BRaptor

This might be the way to go. But, we have a lot more work to do than those in NH. Instead of open carry, though, we might just wear "Gun Owner" T-shirts and try to have as diverse a crowd as possible. Machine workers, auto technician specialists, finance specialists, local business owners, salespeople, retirees, attorneys, housewives, men, women (uh, no children, unless it's "future Gun Owner). Plus, this is a "rally" that we could schedule on a Saturday or Sunday, so NO EXCUSES of "I can't take off work." We can take our own pictures, write up a press release and send it to papers so we can worry less about anti-gun media coerage. We all know NJ is infamous for its litter problem...our state is a veritable trash-heap. So, let's make a statement and do some good! I'm down.

Sorry, halb, I wasn't referring to your post. I had written a response, but took it out, because it was the wrong section.

Yeah, but you can get a pie from the grocery store. Don't buy the whole cow, when you can get milk right around the corner.

Sorry...wrong section to go political...

So, I was poking around the interwebs and, for the first time, discovered that the motto of the State of New Jersey is "Liberty and Prosperity." With a motto like that, one would think you would find a state with low taxes, small government and very little "nannyism." Alas, you find the opposite to be true. Another funny one I saw lately was on a license plate from Washington, D.C. In a horrid misstatement of a famous founding principal of our country, across the bottom of the license plate, it read "taxation without representation." I couldn't help but think, "ain't that the truth." Any others out there?

And here I was thinking that song couldn't get any worse....

Agreed, I saw "thunder snow" or was it "thunder hail," or "thunder sleet," perhaps, "thunder ice(?)" in Manhattan. It makes me happy that I bought my old '97 Subaru with new Mud + Snow tires...smooth drive home. Hope everyone stays safe out there.

Happy Birthday, Pizza Bob!

Cliff's Notes: SCOTUS will find NJ CCW laws unconstitutional 5-4 with Thomas writing a separate opinion talking about P&I and Stevens be a hypocrite and say the P&I clause is dead. Explanation: Based on the MacDonald and Heller decisions and what each justice said and how they voted, I'm worried that SCOTUS is going to start using terms like "reasonble restrictions" or "reasonable regulations." I say this, because the majority in MacDonald only held that the 2A applied to the states through the 14A. The remaining plurality opinion (Justice Thomas didn't sign on) went on to say that states may impose reasonable restrictions on 2A rights. Justice Thomas wrote to say that he wants this incorporated under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14A, which means restrictions should be viewed under strict scrutiny. So, in the negotiations that go on in SCOTUS for an opinion, there will be another 5-(4)-4 opinion where the majority holds NJ's CCW laws unconstitutional, but SCOTUS isn't able to provide particularly useful guidance as to what is a constitutional restriction. The plurality will hold that the NJ restriction isn't "reasonable" (in which they will take a less-than-deferential view under "rational review") and Thomas will say we're not talking "reason," and he'll give his own review standard (at least intermediate scrutiny). The thing I'm uncertain about, though, is whether Thomas will call for the P&I clause to apply, again. Thomas is a huge proponent of stare decisis (he beleives he is bound by prior SCOTUS decisions), but he also believes in the US Const. on its own. So, I'm interested to see how Thomas votes/writes. Stevens will chastize Thomas for speaking about the P&I clause. Stevens will say that the P&I clause died with the Slaughter House Cases back in 1872. However, Stevens was the chucklehead that wrote the majority opinion in the 1999 Saenz v. Roe where it was held that the right to move between the states was incorporated into the P&I clause (THE FIRST TIME THE P&I CLAUSE WAS USED IN A MAJORITY OPINION TO DECLARE A RIGHT IN OVER 150 YEARS!!!). So, I look forward to Stevens being a coplete hypocrite.

Completed twice, once for the inditial FID last year and PP's a few months ago.

Never Mind!

All I could keep thinking was "this magazine isn't NJ legal!"

It comes in various calibers, so, perhaps you could choose an "inexpensive" round. But, the system can come with a weapon that shoots up to a .50 cal. and is capable of shooting up to 1,100 rounds per minute. At $3.00/round for .50 cal., that's $3,300 per minute of operation!!! Of course, I would think that if you could afford the weapon system, you could afford the ammunition.

Wimmer for President?

I see two possible outcomes from the NRA's two choices of show up or don't show up: Option 1: Show up. The NRA shows up, some ridiculous anti-gun resolution is created, because the NRA is horridly outnumbered and outvoiced. Then, the group will claim that this resolution has "bipartisan" with full consideration given to NRA's concern and created with the blessings of the NRA. Option 2: Don't show up. The NRA refuses to show up, some ridiculous anti-gun resolution is created. The group will blame the NRA for "refusing to discuss the issue," and "being unreasonable" along with all the other "silence is consent" garbage. Since the outcome is likely the same, I think the NRA should at least be there to know what is going on in the meeting and attempt to make a difference.

I remember that news story, it ended up being a multi-part story, because they got McCarthy or some other high-ranking idiot on camera saying that even though an officer was supposed to review every video, it was impossible for them to do so, so they (the police) were just signing off on violations based on a photo and probably based on what some slack-jawed idiot in the processing center determined to be "truth." In my opinion, the red light cameras represent evil on many, many levels.

You may say it can't happen soon, but "all" you have to do is get all the local police in the state, plus the NJSP to identify self-defense as a "justifiable need" and convince every judge in the state to agree to that standard and issue permit applications, accordingly, without restrictions. The whole "justifiable need" standard is judge-made law, the statute doesn't say that self-defense is not a justifiable need. Or, the legislature has to modify "justifiable need" to include self-defense. HAHAHA! I'll keep working on teaching my pet pig to fly. I still got my money on the pig before CCW in NJ, though.

Oh McCarthy, you're always good for laugh. You got nothin', pal...nothin'. Either that, or you've been intentionally doing a piss-poor job since you were appointed. Which one is it?

This, I think, is the truth. Last I checked (but it was from an anti death penalty source), it costs 3 times as much to kill an inmate than it does to house him for life without parole. I also believe it was an error for the father to advertise his intentions.

Also, your magnifying glass cannot be greater than 15 cm in diameter. I mean, who needs more than 15 cm diameter magnifying glasses?!?! Got forbid your magnifying glass have a folding or telescoping handle! The only thing magnifying glasses greater than 15 cm in diameter are designed to do is burn large numbers of people very quickly!!!! And if you have a telescoping or folding handle, it can be too easily concealed by horrible, dangerous, scary gang members for their robberies and drive-bys.

This is the best example I can give to you for separating the sound of impact with the report: Skip to 0:30 if you are impatient Of course, you still can't filter out the muzzle report. There's just something eerie about the Thunderbolt's minigun report, it sounds like some type of demon.

Agreed. Minor schedule adjustments are routinely granted, especially when the other side consents. And the other side almost always consents, it's a common courtesy. There are a lot of reasons the AG could have asked for an extension, just like there are lots of reasons SAF asked for an extension.

Where are your numbers to support this? The Deepwater Horizon sat on the 2nd largest oil deposit in the world and was said to be able to produce up to 500,000 bbls/day and the entire drilling in Gulf of Mexico produced a maximum of 1.7 million bbls/day of oil, technologically-available oil production in the ANWR has most recently (in 2008) been estimated at up to 700,000 bbls/day. Global oil consumption was last measured (in 2006) at 85,000,000 bbls/day. Sounds like the Gulf and ANWR are no more than a fart in a whirl-wind in terms of oil production. Moreover, any increase in production that the Gulf of Mexico or ANWR would create could more than easily be offset by OPEC to preserve their profit and their desired price point/production level (according to a 2008 study released to Congress). Unless, of course, you're advocating nationalizing the Gulf of Mexico and ANWR oil production, so that oil never hits the world market and the US doesn't have to buy that oil at the world market rate. Even so, the US consumes over 20,000,000 bbls/day, so the 2.4 million possible bbls/day produced between the Gulf and ANWR would help only marginally. Oh, and any ANWR exploration and drilling wouldn't show production until after 2017. So, oil prices aren't going anywhere soon if ANWR is opened. So, I don't think the problem is greenies, the long-term problem is OPEC and our dependency on their oil. I'm not claiming to have a good, single solution to that problem, but I don't believe the problem is environmentalists at this point.

Well, he asked that we contact our represetatives. So, I just e-mailed him...again.

Man, that's a nice looking skiff. Where do y'all run?