EngineerJet

You're still making the argument that they have turned down other gun cases as reason for them being scared or unwilling to take the case. In order for a case to be heard, 4 out of 9 justices need to grant petition for certiorari . Let's be realistic... If you are a progun judge and you feel the makeup of the court will not rule in your preferred ruling...you decline it. Not all gun cases are the same as even progun judges have different opinions on the scope of the second amendment. So while we may have had 5-4 for Heller, not all 5 may have all agreed on an assault weapons ban or concealed carry. I'm also sure in reality if you were a judge you would come to get to know your co-workers and know how they may vote on a particular case. Imagine if they took the case as you wished, knowing they didn't have the votes. You're making statements about them never taking up gun cases based purely on pessimistic conjecture.

It comes with the job. Scotus takes controversial cases all the time. The kavanaugh circus was to stop him from getting in. There is no evidence to suggest scotus ever punted a controversial case out of fear. This is just fearful speculation.

We also wouldn't be fighting smart if scotus took all the gun cases in front of them, especially if they know they don't have the votes to win. We can discuss scotus not doing their job and find lots of agreement in other areas. But them not taking up a gun case is prudent given the previous makeup of the court. Now if we get a solid majority and they still don't take it up, then we'll talk.

Got a buddy that's a Newark cop and they were briefed about not carrying their weapons off duty. They were told there is a fix coming.

And therein lies the conundrum. How many gun companies are genuinely pro-gun? The dollar is a mighty big incentive. But are our values of liberty strong enough to resist the temptation of selling our souls for a buck? Character goes a long way. Anyone hoping for Hillary to win just for sales is also willing to sell us down the river, in my opinion is short sighted and doesnt deserve our business. I know this is easy to say and harder to live up to. Would I give up my M&P if it turns out S&W was one of those companies (hypothetically)?

Welcome back devil dog. Id have to agree, and I hope range memberships go through the roof and more ranges open up. I'm sure Murphy would love that.

I understand the need for clarification, but congratulations, you just realised how stupid and asinine these permanent requirements really are. The permanent requirement was written by a legislator who is likely ignorant of firearms and was writing feel-good requirements with no clear definition of finality. Anyone with any know-how can alter any magazine in any way shape or form. Thats just reality. So if you are asking how do you ensure 100% engineered magazine capacity that cant be altered, I can't offer your any solace. Better to not give these people anymore fuel to throw on their gun-grabbing fire.

If you read the last paragraph, vets are lumped into the same group of people who want us dead. I interpreted as it was stated.

I'm no psychologist, but my own opinion on why it is that these two groups of people who both swore the same oath, would go to two different extremes when it comes to cherishing our rights, is that one group acknowledged theyd be willing to put their lives on the lines to defend it, while the other group just looks at it as a game. So yes, it does piss me off that we take the same oath.

The sympathy for vets getting caught up in this isn't because they are more important, but due to the unfortunate irony that they at one point swore to uphold the constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. Only to come home and be stripped of the rights they fought to protect. Most veterans are on our side but youre more than welcome to generalise all of us as a single entity that wants you dead. That is your right to say. I just think you're an asshole.

Ive been seeing a lot of negativity on here lately and a lot of doom and gloom. I get it, the losses we endure are tough. Maybe you just need a place to vent, I'll even grant you that. But all it is really doing is lowering morale. All it does is foster an attitude that any hope is futile. This is not how we get things done. I see people taking action to fight the good fight, and then I see armchair warriors criticize the way someone else fought their battles. Imagine if the people who argued Heller never brought the suit because they were constantly told its pointless. Its not gonna be easy. Hell, itll be damn near excruciating difficult. But imagine if just a fraction of all the gun onwers in this state started doing their part, no matter how small. Taking new friends to the range. Donating to organizations that actually fight for our rights. There is a lot of ignorance and education is the best cure. I'll tell you what wont work. Throwing up our hands in defeat.

These legislators are dillusional

the paranoid in me says they already know what everyone has

What I want to know is... does having an AR registered mean probable cause for coming in your house and doing a search.

I live in Edison and the lady there says if I have to get re-fingerprinted after 5 years when applying for permits. Is this true? If it is not true is there anything I can do to get them to comply with current laws?

There are many like it but this one is mine... BCM upper/bcg/lower BCM 14.5" midlength with battle comp 1.5 pinned. Magpul stock pinned of course Daniel Defense Rail 12" Lite rail. Troy BUIS Aimpoint H-1 w/ Larue mount Aimpoint 3x magnifier with Larue mount. Magpul BAD lever and hand stop. Haven't even shot it with the magnifier yet

its been a while so im a bit rusty on my laws, but with a private rifle sale, is the seller allowed to transport the rifle to the buyers house? ive done wuite a bit of selling and the buyer would always come to me.

Ahhh, a fellow recovered warrior. Oorah

I leave for MCT this Monday then its off to Pensacola for Avionics training, where I'll learn how to fix helicopters! I can't wait. I hope to cross train and possibly be a machine gunner on a huey. I'm a reservist so my station will be in Ft. Dix

Well fellas, for those who remember I left for MCRD Parris Island in January and I got back this past Saturday. It took a little longer to finish training since I got injured and had to get dropped into a Medical Rehabilitation Platoon (MRP) but I was determined as ever to leave that island a Marine. The way I see it, it adds character to get hurt...lol. But it's great to be back, yet not great go from carrying an M16A4 everyday back to the fun gun laws of good ole NJ. It steams me knowing I joined to defend my country and possibly give my life, yet I can't defend myself in my home state. Ok, NJ soapbox over, on a brighter note I'm on leave and plan to enjoy every minute of it! Semper Fi

So I'm not one to stock up on tin foil hats but at the same time, I like to know details before making or dismissing judgement. I'm currently looking at the bill and I'm trying to determine what the facts are but let's face it...its so freaggin long. Does anyone have any additional facts on this bill and if it does in fact give the POTUS discretion to determine who falls under "enemy combatant"? In addition, in the worst case scenario (hypothetical) if it did apply to citizens, is there anything the SCOTUS would be able to do about it? In the event that this is a blatant violation of the constitution, I don't understand how it can be legal and hwo those who voted for it aren't held or put in prison for violation of constitution. Again I do not know all the facts yet and I don't want to depend on opinion sites who likely never even read the bill and are operating on hysteria so if anyone has the concrete facts on this bill I'd appreciate some insight. One thing that disturbs me is the bideo where Rand Paul asks John McCain if under this bill it would be possible for an american citizen to be detained indefinitely and McCain couldn't give a simple clear answer and in fact his answer did leave open the possibility of a US citizen being detained. here is the text: http://www.gpo.gov/f...-112s1867es.htm So far I have found in section 1032: (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.-- (1) United states citizens.--The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) Lawful resident aliens.--The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. Now if anyone else finds a "gotcha..." section that nullifies or circumvents the above, please share

I forgot how I did on AFQT, but i can find out tomorrow during PT. All I know is my overall score was 97.

USMC leaving for Parris Island come February. I'll also be doing avionics down in Pensacola so should be a good time. Not sure If I'll be staying with that MOS as I eventually plan on applying for OCS. Should be a grand old time!

yeah, not tryin to hijack the thread. you must be proud! make sure he knows that he has your full support! itll help him during the struggles!

congrats! you must be so proud! My parents are ultra chicom/pacifists/pro china and they were should I say less than thrilled when I told them my plans. I got 64 days till I leave for boot in good old Parris Island. Write him plenty of letters!!