Bob B

On a more serious note, there are really two questions here, the first is: Would you prefer to A. Have a weak shall issue system now, with Van Drew's additional requirements understanding that, afterward, it will be much more difficult to overturn the new requirements than the "justifiable need" requirement. B. Have a better shall issue system in two to three years without Van Drews requirements by continuing to fight to overturn the "justifiable need" component. My answer is B. The second question is, if Van Drew's scheme were to be implemented despite your objections, would you: A. Reluctantly pay the fee, carry, and keep fighting to remove the new restrictions. B. Not pay the fee and not carry out of principle. C. Not pay the fee because I can't afford it. D. Pay the fee because I'm okay with the fee (and the other restrictions). No big deal. E. I like pie! In this case, my choice is A. From reading the posts, it seems to me that some people are looking at this from the point of view of the first question, and some are looking at it from the point of view of the second. I think that our opinions are probably closer than we realize.

Yes, me. With SAF challenging "justifiable need" in NY and MD, I think it will be heard for the sole purpose of removing the "justifiable need" component in NJ and replacing it with the prohibitive structure proposed by Van Drew. It's a brilliant tactical move by a desperate group.

+1 Tim, have you ever been to Cranbury Delights on Main St. across from the pizza place? Goooooood pie!

I have some pretty big problems with the bill. 1. $500 annual fee and renewal. 2. Semi-annual qualification. 3. Judges can still put restrictions on the back. 4. Judge can still deny based on "good character." 5. Applicant is responsible for "all costs" related to the qualification requirements with no indication of what those costs might be. 6. ...and a psych test every two years!?! Add all that up and you are talking about, in the neighborhood of $1,000 per year in taxes and fees to exercise your right to bear arms for self-defense. Even though I'm underwhelmed with the bill, it does indicated without a doubt that the anti-gun element in the Legislature knows that "justifiable need" is unconstitutional and is trying to get as much as they can before it falls. I view this as our opponent offering a draw because he knows he is about to be checkmated. My vote is to wait it out. If they want to make a change legislatively, S69/A1384 is there and has been waiting for 12 years. All they have to do is pass it and everything is fixed properly. If you want to make a difference, call the members of the Law and Public Safety Committee in each house and tell them to release S69/A1384 instead of this one because it clearly is the superior bill.

I agree with the Remington 700 Varmint, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Steyr SSG 69 (there are several versions, I prefer the PII). The Austrian military uses them as sniper rifles (and some other countries). I don't like the 5 rnd mags, but they have 10 rnd mags that are good (aftermarket just came out and are better than the old factory mags). From personal experience, on a bench rest, it will shoot a ragged hole at 200 yds. You can also get a McMillan stock for them.

Agreed. Maybe you get to keep the tools???? ...and they're really nice tools????

Got this in an email from Gun-for-Hire. Looks like an interesting class. A little expensive, I think, but once you learn how you can do it yourself. What do you think?

.357 version is 17 oz

Practice with .38 spc Carry with .357 mag No hammer = jacket pocket carry. Shoot right through your pocket. That's a great combination for self-defense. I like the concept. I fired one once, with .38 special - very light - stung a bit, but it performed.

Whoever goes, I would appreciate it if you would post if they are requiring you to put your SSN on the test. I objected to this practice when I took the course a few months ago for three reasons: 1. They already have each person's SSN from when you register on their website, or you provide it when you get your permit at a permit station (like at Cheyenne Mountain Outfitters). 2. There is no statement on the test saying that providing the SSN is required as per a specific statute. If there is no statute requiring the SSN, there must be a statement indicting that providing your SSN is optional. 3. The course that I took had volunteers grading the test - someone's daughter and another person who was not part of the Division of Fish and Wildlife. The tests were not secured in any way, like being put in a sealed envelope after grading. They would not give me my card, without providign my SSN, so I ended up providing it. But, I called the division a few days later and spoke to them about what happened. They agreed that providing your SSN on the test is not required. They promised to correct the situation by sending word out to all of the course personnel. I am curious if they followed through.

Do they have to ship to an FFL?

Any news?

I agree that one personalized letter has more impact than one form letter, ...but, if you provide the letter, you may get 20 or 30 people to send it. If you don't provide the letter you may get 1 or 2 if you're lucky. My approach has been to provide the letter, then appeal to the readers to feel free to use it as is or alter it as they see fit. That way, you get the 20 or 30 and you get the 1 or 2 or more that will personalize it.

Just so you know, Frank did a terrific job. Connors, Rumpf and Gove were very receptive and commented that NJ needed an organization with our mission and approach. I believe that they will help us and I believe this was an important first step.

Are you saying that your PD will only issue one permit at a time? That's bogus, as we've heard over and over again. Contact the NJSP Firearms Unit and tell them what is going on - they'll call your local PD and straighten them out. There is no limit as to how many permits you can apply for/get at one time - just how many you can use in a given time period. I am impressed with the R1 - nice thing is that it's made right here in the good old U. S. of A. When the secretary told me, I asked her 3 times to make sure I knew what she was saying and also asked if this was "new". She had said yes. I knew all along this was B.S., but she said that my new permit should be ready by next week, so I can't complain about that. If it's only going to take a few days to get new permits then I can live with that. It's amazing how much confusion there is when it comes to all the ridiculous gun laws in this state. +1 for made in U.S.A. Normally I would agree with Pizza Bob and say go straight to the Unit, but since your PD is doing everything else right, that probably means that they want to do it right and are just misinformed. I would give them a chance to solve the problem on their own as a matter of etiquette. I would call the Police Chief first. Tell him how his personnel are doing a terrific job and that you appreciate their professionalism, but that you were denied the ability to get multiple permits, which they do not have the authority to do, and that you would be grateful if he could fix the problem. Reiterate that his people are doing a great job otherwise. If he gives you the same line, then call the NJSP Firearms Investigation Unit. This issue is a bit of a pet peeve for them. The last time I called them about this kind of issue, the guy got mad. He told me how they had sent a letter to every PD in NJ and that he was going to call them and tell them that they are in violation of the law. Definitely a sore spot!

San Francisco has a ban on advertising that "encourages the use of firearms." This was a strategic move by San Francisco. By allowing SAF to advertise with the poster shown below, SAF cannot claim any harm and, therefore, has no basis to sue. So, the ban remains in place for everyone who can't afford to sue.

The best way I know to learn how to shoot with both eyes open is to put a small piece of tape on your shooting glasses that obscures the target only for your non-dominant eye. It would be about the size of a dime, or even smaller. You keep your peripheral vision and you only see one target. After a while, you will naturally develop the ability to do it without the tape. One day, you'll forget to put the tape on and only realize it after you have been shooting for a while. For years, I shot rifle with a piece of cardboard on the rear sight that blocked my left eye from seeing the target. Now I don't even think about it. Not sure if you noticed, but, on Top Shot, Kelly always had a piece of scotch tape on his glasses.

Forgive my ignorance, but what do you do with them after you shoot 'em?

You guys are all way off. It's so the manufacturer can charge more.

The transcripts from the NJ Constitutional Convention of 1947 supports this: http://www.njstatelib.org/NJ_Informatio ... 1n305.html

http://www.retailmenot.com/view/midwayusa.com

...assume it's a PA resident selling his collection. So, in general, a person selling part or all of his collection in his state of residence. No background checks required right? Problem? Solution? Legal. This is the gun show loophole the anti's want to close. Ahhhhhh. I remember reading HR 2324 - Gunshow Loophole Closing Act of 2009 last year. As I recall, nowhere in the bill was this problem actually solved. It was all about record keeping and warrentless searches and penalties so severe that no one would ever try to run a gun show again. It seems to me that there must be a far simpler solution.

...assume it's a PA resident selling his collection. So, in general, a person selling part or all of his collection in his state of residence. No background checks required right? Problem? Solution?