Bob B

That would be funny if it wasn't so... well, not funny.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v.ROBERT INGRAM ???

It's a good question. It depends on the law of the state you are in. In NJ: "Designed to be" seems to be more onerous that "capable of." This one probably depends on case law. I'll see if I can find anything.

Here's the guy's website: http://www.loweldesigns.com/

If it's to carry, don't worry about if it hurts or not to shoot it. If you have to use it, you won't notice. You can practice with .38 wadcutters or some other light load and carry .357 mag.

I wonder if that stock could be modified to accept the heavy barrel that USNMARS used to make his Monster Mosin. Now that would be awesome.

All good points. I just wanted to point out that the current NJ Constitution is a result of the NJ Constitutional Convention of 1947... and the reason that the RKBA was not included, was that it was thought to be a fundamental civil right protected under the civil rights discrimination clause. http://www.njstateli...Const1n305.html Somewhere along the line, that idea got lost.

Revolver (sorry, couldn't resist) ..but seriously. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the grip safety as a factor.

The answer is yes, you can, but please don't base whether you do or not on what we say on this forum. Speak to an attorney to be absolutely sure. Remember, if you make a mistake and you get caught, it's five mandatory, presumption of seven with no parole for three. Then we'll have to have a Free Destiydog Rally and petition the Gov. for clemency yada yada yada...B)

Frank, I just wanted to say thanks for everything that you have done over the last few weeks. What you accomplished was nothing less than astounding. I have never seen anyone put so much effort into helping a complete stranger. You're a stand-up guy.

fyi, this will help if they do happen to give you any trouble. http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/19258-njsp-letter-to-chiefs-proving-ppps-cannot-be-limited/

I always put down 6. That's the most you can get without an exemption to OGAM (if you extend them another 90 days).

I believe you and it doesn't surprise me. Until we get an amendment to the NJ Constitution stating that in criminal trials, the jury shall be the judge of both law and fact, jurors will have to be discrete in their assertion of their right to nullify.

I'm glad you guys feel that way. The role of the Jury is extremely important. It is a check on the legislature and the judiciary from enforcing bad law. Juries can refuse to convict. When smart people avoid jury duty, they leave this up to those who may not have the level of competence required to maintain that check. I only recently understood this. I now am very serious about jury duty and whenever I know someone who gets called I make sure they know what I have learned. In addition to the article I posted above, there is also a very good website (The Fully Informed Jury Association). It has a Juror's hand book and a series of videos on the subject that are very informative (they're also a bit dry at points, but it's worth going through the whole series). http://fija.org/

I recently had Jury Duty in Mercer County. There was an orientation with a video that told all of the potential jurors that the judge was the judge of the law and that the jury was the judge of the facts and that the jury must follow the instructions of the judge on how to apply the law. Then, in the courtroom, during jury selection, all of the potential jurors, for that case, had to fill out a questionnaire. Question #19 was (I'm paraphrasing) "Are you able to follow all of the instructions of the judge regarding interpretation and application of the law, even if you don't agree with it?" That is when I realized that there was a lot of effort being put into finding jurors who would not think for themselves. I am sure something similar happened in Brian's case, and is certain to be happening in many cases in NJ. Everyone should read this article called, "Jury Nullification, The Top Secret Constitutional Right." After my experience, I started looking into what it meant to be the judge of the law vs. the judg of the facts. At that point, I had never heard of "jury nullification." I was astounded with what I found. This article pretty much sums it up. The jury may judge the law as well as the facts. Although the judge can remove you from the jury if he wants to and replace you with an alternate, you cannot be punished in any way for refusing to convict based on your conscience, no matter what the law says or what the judge says. I read stories about the judge receiving a note from the jury asking "what is jury nullification?" The judge's response was something along the lines that the jury may not nullify and must follow the judge's instructions. Of course, that is not the case. The lesson being, if you are a juror, vote your conscience and stand your ground without ever mentioning that you disagree with the law or mentioning the term jury nullification. As a juror, your job is to protect the accused up to the point where you believe he is guilty, then your job is to protect society from the accused. If that's a new concept for you, you're not alone. http://www.constitut...chol/131jur.pdf Jury Nullification.pdf

It's true. http://nj2as.com/ind...&id=21&Itemid=2 Frank is a miracle worker. This has become bigger than all of us.

Thanks, Anthony. You beat me to it. Looking forward to setting that up with you.

I don't see the bi-annual psych eval anymore. That's the most important change. Although I don't like it, I'm not really concerned about the 'limitation" thing, because the only limitation that is currently used by judges is "valid only while on duty" which would no longer apply if you no longer have to have "justifiable need." I still don't like the fact that it's up to LE and judges. That's inherently problematic, but is being challenged by SAF in their current law suit. I don't like the semi-annual qualification. That's overly burdensome, but can be challenged. I don't like the one year renewal, but that could probably be changed over the next few years. The $50 of the $100 that goes to the General Fund could be challenged, because it's not associated with providing the services necessary to verify the applicant's qualifications. ...and we still need Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground (S555) for us to be protected with criminal and civil immunity. It's an improvement, but still not there yet. I would like to see a line in there that the AG is free to make reciprocity agreements with other states. If we were to ever get a 2A friendly AG, NJ's permitting scheme could instantly become moot with non-resident reciprocity with a state like FL (this is the case in DE). Christie said "never in a million years" but he didn't say when that million years started. Maybe it started a million years ago.B)

Thank you.

I meant a pdf so I can email it, etc.

No problem. Can you email it to [email protected]?

Can you post that as a pdf? I would like to look into that. Thanks.

Brian Aitken interview with Judge Napolitano on Freedom Watch, from Aug 5, 2009 start at 8:45

Thank you. The wording isn't perfect, but the egregious part has been fixed and I decided it was better to say thank you and move on rather then dwell on minutia.

It takes about an hour to do everything. If you get there before 9:00pm, we will do our best to get you through.