kenw

Mazel Tov, Frank.

Thanks for all the help and suggestions, guys. The article is way too long for me to post here, but it's up at njShoot

Greetings and welcome.

Happy Birthday, Bryan.

This is what disturbs me far more than the money. When did we start marginalizing the concept of heroism to the extent that it applies to an animal simply doing what it was trained to do? When did being a hero become the guy who managed not to die, the guy who came home, the guy who ate the most hot dogs at the Nathan's 4th of July contest? This bothers me. When the concept of true heroism is diluted by a dog doing what it's trained to do, how do we recognize the real heroes when they show up? Or do we just redistribute that as well, to the point where anyone who sends their kids to school, chokes down a dozen White Castle burgers, or manages not to die during rush hour is also considered a hero. I used to know people who were involved in training Golden Retrievers as cadaver dogs, and whenever someone referred to their dogs as heroes, they would tell them that only people can be heroes, and only very few of them. I agree.

To continue this thought: ...he is just a working animal who was trained to do exactly what he did. Some genetic predisposition to a given task was identified and exploited through training. The dog didn't choose to do whatever he did, he didn't make a conscious decision to go in harm's way, he didn't decide to sacrifice himself to save others. What he did was simply do what he was trained to do, anticipating some small reward for successfully accomplishing his task, just like he did hundreds of times before. It's disappointing that a valuable asset to law enforcement was lost and that the host family lost a treasured pet, but this wasn't a brave hero, jumping on a grenade to save his brothers. This was simply an animal of perhaps above average intelligence doing exactly what his handlers intended him to do, and that is to go where it was either too dangerous or impossible for humans to go, and to perhaps be lost so that the same fate doesn't befall a human being. A sad loss to a few people, a loss of a valuable and costly asset, bur certainly not worthy of a "hero's" funeral.

I'm personally divided on this. Intellectually, I want to say that it doesn't really bother me. The swastika, as purely a graphic element, far predates the the horrific events that occurred under it in recent history. As such, it shouldn't really disturb me that it's making a new appearance in an entirely different context. But it does. Viscerally, I find the display of it abhorrent, and I would rather see any other symbol being used in its place. I lost a large chunk of my family in events that took place under that banner and what it stood for for that short period of history, and the vision of it brings a tear to my eye, not only for what it means to me personally, but for the fact that the atrocities that took place in its name put a permanent and indelible scar on the history of mankind, and caused unimaginable losses to an entire generation of humanity. I vote no.

Nice gun, Tony. Have fun with it. Some flavor of Beretta is on my short list for next year. Let us know how it shoots for you.

Let us know how that works out for you as defense if you ever find yourself in that predicament. And any lawyer who uses the "the law is unconstitutional so my client consciously and deliberately decided to ignore it" defense is a moron. And has a bigger moron for a client. You don't like a law? Do whatever you can to see it changed. Become an activist. Take a public stand. Put your money, your credibility and perhaps your safety where your big mouth is. You think it's unconstitutional in your position as a Constitutional scholar? File a suit. Get the media to support. Start an Issue advocacy organization. Don't just bloviate. Don't ever advocate here that anyone has the right to just disobey a law because they "feel" it's unconstitutional.

Why do you believe that the two are mutually exclusive? His anti-gun political instincts have already gotten him this far. What makes you think that's gonna change?

I have one word to say about this... decaf.

Didn't he support the AWB? When asked about CCW in NJ, didn't he say "Not in a million years"? Didn't he appoint a liberal, anti gun AG? Didn't he opine that current NJ gun laws are just fine? Outside of the shooting community, Brian has been painted as a gun-running, suicidal psychopath with a grudge against his ex-wife. Furthermore, he was caught in the act of breaking laws that protect New Jersey's innocent children and brave Law Enforcement Officers from the savagery of the free world that exists outside of the safe and secure borders of Fortress New Jersey. Christie is in a bad spot. I don't see him tying his political future to this incident. If he does anything positive, I think it's going to be a grudging admission of judicial misconduct to which he has no legal choice but to release Brian pending a new trial. Period. No mention of absurd laws. No mention of anything but his act of removing said judge from the bench, and his hope that justice will be properly served at Brian's next trial.

My bad. I misread the original post and missed the reference to a pump action.

How many shorts do they fit in the tube? Possibly not NJ compliant?

Hot tea with lemon. Friggin' cold.

We're (for the most part) just having a reasonable and civilized discussion here. I generally also have respect for and thoroughly enjoy reasoned and intelligent debate. I don't try to convince or turn anyone to my point of view on anything. Plenty of room for everyone's opinion. There are always ways to turn anything against us, in any situation, not just this one. I just don't think it's healthy or productive to search for an ulterior motive in everything and become paralyzed because of suspicion. You guys know that I'm as much of a tin foil hat guy as anyone, but I think this, at least on the surface, is innocuous enough that we may consider it as being a step in the right direction, even if the motive may be suspect.

I've looked, and I have yet to find the "New Jersey Firearms Regulation Omnibus Bill" that you want to see on the legislative docket. You know, the one piece of legislation that undoes every line of existing law so that it reads exactly the way you want it to, including Constitutional Carry, a revised Castle Doctrine Law, Civil and Criminal Immunity, the complete repeal of the AWB, OGAM, all ammunition restrictions, and any and all restrictions regarding capacity or firearm type, up to and including personal shoulder mounted missile launchers. I may have missed it. I'll look again.

We stopped asking "Can it get any worse?". Now the question is "How much worse is it gonna get?" And, in spite of that cynical perspective, we're always surprised by just how much worse it gets.

I think I like it slightly under the radar better. If he were to go massively public with it, I fear it would lead to its withdrawal. His constituents (who are not us) would skin him alive and nail his hide to the statehouse wall as a warning to all who may follow in his misguided footsteps.

Nope, it isn't a carry bill. And you're right. It is a duplication of existing documentation. But, the Bill doesn't say anything other than with this new documentation (which I agree should be unnecessary) you may purchase a handgun at a gun shop without submitting yourself to the absurd and archaic PPP system that's in place now. That's all it says. Nothing about CCW. Nothing about eliminating the current FID card in favor of the new high tech card. Nothing about anything other than providing a small relief from an existing bureaucracy that we have to endure every time we go shopping. As far as it goes, it's not a bad thing. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Or even the mediocre.

Don't even think about it.

Brudder Frank, Thanks for the offer. I'll get it to you when next we see each other.

Lynn has one and loves it. She's only 5'2", and not very, well, petite, so it works well and is comfortable for her. The whole break down and store in the stock thing is a nice marketing point, but almost not a consideration unless you're backpack the gun or stick it a SHTF bag. The trigger feels like it's about a 40# pull through coarse gravel, but once you get used to it, the gun is fairly accurate out to 40 or 50 yards or so. We slapped on a cheap red dot, and the gun will consistently hit any of the targets on the Cherry Ridge rimfire range., but will no longer break down into the stock with the optic mounted. ETA: We got ours through Tony at a nice price.

I think it's important to show early support, if only to give them an indication that someone is aware of what's happening and is watching what they're doing. If the bill changes dramatically enough that it becomes an additional burden, then more letters go out, not quite so supportive.

Pending everyone's comments, this will be going out today by mail. edit one.