BRaptor

Textbook definition of a "feel good law." Frank is the queen of feel good laws.

I'm planning on taking a lead lunch on Friday at the Bullet Hole. Anyone want to join me? Time suggestions? I propose meeting some time between 12 and 1.

You're exactly right, Pizza Bob, it's McCarthyism, only you don't get any type of hearing before you're denied your rights.

[rant] Couple things I noticed: Gun Control Legislation is now called "Gun Safety Legislation." Nice try to polish a turd....but it still smells. "Special Interest Gun Lobby." This isn't new wording, but is he referring to the grass-roots organizations funded by millions of gun owners and the manufacturers that make guns who are supported/kept in business by those millions of gun owners? Yes, the NRA, SAF, NJ2AS and ANJRPC are "special interest groups" in that they specially care about and lobby a narrow band of topics....but they are not politically different than the Brady clan, so hop off your high-horse, Lautenburg. [/rant] I recently wrote Pascrell and asked him if he would support a bill limiting sentences to 20 words or fewer so people couldn't express themselves too emphatically to incite violence. I haven't received a response, yet. I am in his district and he promises to write back to anyone in his district....I'll post results.

To CNN's credit, two days ago there was an Opinion article at the Top of the FRONT PAGE that read "Gun Control Doesn't Work" and was almost completely right about the 2A and what it protects and was quite pro-gun. Alas, the poll is now gone.

Maks, is it possible to go have a talk with this fortune teller and somehow impress upon them that it's in their better interest to no longer do readings for your brother and his "wife?" Or perhaps fight fire with fire and: 1) Threaten to cast a spell on the teller? 2) Take your brother to another forture teller (one that you paid off) to tell your brother that the other fortune teller is actually the one casting an evil spell on him for monetary gain? Sorry to hear your brother got caught up with this stuff. I hope he sees the light before it hurts your relationship too much.

I completely disagree. I know four of the RO's and every single one that I've shot with has been comletely professional. Many other times, they've been very friendly, shared advice, tips, pointers or even some targets and even let us shoot their personal weapons in a vacant port. I know for a fact that they get plenty of clowns in there (for example, the guy in the port next to me that was shooting his 12ga from his hip with bird shot who managed to hit both his target at 5 yards and mine out at 25 yards). Any time I go to a new range, I make sure to let the RO know that I haven't been there before and I ask how their system works. I'd suggest give BH another shot(pun intended) and see how it goes.

I'm game for one depending on price. I could always use a boat oar that doubles as a rifle. How are we going to split the price? It appears some of the rifles in the bunch are more valuable than others. I'm not a Mosin expert, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Frank, Thanks for making a NJ2AS meeting here in North Jersey. Keep us posted on the reschedule.

Welcome!

Wait, wait, wait...now that Babaganoosh has just documented this threat against him, does this now mean he might actually succeed in applying for a NJ CCW license?!?!?! I wish MY neighbor were a NY d-bag.

This is very much a Wills question, and can be a tricky one. I would like to think that a simple codicil/amendment would solve the problem, but there are questions/issues that have to be answered, including state law questions. So, how does one execute a document so that it counts as a will in order to amend their prior will? What if the document doesn't comply with the execution requirements? A lawyer now (and a $300-500 lawyer's bill) may save you a lot of trouble later.

Gonna disagree with you, there. It means the person has said a lot of popular things. It doesn't mean they've said a single true or accurate statement. My experience has been that people tend to "+" the posts they like, not the posts that necessarily reflect reality.

A judge is going to issue an order to draw blood on the spot at a checkpoint? I smell a 4A/14A violation. Drawing blood against a suspect's will has been held to be acceptable by the Supreme Court, but that was after establishing probable cause (suspect was in a car accident, officers smelled alcohol on his breath and he showed other signs of intoxication). Suspect refused breathalyzer and police ordered a doctor to draw blood. So, the Supreme Court only said the police had probable cause and implicitly said there were exigent circumstances (loss of blood alcohol content) to waive the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court NEVER said that there was no Probable Cause requirement. So, the on-site judge better find probable cause or he may be committing a 4A/14A violation and opening himself and the police to a civil suit. If I were the judge, I would Order (as in Court Order) the driver to take the breathalyzer (which is much less intrusive and more likely to be permissible with less than probable cause). Then, when the driver refuses, find him in contempt of court and order him to be locked up for up to 30 days. Then, when the suspect is being arrested on the contempt charge, the police can get closer to smell alcohol, observe intoxicated behavior etc. in order to establish probable cause for DUI, then the judge can order a blood test on the information obtained during the arrest. If there is no smell of alcohol or other factors to establish probable cause, the contempt conviction can add more penalty to the penalty for refusing the breathalyzer and make it much less desirable to refuse. It might seem academic or just symantics, but there are very real requirements for ordering so much intrusion as a blood test. Just going from check-point to blood drawing is taking too many liberties with our Constitution in my opinion.

It's not statute, which means that even if the person is within 20 (actually 21) feet, you will still have to prove that your killing is an exception under the homicide statutes. So, just proving that he was within 20 feet won't get you much; you will still have to prove that your killing was excused, but it may help the jury decide that you were in fear for your life. That being said, in nearly every officer-related, self-defense shooting, 20 feet has been close enough to say that the officer was reasonably in fear for his life and, thus, justified in using deadly force. This comes from the fact that even the average person can close 20 feet in the amount of time it takes an officer to react and fire his/her weapon (i.e. see the target is closing aggressively, decide to react, unholster the weapon and then make one, unsighted shot toward center-mass). This all happens in an average of 1.5-1.7 seconds. It's actually called the "21 Foot Rule." Situations differ and NJ's statutes are not in favor of armed citizens defending themselves with firearms. Whether it's a justified/excused homicide is still a question of fact and the 21 foot rule won't automatically set you free.

Thanks Frank. I know how much work you put into this. You took heat from both sides (including a little disparagement to Brian's cause from me), but you stood behind him and I'm sure that you continued to work (more quietly) when he asked that NJ2AS cease its public support. This communtation has got to feel good for you. Congratulations to all those at NJ2AS that put in so much effort and to all the other 2A societies and supporters that chimed in, too. Brian is at least free.

I'm very interested in what this commutation might mean for future prosecutors' actions in terms of these laws. Is there a publication of what the order says?

Essex Country Officials have confirmed that 9 carjackings and 9 shootings took place this weekend in Essex County, most of those were in Newark. Please compare the following stories from this week. The first is from a guy on another forum. He builds/tunes Subarus and is an outgoing, standup guy with an extremely nice car with a lot of expensive equipment on it. The second is about an Essex Country Sherrif's Officer with his Mercedes(?!?!?!). First, the "plebe's' story as he wrote it: The carjackers later got into an accident with his car and carjacked the car they rear-ended!! His car was later recovered, stripped of thousands of dollars of parts and a little beat up. Now, the officers story from nj.com: Now, I'm no advocate of vigilantiism, but the first guy was legitimately afraid for his life, he thought/knew he had a 50/50 chance of getting shot and all he could do is stand there and hang his head and wait for some half-wit thug to make the decision for him. Meanwhile, the off-duty police officer has the right to decide for himself whether he is going to comply with the criminal or if the threat/opportunity is such that it warrants other action. I know, I know :thsmiley_deadhorse: But, I thought I would share very recent, very nearby happenings as some motivation to continue pushing for CCW in NJ.

I, for one, will be doing absolutely nothing to support Mr. A any more. Afterall, he hasn't given me his express, written consent to support him.

+ for the media

Gov. Christie, please find that the laws in this particular instance lead to an unjust/ridiculous result and send this poor guy home for Christmas!

There seems to be some confusion about appropriate sources for interpretation of the law. From my understanding, the following are NOT sources of the law that you can rely on to keep from getting convicted, even if that person tells you straight to your face: 1) Any gun forum 2) The officer on the phone at the NJSP (even the Firearms Unit). Just ask Brian Aitken. 3) The officer/detective/clerk at your local PD 4) Your lawyer 5) A judge (see exception below) 6) The result of a Google® search 7) ANYONE NOT LISTED BELOW! The following are sources whose opinions you can rely upon to keep from getting convicted: 1) A WRITTEN opinion from an individual whose job it is to interpret the laws for the state, so long as their written opinion is on state letterhead. (E.g. attorney general or one of her minions) 2) A lower Court Order specifically naming you as a party in the legal action (most likely has to be a legal action filed against the state). (note, this does not mean just precedent from a county judge, although this can be convincing.) 3) Maybe, just maybe, the NJSP website. But, even that is cutting it close. Bottom line, if you want to know whether something is legal or illegal, you must either get a court order or have the AG issue a formal opinion, in writing, on AG letterhead. So, encouraging others to only come here for answers is at least border-line practicing law without a license and more than likely going to set someone up for a nasty surprise, conviction and loss of his 2A rights. That being said, telling someone what the law is (such as quoting the statute) is not practicing law without a license.

Depending on her personality, she might want to go alone or she might want your company (I've dated women from both camps). But, definintely ask her if she would like you to tag along.

D'oh! Forgot about that. Any significant profit would likely require a very long turnover, then, and likely a gamble on one of the other copies being destroyed or the market picking up. Of course, I would buy it just for the privilege of saying I once owned it...if it were within the realm of possibility, that is.

Ah, the joys of vague language on a government "warning sign." It's not quite a threat because of the "may" language, but it's just strong enough to serve its designed purpose of scaring you just enough to shut up while your rights are being violated. I like it for its artful use of threat, spinelessness and vaguety. I promise you, anything you say in any location may be grounds for both criminal and civil penalties. This sign is simply designed to suppress the masses.