violating confidence" by telling your employer why. I can understand if you work for a rabid antigun employer if it bothers you. I've conducted at least a few investigations in my time. I don't have any experience dealing with OPRA but a bit with FOIA. If you file a FOIA for something you will often find information redacted even if you were the subject of the request. That redacted information would be things that neither help or hurt you. Therefore you have no right to know them. My big problem with the system in NJ is if the investigation results in you being denied you have no right to get the investigation report. You have to defend yourself in an appeal when you don't know what made you denied. I think NJ can get away with this because I don't see this as a Constitutional issue of facing your accusers.

Pretty sure it's a magazine for a Remington 7400 Semiauto. Would also work in the 760-7600 series pumps.

I just as soon deal with national reciprocity with all the different rules in each state.

Military DNA sampling is so there is so there will be no "unknown soldiers" in the future. If you're arrested police can take a DNA sample. No different from fingerprints and photo as a means of identification. If you're not arrested police need a warrant to get a DNA sample AFAIK. Keep in mind that DNA can also prove your innocence as well as your guilt. There have been stories in the press about DNA being used to free wrongfully convicted people from prison. My fingerprints have been on file with the FBI since I was 17 and getting a security clearance when I was going in the Army. Never has an instance of them being used against me. I would expect DNA databases maintained by law enforcement to be treated the same way. Make up your mind are these mail in tests accurate or not? I am not an expert on DNA but I know the tests police use are more accurate than the mail in tests. I also understand that some DNA shares characteristics. For example Native American DNA shares some with Asian as that's where they originated. 3% is within the margin of error for these mail in tests. Here's a guy who got 6 different results from 9 mail in tests. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/63997-dna-ancestry-test-results-explained.html

It was in the late 80s early 90s when they collected DNA samples from the Reserves and National Guard. Well when you're in the military and if they say we're taking your DNA sample, they're taking your DNA sample. You have no option. I agree that those DNA tests are not that accurate. Unless you're spending several thousand dollars for it. That said a 3% error between the two sisters is well within the margin of error.

It's zeroed for 100, few inches high at 50. I bought mine from one of the on line places (Kentucky Gun Company?). They sent me an email saying they couldn't ship the gun with the 17 Rd magazine. I told them to ship it without any they did.

I had the same issue with whomever I bought my PC9 from nearly a year ago. They wouldn't ship the 17rd magazine. That might have bothered me if I had a pistol it would fit but being I didn't I just told them to ship the gun without the magazine. I fully intended to use it with my Glock magazines anyway. I wasn't going to spend money to have the Ruger mag made compliant anyway. Great rifle BTW. I've had 1 failure to eject in the first 500 rds. It shoots 3-5 inch groups at 100 yds with any ammo I've put through it. I found NATO spec ball to be the most accurate. You might consider buying it local depending on what you pay for a transfer fee.

Straight would be along the groove of the barrel, the weakest part be it a squib or a manufacturing defect. The thing that steers me toward a squib is the bulge. Why would there be a bulge in the barrel if there were no obstruction?

You'd really have to shoot a lot of crappy lead bullets to get high pressure issues with conventional rifling. Polygonal rifling doesn't take that much. There's not much lead 357 ammo out there. Most of it is pretty mild. If he was shooting lead 38s they wouldn't be fast enough to create leading issues. My money is still on a squib or other bore obstruction. No other reason for a barrel to fail by the muzzle.

I don't think that's an issue. To my experience most leading is close to the chamber or forcing cone where pressure is the highest. Thats not a lot of crap at the muzzle. It shows up better on stainless.

Dragon Man outside of Colorado Springs.

Should we start a pool? Flawed barrel or obstruction?

Surrendered or seized ammo, if servicable, is usually consumed by the police at the range. Contrary to what many think seized or surrendered firearms do not usually wind up in some cop's personal collection. Does it happen? Often in the old days but not now. There's not many cops that want to risk their good job and pension to get a free gun.

Yeah but...offer that ammo for $5 a box and it will take you maybe 15 minutes to sell here. Nothing illegal about that. Would you walk into a police station and drop $200 on the desk?

That barrel failure was most likely a bore obstruction of some sort. That's the only way a barrel would fail like that. A manufacturing defect is less likely. Most often I've seen that happen with muzzles that were poked on the mud and then fired. Squibs do happen. How often depends on the quality of the ammuniton. I've fired a lot of factory, commercial reloads, and my own reloads over my time. I've had exactly one squib. That was with a factory load in a M1 Carbine. I figure it had to happen sometime.

Keep or sell the rifle. If you keep the rifle, keep the ammo for it, you can sell the rest on this forum.

I see this firearm in the same category as the folding Glock someone made. An interesting technical exercise to show it can be done but little, if any, practical application.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/19/ny-city-council-cops-dont-describe-suspects-gender/ That policy goes back a few years.

I never said that. Don't try to put words in my mouth I didn't say.

It was also easier to limit the M16/M4 to 3 round burst than teach the trigger discipline for a full auto trigger. Due to the system used to make the 3 Rd burst work the trigger on a full auto M16/M4 is better in the semi mode.